Alchemical item bonus to hit

[DracoSuave]

It doesn't matter what the damaging alchemical mixtures do regarding this situation. That's not the problem.

Jolt Flask would be, at level 30, +48 to hit Fortitude under your rules. That's pretty much a guaranteed daze right there.

If the damage of alchemy is lacking, by all means, increase the damage. Increasing the hit of something that already has scales to the player only invites trouble when you start getting into alchemies that enable stunlocking or whatnot.

PROYIP: The fire, thunderstones, and whatnot are not the actual point of alchemy.

 

[King_Mushi]

[MENTION=71571]DracoSuave[/MENTION] - <shrugs> It's probably best at this point just to agree to disagree. I feel we're both using a different set of factors to determine value and neither are willing to work within the other's ruleset.

As a side note, I did go back to AV, AV2, and the respective online updates to try to find anything related to how these items work. If there's something in Eberron, they sure did not publish it over to the generic rule books. Could be that's just for using those items in Eberron - doesn't make sense but who knows.

[MENTION=59698]Ghost0[/MENTION] - Good Luck man. All I can say more is talk to your DM and see if he'll let you try it out. Theorycraft is great but actually using (and restocking) will determine if your idea is damaging to your DM's campaign or your party's coinpurse.

 

[spayne]

FAQ for the Adventure's Vault!

2. Do I add half my level to attack rolls when using Alchemical items?

No. You don't add one-half your level to an attack roll from an item or other game element that already includes a level (for example, "your level + 5 vs. Will" or "the item's level + 3 vs. Fortitude") or that gives an attack roll modifier that is only a number ("+10 vs. Reflex," as opposed to "Dexterity vs. Reflex").​

 

[King_Mushi]

Well - can't argue that it's a rule now. lol.

Spayne besides Alchemy, are there any other items that you know of where this rule actually applies?

 

[spayne]

Dust of Banishment
Mirror of Opposition
Deadblast Bone
Earthbind Lodestone
Horn of Undead Enmity
Horn of Blasting
Fan of the Four Winds
Slaying Stone of Kiris Dahn
Immurements from AV2
etc

 

[DracoSuave]

[MENTION=71571]DracoSuave[/MENTION] - <shrugs> It's probably best at this point just to agree to disagree. I feel we're both using a different set of factors to determine value and neither are willing to work within the other's ruleset.

We're not that far off tho. I see your point regarding damage potential of these one shot items. In essence, I do agree they don't hit hard enough. However, the controlling alchemical mixtures are good at what they do.

So, it's logical and efficient to fix the problem directly (up the damage of alchemy) rather than address attack rolls, which are not actually the issue, and in such a way that would overpower and break non-damaging alchemies, rather than arming parties with dazing, slowing, immobilizing, or stunning attacks that obstensibly have a +15 bonus to hit over player powers, which actually should be -better- than magic items, not worse.

 

[ceiling90]

I think it might be prudent to just change anything with a static bonus to:
"Your level +5 vs. X", it slightly edges out companions' attack bonus of level + 4, but expertise should probably be built into it. It fixes most gripes with accuracy. It doesn't on the other hand fix the damage.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think it might be prudent to just change anything with a static bonus to:
"Your level +5 vs. X", it slightly edges out companions' attack bonus of level + 4, but expertise should probably be built into it. It fixes most gripes with accuracy. It doesn't on the other hand fix the damage.

I suppose, but alchemical items are already following the curve of expected PC attacks. At level 1, expected attack is +4 (no not everyone takes expertise at level 1, and characters ahead of baseline do not define baseline), and at level 30, expected attack is +33. What are the attack bonuses of alchemical items... Level +3.

At times, one slips ahead of the other, but really, the two follow very closely.

 

[ceiling90]

At "Your level +5" it removes the need to add more bonuses as they level, as the attack bonus will scale with the user. So a level 30 fighter can use a level 1 alchemist's fire flask, and still be about right with his other attacks, except for the damage. Class powers are clearly superior to alchemical attacks, and significantly cheaper.

The only thing that would change would be when they're available and the price they're available; Expertise should be built in, as there's no general feat (I haven't looked at alchemy based builds) that allows expertise with alchemy items anyway... I think. Not to mention that those items don't exactly get any enhancement bonuses to hit either.

At level 1, if you're willing to spend a significant amount of money on items, they're much nicer at having a +6 to hit, but (superior) weapons and superior implements both which require a feat have a much higher bonus than that. I figured if you're spending a feat, and the money, it should be worthwhile. You could have spent that feat on a superior weapon prof, expertise, or even superior implement, or something more critical.

I also don't think Companion bonus has the new expertise feats figured in...

 

[DracoSuave]

At "Your level +5" it removes the need to add more bonuses as they level, as the attack bonus will scale with the user. So a level 30 fighter can use a level 1 alchemist's fire flask, and still be about right with his other attacks, except for the damage. Class powers are clearly superior to alchemical attacks, and significantly cheaper.

It also allows for using a level 5 flask that dazes on the cheap, with no reason to use any other level flask. At epic tier, that might as well be a daze-at-will.

And class powers are supposed to be superior to alchemical attacks. Alchemy is supposed to suppliment a character's repertoire by offering temporary access to things they don't normally have. It's not supposed to compete with simply having the attack in the first place.