Backport the alchemist?

[WarKitty]

I need to run the PF alchemist class in a 3.5 game. What sort of changes should I make to get it to work?

[Gildedragon]

Not many. Ignore CMD and CMB
Split the concatenated skills
Tha's about it methinks

[WarKitty]

Not many. Ignore CMD and CMB
Split the concatenated skills
Tha's about it methinks

My impression between the two is that PF has something of a base power creep on 3.5. Assuming no one's playing an optimized tier 1 (which no one is), I'm worried the base alchemist might be a bit too powerful for 3.5. D8 hit die, good skill points, good damage, and magic?

[Guard]

I think it should work just fine. If you need to convince someone to let you use it, cut the discoveries.

That's somewhat consistent with the rest of the d&d/pathfinder transfer. The major consistent thing that pathfinder has that d&d don't is rouge tricks/rage powers/bloodline powers/magus arcana/discoveries.

Apart from that, if you don't get to port over pathfinder spells, looking through your 3.5 source-books in order to find new spells that make sense on the alchemist spell list is probably in order.

Edit; I see you're worried about power. What are other people playing?

[WarKitty]

I think it should work just fine. If you need to convince someone to let you use it, cut the discoveries.

That's somewhat consistent with the rest of the d&d/pathfinder transfer. The major consistent thing that pathfinder has that d&d don't is rouge tricks/rage powers/bloodline powers/magus arcana/discoveries.

Apart from that, if you don't get to port over pathfinder spells, looking through your 3.5 source-books in order to find new spells that make sense on the alchemist spell list is probably in order.

Edit; I see you're worried about power. What are other people playing?

I'm actually the DM here trying to backport a class for a player. We have a straight rogue and a rogue-wizard gish (starting rogue), and one other undecided.

[WarKitty]

Comparing it to 3.5, definitely need to drop the hit die down by one.

My worry with the class is that when I saw it played it was keeping up with a well optimized PF druid, and rendering the melee classes irrelevant by being able to outdo them in damage. My worry is that putting the PF alchemist up against the straight rogue is going to make the rogue seem pretty useless. After all they get as many extra d6's as the rogue does, along with discoveries, even if the rogue is getting all their sneak attacks in.

[Vaz]

Hit die means very little. At extremes it is +2 HP, and on average, +1 HP. If you want to fix that, give your melee monsters another 2 pts in strength oor your casters another caster level.

[WarKitty]

Hit die means very little. At extremes it is +2 HP, and on average, +1 HP. If you want to fix that, give your melee monsters another 2 pts in strength oor your casters another caster level.

I'm not worried about balancing the class against my monsters. I'm worried about balancing it against my other players. What I'm seeing from the straight alchemist is that I'll get a class that can do everything my rogue can do but better. That's no fun for the rogue.

[Vaz]

Why is a rogue worried about HP. You're missing a tanky character in typical party archetypes, perhaps this higher HD can help fill in?


And in 3.5 there are a ton of classes which outclass the Rogue anyway. Swordsage, Spellthief, Unseen Seer. You already have duality with a rogue and a rpgue/wizard anyway. Do they have to play Roguelike characters? Why not a ranger or scout?

[WarKitty]

Why is a rogue worried about HP. You're missing a tanky character in typical party archetypes, perhaps this higher HD can help fill in?


And in 3.5 there are a ton of classes which outclass the Rogue anyway. Swordsage, Spellthief, Unseen Seer. You already have duality with a rogue and a rpgue/wizard anyway. Do they have to play Roguelike characters? Why not a ranger or scout?

They wanted to do an all-sneaky party, rather than a classic tank (boring role, imo). The rogue player wants to play your archetypical thief, not a magic user or fancy sword-user or anything. If there's another class that does thief better I'm interested, but I'm just seeing a case where to get the character that's actually good at what he's supposed to be good at you really do need a rogue chassis - ranger or scout just play too differently.

In any case, my point was not just about HD, it was that higher hit dice plus more damage per level than any weapon user without really any drawbacks isn't going to work well. In my experience the alchemist can keep up with a well-optimized PF druid, the rapidly increasing damage plus discoveries are going to make it too high a power level for what I have.

That's why I posted here instead of just scaling the HD down - the rest of it needs to be scaled down to not be too overwhelming in a non-optimized 3.5 game, and I don't know exactly how to scale it down. I just know I want the balance point to be somewhere similar to an optimized rogue, since that's about where my party is hitting.

[HammeredWharf]

Factotum is pretty much Rogue+. It has some spells, though, but nothing a Rogue couldn't UMD.


it needs to be scaled down to not be too overwhelming in a non-optimized 3.5 game,

I want the balance point to be somewhere similar to an optimized rogue, since that's about where my party is hitting.

Not that I know much about PF Achemist, but which one is it?

[WarKitty]

Factotum is pretty much Rogue+. It has some spells, though, but nothing a Rogue couldn't UMD.




Not that I know much about PF Achemist, but which one is it?

Could you clarify? My main issue with alchemist is that, without trying, it does more damage per level than seems to fit well, while still having magic extracts and a wide variety of magic abilities due to their discoveries.

In any case, what I'm trying to say is balance around an optimized rogue because that'll hit the party level. We do have some optimization going on but the optimizing isn't going to particularly mechanically good character concepts, so you're not going to see an optimized druid or even optimized factotum. The rogue player will probably optimize though.

[Kurald Galain]

Could you clarify? My main issue with alchemist is that, without trying, it does more damage per level than seems to fit well, while still having magic extracts and a wide variety of magic abilities due to their discoveries.

Okay, so halve its bomb damage. Instead of getting +1d6 every second level, give it +1d6 every fourth level. There you go, now it has less damage but still more versatility than the rogue.

[HammeredWharf]

I think usually people separate tiers from optimization. So, even if your players were all Monks, the game would be high-op if they were highly optimized Monks. But now I get what you meant.

[Vaz]

You can tank without being high AC high HP etc. A mirror image, concealment, evasive reflexes based character is an effective tank. Monk levels add to that, as do Status effect Sneak attacks.

3.5 has enough options and build varieties to let you do it natively without resorting backporting content from pathfinder.

Perhaps let people help with the build idea first of all? If one wants to be an alchemist, they MUST have spellcasting levels. Trapsmith is a faorly good one here, as is Telfflammar Shadowlord.

What level of play do you start at, and where do you expect to finish? Any banned content?

[WarKitty]

You can tank without being high AC high HP etc. A mirror image, concealment, evasive reflexes based character is an effective tank. Monk levels add to that, as do Status effect Sneak attacks.

3.5 has enough options and build varieties to let you do it natively without resorting backporting content from pathfinder.

Perhaps let people help with the build idea first of all? If one wants to be an alchemist, they MUST have spellcasting levels. Trapsmith is a faorly good one here, as is Telfflammar Shadowlord.

What level of play do you start at, and where do you expect to finish? Any banned content?

I actually couldn't find any way to really do alchemist that both started at level 1 (our starting point), kept the alchemist feel, and didn't require making a new player learn lots of complicated mechanics. The player really does want a character that's built around alchemy and especially around bombs. Hoping to run a full 1-20 game here.

I think the gish is aiming to be our tanky character, via spells and such.

[slaydemons]

I think the gish is aiming to be our tanky character, via spells and such. It would be hard, I would need bunches of good shielding spells, I can try though kitty.

[Kamin_Majere]

The difference between D6 and D8 is negligable, and rolling could make it actually worse.

The Alchemist cant really out rogue the rogue because it doesn't have access to the Stealth Skills (Hide/Move Silently) and while it has disable device it doesn't have Trap Finding so its limited to DC20 traps and below. Also once you back port it its only going to have 4+INT skills and all those nice combined skills are suddenly split into two or three different parts so its spot/listen/disable device/slight of hand and other rogue skills are going to suffer if it wants the crafts and knowledge's (even with good INT it isn't ever going to be able to out skill the rogue)

I've had a back ported alchemist in a game before and its a great character but much like the warlock it can do a lot of things but its rarely able to steal the show from more dedicated classes. It will be able to do "more" than a rogue, but if the player isnt going to insanely optimize the Alchemist it should fit in well with a rogue (especially if they team up to preform tasks at times)

[Vaz]

It would be hard, I would need bunches of good shielding spells, I can try though kitty.

Mirror Image, Heroics (Goad is a Fighter Bonus feat, as is Martial Stance for Iron Guards Glare). Mage Armour, Shield etc. Combine with Illusion spells and you can help BFC to let the rest of your party rogue away. As a wizard the benefit is to be able to change spells daily.

Craven, Unseen Seer and Cloud of Knives, with Staggering Strike. Picking up Hunters Eye via Unseen Seer and you're golden. You can rogue and you're also pretty tanky.

Alternatively, there is the Beguiler which is slightly lower powered.

For Alchemist, you need to Cast spells. Either handwaive that requirement or be forced to take a Caster character. Or else only be able to use what others are able to provide.

This means you're left with Bard, Full Casters and Duskblade. Bard might not fit, but you can customize anything you want out of a Bard. Beguiler as said is sneaky based, but Warmage might be appropriate for a bomb happy character. A warmage with Arcane Archer can make a fairly effective 'alchemist' analogy, refluffing his imbue arrow as magical arrows that only work for him. Combine with the ability to craft traps and you can function well enough.

Taking the relevant options to get the rogue skills on your list makes you decent.

[WarKitty]

Mirror Image, Heroics (Goad is a Fighter Bonus feat, as is Martial Stance for Iron Guards Glare). Mage Armour, Shield etc. Combine with Illusion spells and you can help BFC to let the rest of your party rogue away. As a wizard the benefit is to be able to change spells daily.

Craven, Unseen Seer and Cloud of Knives, with Staggering Strike. Picking up Hunters Eye via Unseen Seer and you're golden. You can rogue and you're also pretty tanky.

Alternatively, there is the Beguiler which is slightly lower powered.

For Alchemist, you need to Cast spells. Either handwaive that requirement or be forced to take a Caster character. Or else only be able to use what others are able to provide.

This means you're left with Bard, Full Casters and Duskblade. Bard might not fit, but you can customize anything you want out of a Bard. Beguiler as said is sneaky based, but Warmage might be appropriate for a bomb happy character. A warmage with Arcane Archer can make a fairly effective 'alchemist' analogy, refluffing his imbue arrow as magical arrows that only work for him. Combine with the ability to craft traps and you can function well enough.

Taking the relevant options to get the rogue skills on your list makes you decent.

At this point it seems like backporting alchemist might be just as easy, especially since I'm also trying to avoid too terrible issues with 3.5 balance.

Here's my thought: Cut alchemist down to d4's and cut discoveries to every 4 levels instead of every two. Not quite as good a damager as the rogue, but discoveries and extracts still make the class pretty powerful.

[Anlashok]

Honestly you don't even really need to do that. The class is basically good as is right out of the box. Unless there's an artificer in the party since the alchemist is basically a stripped down artificer.

[Sayt]

Nobodies suggested it yet, so here's a suggestion:

Backport the Pathfinder Rogue as well. Rogue is still a worse class than Alchemist, but they'll at least get the better HD, and rogue/ninja tricks available.

[Vaz]

At this point it seems like backporting alchemist might be just as easy, especially since I'm also trying to avoid too terrible issues with 3.5 balance.

Here's my thought: Cut alchemist down to d4's and cut discoveries to every 4 levels instead of every two. Not quite as good a damager as the rogue, but discoveries and extracts still make the class pretty powerful.

You're including a Rogue with a Wizard in the same campaign. Need I say more?

[WarKitty]

You're including a Rogue with a Wizard in the same campaign. Need I say more?

Wizard gish with a more melee focus, not a wizard, nor a super-optimized polymorph abuse wizard with spells to bypass all the rogue abilities. The wizard has to actually work to make the rogue irrelevant. The alchemist isn't going to be able to help doing it.

[slaydemons]

You're including a Rogue with a Wizard in the same campaign. Need I say more? I am not going to be the most amazing wizard ever you know? I think I barely squeak in 9th level spells.

[T.G. Oskar]

There was a similar topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?344986-Pathfinder-to-3-5-Too-OP) not long ago, dealing with how to port the Alchemist.

If you want to make it fit the construction of 3.5, you should reduce its HD to a d6 (typical for a Rogue), and split the skills that are blended (Perception -> Spot, Listen and Search; Stealth -> Hide and Move Silently, Diplomacy -> Diplomacy and Gather Information; Disable Device -> Disable Device and Open Lock; Linguistics -> Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Language; Acrobatics -> Balance, Jump and Tumble) which happen to be class skills. For the rest, the Alchemist has a limited amount of Bombs per day, while the Rogue can use splash weapons and deal SA damage if the timing is correct, so nerfing Bombs is really not that necessary (perhaps later on, but not early on). I would, however, recommend something very important: treat the Alchemist's formulae as the Artificer's infusions, rather than as spells. Anything that buffs infusions buffs formulae, but the Alchemist will be somewhat limited in terms of which classes it can access. Rather than comparing the Alchemist to the Rogue, compare the Alchemist to the Artificer, which is a closer match (the Alchemist would end up potentially in Tier 2, given that it has a lot of spell-replicating formulae and discoveries, but can't pull off the Item Creation wonders an Artificer can); also, since Brew Potion in PF doesn't consume XP, try to add the Artificer's craft reserve in any extent to the Alchemist as a class feature.

On the other hand, if you believe the Alchemist is too powerful and eclipses the Rogue, think about raising the HD based on BAB (poor = d6, medium = d8, good = d10) but with some exceptions (I strongly believe the Wizard should keep a d4, and the Barbarian in PF keeps its d12 so any class that had a d12 like Knight and Warblade keeps its d12). You may want to consider backporting the Rogue and allow Sneak Attack to work against more creatures (like constructs or undead, though that makes a lot of options irrelevant), if you're still worried.

[Vaz]

So one wizard can be allowed to play because you can trust the player to not choose broken spells, but the other spellcaster replicating an Alchemist type using a weaker base class and a dip in a weak prestige class cannot be because reasons?

Right. Have fun.

[slaydemons]

So one wizard can be allowed to play because you can trust the player to not choose broken spells, but the other spellcaster replicating an Alchemist type using a weaker base class and a dip in a weak prestige class cannot be because reasons?

Right. Have fun.
Seriously she wasn't worried so much about the wizard, but rather the other two rogues not feeling like their abilities are useless. she isn't worried about an unoptimized gish running around using arcane strike, she is worried that the alchemist will over shadow anything the other two do.

edit: further note I am the wizard of her group and I can't take craft contingency.

[Anlashok]

Yeah I'm still not seeing it. The alchemist is better than the rogue, sure, but so are a lot of classes. I'm not even seeing why you think the alchemist is going to completely eclipse the rogue either. Their niches don't significantly overlap in the first place (their only common skills are appraise, disable device, UMD, sleight of hand and percetion). Their playstyles aren't even particularly similar in a fight.


You can gut the alchemist if you want (and honestly it looks more like you're looking for a reason to nerf the alchemist), but it's just going to make the game less fun for whoever is picking that class more than anything else.


I am not going to be the most amazing wizard ever you know? I think I barely squeak in 9th level spells.
Barely getting 9th level spells still beats everything the rogue does. Hell, barely getting 8th level spells would still beat everything the rogue does.

If the answer to this is "trust me I just won't pick OP ****" then I'm not sure why the same answer can't be applied to the alchemist instead of opting to butcher the class.

[WarKitty]

So one wizard can be allowed to play because you can trust the player to not choose broken spells, but the other spellcaster replicating an Alchemist type using a weaker base class and a dip in a weak prestige class cannot be because reasons?

Right. Have fun.

Different players. As far as the replicating, the main issue is that I haven't seen a build that starts at level one, is fairly new player friendly (my artificer being the newest player, and the wizard gish the most experienced), and that I know enough about to judge. I don't want to dump a new player on a complicated build and tell him everything to do with it. My wizard gish I trust to know what he's doing any not abuse it; I don't trust my alchemist player with that because he doesn't know the system and what is and isn't broken. So I want to present a chassis that's customizable, not dictating every choice to make it work, but also works at the right level.

As far as optimization, it's a floor vs. ceiling issue. The problem I had with the alchemist was that simply using the base class features would easily out-do other players. Using bombs as intended would quickly out-damage other characters without any optimization at all, and there would be a choice between "outdo the other players" and "don't use your major class feature." On the other hand, a wizard has plenty of options that still lets her use spells without necessarily out-doing other classes.

[slaydemons]

If the answer to this is "trust me I just won't pick OP ****" then I'm not sure why the same answer can't be applied to the alchemist instead of opting to butcher the class.

Tell me how is the wizard overpowered? Make note I can't use craft contingency, and I have like one meta magic spell because feat tax.

Edt: pm me this because drama will happen

[Anlashok]

my artificer being the newest player
First, stop here: Artificer is sort of rough on new players, might wanna reconsider that.

Second, The artificer by design will completely and utterly outclass the alchemist in every single facet of the game because the alchemist is in many ways a dumbed down, streamlined, constrained artificer in the pathfinder world. If you're worried about anyone upstaging anyone you should be worried about the Artificier making the Alchemist completely and utterly redundant.


The problem I had with the alchemist was that simply using the base class features would easily out-do other players.
But it wouldn't. The alchemist is a pretty middle of the road class.

Using bombs as intended would quickly out-damage other characters without any optimization at all
Without optimization bombs are sneak attacks with a daily use limit. If you're worried about 1d6+int bombs 4 times a day at level 1 I'm not sure the 1d6+1d6+str/dex sneak attack N times a day would be considered so much inferior. The only real advantage the alchemist has is the splash damage... and if the Rogue throws something like a Flask of Acid he does that better too.


Tell me how is the wizard overpowered?
Can't since I don't have the character sheet. But having access to 9th level spells means you have access to stuff like Wish, Gate, Shapechange, SM9 (etc).

[WarKitty]

First, stop here: Artificer is sort of rough on new players, might wanna reconsider that.

Second, The artificer by design will completely and utterly outclass the alchemist in every single facet of the game because the alchemist is in many ways a dumbed down, streamlined, constrained artificer in the pathfinder world. If you're worried about anyone upstaging anyone you should be worried about the Artificier making the Alchemist completely and utterly redundant.


But it wouldn't. The alchemist is a pretty middle of the road class.

Without optimization bombs are sneak attacks with a daily use limit. If you're worried about 1d6+int bombs 4 times a day at level 1 I'm not sure the 1d6+1d6+str/dex sneak attack N times a day would be considered so much inferior. Oh, you can make a reflex save against the bombs too. So anyone with a decent dex score cuts that down to 1d3+Int/2.


Can't since I don't have the character sheet. But having access to 9th level spells means you have access to stuff like Wish, Gate, Shapechange, SM9 (etc).

I have no idea why I said artificer - I meant to say alchemist there. There's no artificer around anywhere here. And yes it's mainly sneak attack I'm concerned about, especially since honestly a handful of rather situational skill points doesn't really match up to the discoveries and extracts an alchemist gets.

I know the one experience I had playing with one (in 3.PF) it was keeping up just behind my optimized battlefield control druid, and essentially rendering the fighters irrelevant in terms of damage. Hence my concern.

[Anlashok]

I have no idea why I said artificer - I meant to say alchemist there. There's no artificer around anywhere here. And yes it's mainly sneak attack I'm concerned about, especially since honestly a handful of rather situational skill points doesn't really match up to the discoveries and extracts an alchemist gets.

I know the one experience I had playing with one (in 3.PF) it was keeping up just behind my optimized battlefield control druid, and essentially rendering the fighters irrelevant in terms of damage. Hence my concern.

It might have been partially the druid too. Don't get me wrong, the alchemist is an amazing class and it's definitely better (in an overall sense) than the rogue.

But damage-wise the rogue should be able to compete unless enemies spend a lot of time in tight groups AND have poor reflex saves, which ends up sort of pandering to the alchemist's strengths there. In a vacuum sneak attack and bomb damage are comparable, with sneak attack pulling ahead because you get to add weapon damage to it (which is really significant early on. At level 1 an alchemist bomb is going to do comparable damage to a regular attack from the rogue and SA will double it).

Your best bet probably is to look at individual discoveries and ban ones you think are too good. The alchemist gets crazy if you start stacking mutagen buffs or finding bomb damage multipliers and using tumor familiars, on its own it shouldn't be a problem.

The rest of the alchemist's kit, extracts and the int based skillset are also really good, but won't be overlapping with the rogue really.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I suppose I should mention that I'm the alchemist in question. I have...extremely little experience in D&D, so I'm not entirely sure how to judge the relative level of strength of things against each other.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

So, the Alchemist's player is new? I wouldn't worry about party balance unless experienced players are helping him build the character.

If it's about setting a precedent... Alchemist is decent. It can replace the rogue, just like any other class with skill points and decent combat abilities. That shouldn't be the balance point.

[Sayt]

It amuses me to say this, but consider enforcing the vivisectionist archetype for the Alchemist? It's basically an ACF which replaces bombs with sneak attacks.

On the other hand, if you do this and have power concerns, I'd also ban the Beastmorph archetype.

But honestly, bombs are a finite resource, and the Alchemist's spells can be given to allies with a discovery, as can the mutagen, with an Archetype. I'd not be that worried if Cobra_Ikari is a team player.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Well, the entire reason we went with alchemist was that I wanted to play an adorable little chemistry enthusiast who doesn't believe in silly things like "safety". But I intend to ask for...a lot of input from everyone else with what I'm trying to do, and if it's not working well, I have no problems changing. I'd rather be flexible and play a game where we're all having fun than the alternative.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, the entire reason we went with alchemist was that I wanted to play an adorable little chemistry enthusiast who doesn't believe in silly things like "safety". But I intend to ask for...a lot of input from everyone else with what I'm trying to do, and if it's not working well, I have no problems changing. I'd rather be flexible and play a game where we're all having fun than the alternative.

If that's what you want, a factotum might be good. You can get Craft (alchemy) to make alchemical items (and cast/UMD a wand of unseen crafter to speed it up), add damage to them with inspiration points, and fluff your SLAs as potions you've whipped up. And with a bunch of skill points and all skills as class skills, you can keep up with the rogue in the stealth department.

Feats to consider are Grenadier, Mad Alchemist, and maybe Grell Alchemy. Also maybe the Alchemist Savant or Combat Trapsmith PrCs.

[slaydemons]

If that's what you want, a factotum might be good. You can get Craft (alchemy) to make alchemical items (and cast/UMD a wand of unseen crafter to speed it up), add damage to them with inspiration points, and fluff your SLAs as potions you've whipped up. And with a bunch of skill points and all skills as class skills, you can keep up with the rogue in the stealth department.

Feats to consider are Grenadier, Mad Alchemist, and maybe Grell Alchemy. Also maybe the Alchemist Savant or Combat Trapsmith PrCs.

I mean that could work, but he has to stop to make them and such, the alchemist gets bombs daily as their ability. plus the player is experienced I think a class that has what he wants pre-built is better then working around to get it done.

Edit: also he has grenadier already I have taken a look at his sheet, it looks pretty tip top.