Pathfinder Alchemist ported to 5th Ed

[Theodoxus]

So, here's my take on the Alchemist... Alchemist for 5th Ed
(https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3AS6XdDhD4cMFZQdkd1dDZDMTg&usp=sharing)
thoughts?

[Ralcos]

Firstly, this should be moved the Homebrew section.
Secondly, Could I keep this as a class option for my 5e campaigns? This is awesome!

[Ferrin33]

"Hit Points at higher levels: 1d8 (or 65)"

Why is he proficient with Thieves' Tools? I'd imagine Herbalist's Kit would fit it much better.

I suggest letting them ignore Arcane/Divine Focus requirements altogether.

Mutagen looks very gimmicky and something I'd allow an Alchemist to choose instead of having it baseline.

Dicoveries:
Acid Bomb: 1d6 damage one round later seems really bad.
Alchemical Simulacrum: There is no "Lesser Simulacrum" spell, and oh wow this is so overpowered.
Alchemical Zombie: I suggest making it more similar to the Animate Dead and Create Undead, mostly the part where they require maintenance.
Blinding Bomb: You need to reword this; they're both blinded and stunned when they fail the save, and nothing happens if they succeed. It's also really overpowered.
Bottled Ooze: 5e does not use the term "Caster level", and for its summons it has set duration ranging from 1 round, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour etc. It's cool though, although quite unclear what you mean with "If the alchemist has the Infusion discovery, another character can use the Infused Specimen." I'd clear up the wording especially around the part where it says what Exract you use to summon what. "The summoned Ooze can have a CR no higher than the Extract used to create it." For example.
Breath Weapon Bomb: Make a note that you drink and breathe with the same action.

And then I saw the rest of the list and gave up.

Overall; To many new rules, overwhelming amount of choices, and the wording of abilities is inconsistent with that used by the writers of D&D 5e. Also, the Alchemist Formulae list puts some spells at a different level than they are for every single other class; Magic Jar, Polymorph, and True Seeing.

[T.G. Oskar]

Not to be a party pooper, but I'd wait for the Artificer to make the Alchemist, as it definitely fits one of its potential Subclasses. Considering that some subclasses are particularly wide in their offerings, and that Artificers could be 5th level casters with their own abilities, I could see the Alchemist (Savant?) as the "offensive option", with the choice of Bombs offered in a similar way to the Battlemaster's maneuvers or the Way of the Elements' Monk's powers. The Alchemist (Savant) could also gain extra spells that s/he could use as Mutagens.

However, as its own class, I find it's too narrow, and the game is focusing on making classes that can stand on their own. There is some precedence to narrow classes being placed as actual classes (the Paladin is probably the narrowest class in the Core set, and it was made distinct with the choice of Sacred Oaths), but Artificer is definitely a future choice (it was part of the set of classes from the second Player's Handbook in 4th Edition, and it's a pretty popular class), so I could see a potion-based version fit the Artificer rather than exist on its own terms.

However, in order to make this more than a "you should wait until the Artificer", and taking this at face value...
I find proficiency with Thieves' Tools to be too much. I agree with Alchemist's Supplies, and MAYBE a Herbalist's Kit, but not with the Thieves' Tools (those are unique to the Rogue as befitting its role, and you can get them via Backgrounds)
Don't agree much with Constitution proficiency, but it's quite hard to pin down. Note that no class (not even the Paladin, which traditionally had high Fortitude saves and/or saving throws vs. poison/death/physical conditions) has proficiency with Constitution saving throws, and the Alchemist is to an extent a caster. Intelligence and Dexterity are fair play, though, because Alchemists in PF have high Reflex saves.
The Mutagen concept is lifted straight from PF. Judging by how magic items will handle improvement of ability scores, a Mutagen should read as "choose one of Str, Dex or Con; this score is increased to X, but an equivalent mental ability score is reduced to Y". The DM Basic Rules have examples of what I mention, and 5th Edition isn't keen on penalties at all, so you'll have to reconsider the Mutagens from scratch.
Most of the Discoveries are taken straight from PF without consideration for changes, and thus may seem a tad more powerful than before. Furthermore, such a long list would be fitting for the Subclasses, rather than the classes themselves (particularly since only two of the three subclasses you offer have Bombs, and roughly a quarter of your choices are related to Bombs). You should carefully consider if having so many discoveries available to the class itself is good, particularly when 5e classes are deliberately limited in options beyond their subclass options.
The way Formulae works, particularly if compared to Infusions. In PF, extracts take time to work, whereas your version doesn't. Infusions in 3.5 worked by imbuing an effect to the item (such as a bottle of water or oil), which is a decent compromise. Given that Alchemists work with a formula book, you could use a format like the Wizard, allowing them to learn a variety of formulas equal to half their level + their Intelligence modifier, and then do a special "ritual-like" version that allows them to craft any formula with 10 minutes of rest (but still spending a spell slot). That way, you have a fair combination of both, without feeling too powerful.

These are mostly suggestions, but for the most part, I prefer the "Alchemist (Savant) as Artificer subclass" solution as it's more elegant and fits the theme of the world. They may seem like nerfing the Alchemist, but classes in 5e are deliberately simpler and somewhat nerfed compared to 3.x or PF incarnations by design. Trying to translate designs from one system to another without comprehending the changes may lead to overshotting your design, which may lead to trouble later on.

Oh, and as a final suggestion: I'd go for "Apothecary, Grenadier, Veneficus, Vivisectionist" rather than your current Paths of Discovery. The Apothecary would be the equivalent of a pharmacist in old times, and could also help spellcasters by providing reagents; the Veneficus would focus on poisons.

[Ferrin33]

Don't agree much with Constitution proficiency, but it's quite hard to pin down. Note that no class (not even the Paladin, which traditionally had high Fortitude saves and/or saving throws vs. poison/death/physical conditions) has proficiency with Constitution saving throws, and the Alchemist is to an extent a caster. Intelligence and Dexterity are fair play, though, because Alchemists in PF have high Reflex saves.

Barbarians, Fighters, and Sorcerers all get proficiency in Constitution saves, I think it's rather fitting for the alchemist.

I agree with everything you said aside from that.

[T.G. Oskar]

Barbarians, Fighters, and Sorcerers all get proficiency in Constitution saves, I think it's rather fitting for the alchemist.

Barbarians don't have spellcasting potential. Fighters do, but only if they choose Eldritch Knight; otherwise, they're mundanes. The Alchemist is a spellcaster of sorts.

However, I'm surprised by the Sorcerer. I have the impression that the Paladin and the Sorcerer switched saving throw proficiencies, because you can't expect a Sorcerer to have proficiency with saving throws that affect the physique AND Concentration when they're the least you expect getting close, while a proven front-liner doesn't.

If that's fitting for the Alchemist, I demand a change between the Paladin's and the Sorcerer's saving throw proficiencies, because they're not entirely fair. Otherwise, the Alchemist has a point on NOT having Constitution save proficiency (the class that traditionally had good Fortitude saves now has good Wisdom saves, whereas the class that traditionally had good Will saves now has good Constitution saves).

[Ferrin33]

Barbarians don't have spellcasting potential. Fighters do, but only if they choose Eldritch Knight; otherwise, they're mundanes. The Alchemist is a spellcaster of sorts.

However, I'm surprised by the Sorcerer. I have the impression that the Paladin and the Sorcerer switched saving throw proficiencies, because you can't expect a Sorcerer to have proficiency with saving throws that affect the physique AND Concentration when they're the least you expect getting close, while a proven front-liner doesn't.

If that's fitting for the Alchemist, I demand a change between the Paladin's and the Sorcerer's saving throw proficiencies, because they're not entirely fair. Otherwise, the Alchemist has a point on NOT having Constitution save proficiency (the class that traditionally had good Fortitude saves now has good Wisdom saves, whereas the class that traditionally had good Will saves now has good Constitution saves).

All three mental scores encompass parts of what Will saves used to do though. I kind of agree with paladin/sorcerer, and kind of don't. Sorcerer's aren't necessarily wise, and I could see their magic flowing through their bodies which explains the higher Con saves, or their bodies needing to withstand the raw magic they channel through it. With paladins I feel they need to be wise and charismatic if its the iconic paladin, ofcourse they also need to be strong and durable, but assuming the standard paladin will pump strength anyway, his wisdom save will be around the same as his strength save anyway. This... kind of falls apart when you see paladins dumping wisdom because of it, but can't win it all. :(