Scholar with no Sorcery

Has anyone played a scholar with no sorcery? I was wondering if the compensation for the lose of sorcery (feats and skill points) was worth it or not.


Well this has been discussed in dozens of threads, most notably in here: The Scholar Class: PC or NPC only?

While I've run them as NPCs, no one in my group has played them (yet). In fact, my players so far have been very resistant to even multiclass due to the crapy way they're handled in D&D 3.x - hard to get out of bad habits I guess. :roll:

Anyways, welcome to the boards! :D


As I stated in the thread that Bregales linked to:

I've GMed quite a few non-spellcasting Scholars and the general consensus among my players is that Scholars are quite good (but not nearly as combat-powerful as Combat-oriented classes) without spellcasting.

It depends on the player. If you want to play a non-casting Scholar you'll need to accept that it's far more 'roleplay' than 'hack' for most purposes. He's certainly not going to be the butcher of the game like the Nordheimer Barbarian will be, but a non-casting Scholar is still on the level with the other classes, provided you don't expect him to hang out in the front of a melee with the Soldier and Barbarian.


If you like being a skill monster, its hard to beat taking a spell-less scholar at first level.

Mad Dog