Pathfinder to 3.5... Too OP?

[ArqArturo]

I've been starting a new game in 3.5 after a while of not GMing in the last months, and one of the players asked me if he could retrofit an Alchemist to 3.5.

While it is pretty straightforward, is it advisable? It doesn't feel as if the Alchemist is strong enough to break the game in 3.5, but... Which classes in PF seem too powerful for 3.5 to be retrofitted?.

[FinnDarkblade]

It's hard to say that any of them are too powerful when 3.5 has all those tier 1 classes. What's the level of optimization in your group?

[ArqArturo]

Level 4. There's a half-elf fighter, a human ranger, a dwarf druid, a human paladin, and a human sorcerer (he's lvl 3), and the alchemist (who wants to be a grenadier) will start at level 3.

[Siosilvar]

Level 4. There's a half-elf fighter, a human ranger, a dwarf druid, a human paladin, and a human sorcerer (he's lvl 3), and the alchemist (who wants to be a grenadier) will start at level 3.

Level of optimization, not character level. For instance, what spells do the druid and sorcerer have? What feats does the fighter have?

Of course, that answer reveals enough as it is. Looking over the Alchemist, it's fairly similar to a warlock, and probably will fit right in.

[Ssalarn]

I'd agree that it will probably click in fine, though I always try to port 3.5 in to Pathfinder instead of the other way around. The huge amount of 3.5 material out there makes determining relative balance a bit difficult. A grenadier in a group that includes a Sorcerer and Druid isn't too likely to be breaking anything though.

[FinnDarkblade]

Level 4. There's a half-elf fighter, a human ranger, a dwarf druid, a human paladin, and a human sorcerer (he's lvl 3), and the alchemist (who wants to be a grenadier) will start at level 3.

No, I mean how much do you guys optimize your characters? With even moderate levels of optimization no alchemist is going to be more powerful than the Druid or the Sorcerer.

[Spore]

Nothing in Pathfinder is as strong as a half decent optimized 3.5 character. Just two things:

1) the Alchemist was created without XP penalty for crafting potions in mind.
2) Should you ever see the spell "Paragon Surge" ban it right away. You can access all spells with an spontaneous caster (like oracles and sorcerers) and it nearly breaks games with the limited amount of spells PF offers. Imagine a Sorcerer with access to ALL Wizard spells in the 3.5 cosmos...

[Anlashok]

The Arcanist and master summoner are the only things that might possibly be problematic that I can think of. Even those aren't gonna completely wreck the game though.

[ArqArturo]

I'd agree that it will probably click in fine, though I always try to port 3.5 in to Pathfinder instead of the other way around. The huge amount of 3.5 material out there makes determining relative balance a bit difficult. A grenadier in a group that includes a Sorcerer and Druid isn't too likely to be breaking anything though.

In that sense, the fighter is not really optimized, but does work with the Power Attack tree. The Ranger is semi-optimized, going on the archery path and uses the animal companion (a dog) as a flanking friend when the going gets tough. The Druid is seriously optimized with summoning beasts (Spell Focus and Augment Summoning) and using his Fleshraker animal companion as his attack dog, The Paladin acts as a tank and secondary healer (high Charisma and access to the exalted feat that gives him +2 Cha for Lay on Hands uses) and the sorcerer is an enchanter.


Nothing in Pathfinder is as strong as a half decent optimized 3.5 character. Just two things:

1) the Alchemist was created without XP penalty for crafting potions in mind.
2) Should you ever see the spell "Paragon Surge" ban it right away. You can access all spells with an spontaneous caster (like oracles and sorcerers) and it nearly breaks games with the limited amount of spells PF offers. Imagine a Sorcerer with access to ALL Wizard spells in the 3.5 cosmos...

Yup, this was something we heavily discussed, and decided that his spell-per-day potions are going to have expiration dates (I think they already do) unless he actively uses the Brew Potion feat.

And I will definitely ban that spell.

[squiggit]

You don't need to outright ban paragon surge. Just the expanded arcana nonsense you can do with it. "you can only pick one spell and every time you surge for expanded arcana that's the only spell you get" seems to be a common houserule I see used.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Nah. Alchemist doesn't have anything really broken about it (at least not on a casual reading or two). Certainly no worse than things in 3.5, and better than a lot of 'em.

[Ssalarn]

You don't need to outright ban paragon surge. Just the expanded arcana nonsense you can do with it. "you can only pick one spell and every time you surge for expanded arcana that's the only spell you get" seems to be a common houserule I see used.

Yeah, Paragon Surge itself isn't really that insane considering the cost in action economy and everything that goes with it. It's less "effectively knows every spell in the game" and more "assuming you are a half-elf, can burn two spell slots and the corresponding action economy to gain access to the spell for at most 20 minutes".

Besides, you still have to qualify for the feat, so it's no good to the Alchemist. Alchemists do not have a caster level (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qdk) and do not qualify for feats that require one.

[Slipperychicken]

I think you'd want to take a good look at the Summoner before porting it over, particularly the Summon Monster spell and its differences between PF and 3.5. Aside from that (and maybe the firearm rules), nothing else comes to mind.



While it is pretty straightforward, is it advisable? It doesn't feel as if the Alchemist is strong enough to break the game in 3.5, but... Which classes in PF seem too powerful for 3.5 to be retrofitted?.

I don't think alchemists would break the game. After all, 1d6/level (plus a few points) a few times per day is roughly what's expected from blaster-casters.

[T.G. Oskar]

Depends on how you work things out. Paragon Surge is strong in PF because you can use Expanded Arcana (or, in the case of Paladins, Unsanctioned Knowledge) to expand your spell list for a while. This would have an equivalent in 3.5 in Arcane Disciple, Extra Spell (based on the reading given) and probably Draconic Legacy if you have that many Draconic feats (starting with Draconic Heritage). One requires good Wisdom and the other requires you to have access to Draconic Heritage and additional feats (sorta like the original intention of exploiting Paragon Surge via Eldritch Heritage & subsequent), so it all depends on how Extra Spell is interpreted. That said, Paragon Surge wouldn't work in the same way as per the PF version would, not to mention that it would have a racial requirement (which is enforced a bit more than in PF), in that only Half-Elves would use the spell, and you wouldn't have the bonus to Intelligence (because elves in 3.5 lack the Intelligence bonus UNLESS they're Gray Elves). Then again, it depends if you passed over the races' bonuses to 3.5.

The Alchemist will have serious competition from the Artificer, though. IMO, the Alchemist should have a craft reserve of its own, or strip both classes of craft reserves, in order to have some notion of equality. Likewise, the way Alchemist extracts work is pretty similar to how Artificer infusions work (not exactly the same, but the gist is there; you need a physical medium to use the effect), so focus on allowing the Alchemist to benefit from the Artificer's tricks, but not from those of any other spellcaster. In either case, the Alchemist and the Artificer would work similarly and yet differently (an Artificer could dabble in Alchemy but couldn't create the Alchemist's bombs; on the other hand, the Alchemist couldn't create the other magic items nor have the Homunculus the Artificer has). Compared to that, the Alchemist could easily be Tier 2, but probably never Tier 1; their extracts are more varied than the Artificer's infusions, but they still have the 1-minute requirement that most Artificer's infusions require. At best, noticing all the similarities, treat an Alchemist as you would an Artificer, except the latter replaces the wealth of knowledge of magic items with knowledge of varied potions, infusions with extracts, and the added bonus of decent-damage bombs and ability-altering mutagens. Your call about discoveries, though they feel somewhat similar to Warlock invocations.

So, if you allow a retrofit Alchemist, remember the following: they get d6 Hit Dice (not d8; an Artificer also gets d6), your choice of whether they get a craft reserve or not (and how they can recover such), and consider carefully if extracts (and, apparently, only extracts) should be treated like infusions (which makes the Alchemist unable to use spell trigger items even if they know the extract, much like an Artificer with its infusions; Alchemists can use spell trigger items if they know the right extract). And yes: the formula book (which would make them "prepared" infusion-users in contrast to Artificers being "spontaneous" infusion-users).

[Spore]

Which classes in PF seem too powerful for 3.5 to be retrofitted?

Ah by the way, Witches are not "TOO POWERFUL" but they are certainly scritching the top of what I conceive as top of the mild optimization levels. I'm talking growing save-or-loose with forced rerolls as well as a nice spell list (including healing and patron spells from other spell lists) and hexes. They seriously challenge any core only Wizard.

[Optimator]

Converting from PF to 3.5 is very safe. Go for it and have a fun game!

[ArqArturo]

Depends on how you work things out. Paragon Surge is strong in PF because you can use Expanded Arcana (or, in the case of Paladins, Unsanctioned Knowledge) to expand your spell list for a while. This would have an equivalent in 3.5 in Arcane Disciple, Extra Spell (based on the reading given) and probably Draconic Legacy if you have that many Draconic feats (starting with Draconic Heritage). One requires good Wisdom and the other requires you to have access to Draconic Heritage and additional feats (sorta like the original intention of exploiting Paragon Surge via Eldritch Heritage & subsequent), so it all depends on how Extra Spell is interpreted. That said, Paragon Surge wouldn't work in the same way as per the PF version would, not to mention that it would have a racial requirement (which is enforced a bit more than in PF), in that only Half-Elves would use the spell, and you wouldn't have the bonus to Intelligence (because elves in 3.5 lack the Intelligence bonus UNLESS they're Gray Elves). Then again, it depends if you passed over the races' bonuses to 3.5.

The Alchemist will have serious competition from the Artificer, though. IMO, the Alchemist should have a craft reserve of its own, or strip both classes of craft reserves, in order to have some notion of equality. Likewise, the way Alchemist extracts work is pretty similar to how Artificer infusions work (not exactly the same, but the gist is there; you need a physical medium to use the effect), so focus on allowing the Alchemist to benefit from the Artificer's tricks, but not from those of any other spellcaster. In either case, the Alchemist and the Artificer would work similarly and yet differently (an Artificer could dabble in Alchemy but couldn't create the Alchemist's bombs; on the other hand, the Alchemist couldn't create the other magic items nor have the Homunculus the Artificer has). Compared to that, the Alchemist could easily be Tier 2, but probably never Tier 1; their extracts are more varied than the Artificer's infusions, but they still have the 1-minute requirement that most Artificer's infusions require. At best, noticing all the similarities, treat an Alchemist as you would an Artificer, except the latter replaces the wealth of knowledge of magic items with knowledge of varied potions, infusions with extracts, and the added bonus of decent-damage bombs and ability-altering mutagens. Your call about discoveries, though they feel somewhat similar to Warlock invocations.

So, if you allow a retrofit Alchemist, remember the following: they get d6 Hit Dice (not d8; an Artificer also gets d6), your choice of whether they get a craft reserve or not (and how they can recover such), and consider carefully if extracts (and, apparently, only extracts) should be treated like infusions (which makes the Alchemist unable to use spell trigger items even if they know the extract, much like an Artificer with its infusions; Alchemists can use spell trigger items if they know the right extract). And yes: the formula book (which would make them "prepared" infusion-users in contrast to Artificers being "spontaneous" infusion-users).

This actually makes it pretty simple and elegant (in my opinion) solution, I like it :). I think the reserve could also work if the Alchemist wants to make alchemical golems and/or zombies (which is what I'm limiting him to do, as well as flesh golems because Frankenstein).

We just started, and so far the Alchemist has, indeed, not broken the game, but it gave a much needed AoE damage that the party lacked. Did I mention this alchemist is also a drunk... A bit?.

[Story]

Nah. Alchemist doesn't have anything really broken about it (at least not on a casual reading or two). Certainly no worse than things in 3.5, and better than a lot of 'em.

One thing I noticed when I tried PF last year is that Alchemists are really good at novaing, making them seem overpowered in campaigns with a limited number of encounters per day. They don't have the versatility of a Wizard, but they do grab attention by winning every fight on the first round. In a low op party, this can cause especially big problems.