Talk:Alchemist (3.5e Prestige Class)

Updating

I've been a fan of the flavor of this for years. Played this class to max on a wizard and have my own gripes. Using my own issues combined with those listed below I intend to majorly update this prestige class, do some balance changes, add missing epic information, and flesh out the text across the board all while keeping the flavor intact. Below you will find a list of changes I intend to make and I will be updating this list as I implement edits. "*" - Indicates implemented changes.

Balance Changes

- * Additional ranks for prerequisite skill increasing the entry level
- * Additional prerequisite of a primary spellcasting class level
- * No Alchemy Secret at 1st level
- * Fewer Alchemy Secrets earned overall (6)
- * Re-balancing of spells/feats from Alchemy Secrets
- * All Secrets are potions with reagent costs that increase based on the total number of secrets discovered

New Content

- * Replacing the vague "Experience Pool" with a class feature for crafting at 1st level (reduced xp and material cost by 1/2)
- * New Epic Alchemy Secrets

Formatting

- * Updating all sections with interwiki links where needed
- * Grammar and spelling
- * Additional text content throughout

HFHavenger

Dips

A 1-level dip in this class for an immediate +2 to intelligence is pretty much a no-brainer for every wizard ever. Surgo 00:00, 6 September 2008 (MDT)

I agree. I suggest that bonus be restricted to high levels in the class, or do like Loremaster and insist on a large Int or class level to obtain that power. -- Eiji 02:09, 6 September 2008 (MDT)

Well the class is playable all the way through. And you have to take a rather bad non-optimal feat. . --Lord Dhazriel 21:12, 20 May 2009 (MDT)

Can you take regular secrets at epic levels ? What are the epic only secrets ? Is the experience pool a discount for brewing potions only, or could it be aplied elsewhere ? --Frodosquall 14:27, 9 December 2009 (MST)

Rating

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because this classes balance is debatable. As both Surgo and Eiji pointed out above. → Rith ^(talk) 22:07, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the experience pool part of the table is never explained. → Rith ^(talk) 22:07, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because only one section is blank, though, interwiki linking is slightly lacking. → Rith ^(talk) 22:07, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because, really, I have yet to find a class that I found boring to read. Every one of them has been a 5 out of 5. → Rith ^(talk) 22:07, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<It is an immensely useful class>>> --98.202.146.98 22:12, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

Wording - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<good, but i think a better name for the two "beauty" potions>>> --98.202.146.98 22:12, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<clear and simple, but a bit boring>>> --98.202.146.98 22:12, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<3>>>/5 I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<>> --98.202.146.98 22:12, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it seems too powerful in the benefits it gains, I would suggest spellcaster level increase every second level rather than every level, or maybe two out of three levels. --211.27.77.118 03:33, 13 December 2010 (MST)

Wording - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because wording is vague and makes no reference to what the experience pool accumulated is for --211.27.77.118 03:33, 13 December 2010 (MST)

Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the grammar is not just poor, it is consistently poor --211.27.77.118 03:33, 13 December 2010 (MST)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the idea is good, but the class is unbalanced and there is not enough flavour in the descriptions, which are blunt and lacking in any reel feeling --211.27.77.118 03:33, 13 December 2010 (MST)