The Scholar Class: PC or NPC only?

Decurio

Mongoose
Since I work at a university and deal with a whole department of academics, I think I have a pretty good handle on the scholar class, but apparently there are a lot of people on the boards who have trouble with scholars. (I don't think anyone is engaged in sorcerous research, but then ya never know...)

Do you personally allow scholar PCs or do you regulate the class to NPC's only? Why?

If you are having trouble with the class, is it something in particular? (I had a player who really wanted her Hyborian sorceress to be a fireball throwing DnD wizard; now that shes had some experience under her belt...and died a couple of times...her current scholar is rapidly becoming the most conniving, wickedly cunning PC I think I've ever GM'd. )

:twisted:
 
I'm fine with the idea of a PC scholar but I only let someone play one after talking to them for a good long time to make sure they have the correct mindset to play one.

The last PC I let play a scholar was nothing but a resounding success. He really had a handle on what kind of sneaky, manipulative, sideways bastard it took to be a successful sorcorer in the Hyborian age. The game started at 3rd level so he began prety weak and he constantly refered to his sorcerer (out of game) as being modeled after a young Emperor (you know, the scary manipulative bastard from Star Wars). He was very focused on knowing more about any given situation then anybody else around him and leveraging that knolwedge to maximum effect. He never told the truth without telling three lies first and used bluff bravado and showmanship to cow opponents who were significantly stronger than him. By the end of the campaign he prety much had the rest of the party dancing on his strings through sheer force of personality alone. (for mitual benefit... of course). And he never engaged in a fight when he could run and let the meat-shields do the dying instead.

But, as I said, that player had the correct mindset and vision from the word go.

Hope that helps.


PS: I gave that player a copy of the pocket edition and he is now running a terrific Conan game which I am playing in ... and his scholar NPC's are scarry
 
I see no reason why PCs cant be scholars. It is quite different from DnD scholars, but can still be fun.

The biggest fix needed is to moderate Defensive Blast, IMO.

Mad Dog
 
i have no problem with the scholar, but i doubt i'll ever see one in my campaign. we run a round robin, with everyone taking their turn running the show. my pc and another pc, however, are very paranoid about magic. anyone casting a spell is likely to have his head lopped off.
 
scholars are fine, though most of the time they just take the class for the spells. either way, a scholar pc learns REAL quick that magic isnt the answer to every problem, especialy in a world where magic is hunted down.

ive played a number of scholars so far and found that they make really interensting multiclass characters, a thief with divination and illusion, a mitran soldier with counterspells, a barbarian whos one with nature (not mine), and even a noble/scholar mix, (well, that one was fun, but mainly because the chemistry between characters was such that people became frightened of him eventualy; he had three points of demonic corruption :twisted: )
 
Hey how 'bout that, I too work in a University, in their core of libraries no less! I work with and for and over librarians, professors, grad students and the general patrons who use the libraries of our University and a consortium of nearby libraries as well, gathering information and user data for the ARL.

But to the crux of your query: I have had one scholar (sorcerer) in our main group, but while he said his aim was to play a young Emperor like argo's player (I freaked when I read that, lol); he played him more like an overt freakazoid, constantly using his Intimidation skill and going out of his way to torture and kill whoever he could get his hands on, overtly and covertly. Most scholars, as far as what I've read in these forums, go for sorcerers as opposed to academic scholars or lay priests or monks. There's the main focus of my problem with the game: I much prefer sorcerers to be mysterious, secretive and evil, and when every player knows everything about magic and questions my every call, it certainly takes the horror and mystery out of the game. In my case, I got the book a month after everyone else (problems with Amazon I've had numerous times, so I've stopped buying Mongoose books through them) so my scholar player had selectively planned his powergaming while I was still grabbing a player's to read all I can. I had figured "Sure, play whatever you want" becasue I had felt I knew the Conan stories well enough, but I severly underestimated the evil schemes of players and powergaming potential of those who don't know/don't care about the Conan stories. So there's my gripe.

End of line.
 
I have a player badgering me to play a scholar, but at the moment I am reluctant. I am running a fairly combat orientated campaign and I think the sorcerer may get a tad bored. I feel if I had a scholar in my party I would have to supply him with more opportunities to scheme and manipulate. Also I think sorcerers are viewed with a certain feat at the moment and letting a PC play one may reduced the mystery.

So the courts still out.
 
Bregales said:
I much prefer sorcerers to be mysterious, secretive and evil, and when every player knows everything about magic and questions my every call, it certainly takes the horror and mystery out of the game.

That's the reason why we hadn't a PC Scholar in our game up to now. If you don't know the rules, it remains mysterious. We made only the best experiences with that.

Only one of my players read the Magic chapter so far (I just believe the others, although they own their own AE copies - it was also their idea to play this way.). This player will be in our next campaign a Ophirean / Stygian Noble who later multiclasses into Scholar (he will be cursed at ca. 5th character level with an aging curse by some Stygian demon and fights fire with fire, i.e. makes a demonic pact, becomes a Scholar and hopes to find some day a remedy - it will be vampirism, but the player will see this only at the end, when he will be a corrupted devil in human form :twisted: it's railroading, O.K., but the guys like it, because they get a cool storyline).
 
As I am playing a David Gemmell world I have not allowed any player to play a schollar.
Now however they have learned the basics of the game, and know much more about the world I would allow it.

I do not like the defensive blast. I think it is completely out of sync with everything else.

I also wish there was a more priestly lovey dovey path or two. Gemmell has a lot of "wizards" who gain their powers by abstaining from carnal pleasures, but in turn could never use their powers to harm anyone.
To harm people you need demons, and sacrifices of kids...

Fitting a Scholar into a game needs a lot of work by the player and GM. And he can't just play it because he is a PC so the other PCs must adventure with him because they are the PCs. I hate that.
The other thing that is necessary is the scholar should need a reason to be wandering around. Why isn't he sat in a tower reading his masters books?

So yes: but only with an experienced player to play the scholar.
 
ricardo440 said:
The other thing that is necessary is the scholar should need a reason to be wandering around. Why isn't he sat in a tower reading his masters books?

Exactly. In the planned campaign I mentioned in my previous posting in this thread, the other two PCs will be the cohortes / followers of the Noble / Scholar as suggested in AE (retinue campaign). They will regularly die, drop out after the work is done or even get sacrificed by the main character. So the guys will have a lot of different characters: Stygian nobles, Kushite slaves as bodyguards, Hyborian mercenaries, Zamorian thieves for tomb raiding, Bossonian / Tauran borderers as guides to a forgotten Atlantean tomb in the Ligurean / Pictish / Cimmerian region etc.

This method of playing is OK for my PCs. Otherwise it would be problematic, if the Scholar PC is just a member of the group as the other "normal" PCs are.
 
Knowing REH's stories, scholars are universally (?) the bad guys. I insist that the PC's are--relatively speaking--the good guys. Thus, I prefer to keep scholars as a NPC class. Scholars sacrificing people, summoning up demons from the Outer Dark, becoming insane, twisted monsters themselves--these activities, IMHO, are not really good concepts for my younger players.
 
However there are plenty of stories in sword and sorcery (don't know about conan) where a spell caster does travel with the good party.

a priest, a healer, a seer...

Even the conan movie had the weird little guy who could cast spells.

But as a PC any of these characters would be really hard to play. Which is why scholars as PCs should only be tackled if there is a good reason for it, and plenty of work backing it up.
 
Yogah of Yag said:
Knowing REH's stories, scholars are universally (?) the bad guys. I insist that the PC's are--relatively speaking--the good guys. Thus, I prefer to keep scholars as a NPC class. Scholars sacrificing people, summoning up demons from the Outer Dark, becoming insane, twisted monsters themselves--these activities, IMHO, are not really good concepts for my younger players.
Yeah I agree, except maybe for Epimetreus the Sage. What we really mean is Sorcerers - those spellcasting, corruptible scholars. Priests, scribes, historians are also scholars but not sorcerers. There's the crux of the dilemna.
ricardo440 said:
However there are plenty of stories in sword and sorcery (don't know about conan) where a spell caster does travel with the good party.

a priest, a healer, a seer...

Even the conan movie had the weird little guy who could cast spells.

But as a PC any of these characters would be really hard to play. Which is why scholars as PCs should only be tackled if there is a good reason for it, and plenty of work backing it up.
Yes, but while sword & sorcery is almost universally attributed to Howard (and Poe and Lord Dunsanny and a couple others from the latter 18th/early 19th centuries) they have very different feels from the stories that make up the basis for this game. The hyborian world views all sorcerery as evil, those who seek to acquire sorcery are evil and damned (crap! I forgot his name: the rebelling acolyte from People of the Black Circle who defied his masters for love of his girlfriend - he admits he's damned). I don't consider the movie good justification for anything: it looks very cool, but as the director based it on HIS interests (viking stuff, he admitted he didn't want to read the stories or do things as per the old stories, and co-writer was Oliver Stone, who got on the kick of religious brainwashing inspired by Jim Jones and Sun Myung Moon according to the commentary on the DVD). As for your last sentence about good justification, I agree with that for sure.
 
Bregales said:
Yogah of Yag said:
Knowing REH's stories, scholars are universally (?) the bad guys. I insist that the PC's are--relatively speaking--the good guys. Thus, I prefer to keep scholars as a NPC class. Scholars sacrificing people, summoning up demons from the Outer Dark, becoming insane, twisted monsters themselves--these activities, IMHO, are not really good concepts for my younger players.
Yeah I agree, except maybe for Epimetreus the Sage. What we really mean is Sorcerers - those spellcasting, corruptible scholars. Priests, scribes, historians are also scholars but not sorcerers. There's the crux of the dilemna.

Epemitreus the Sage! Yes!
Very good point.
You're right: scholar doesn't always mean spell-caster. I sadly keep thinking of that alone. Shame on me. :( :?
 
It is difficult to have a class built into the rules, and then find it a bit hard to implement it in play. Particularly should a player really want to be one. I think all of you should really add Priest to your base class list. Priest are spread throughout the Conan books and play very promenent roles. I think your adherence to a set of rules is folly and thus you have a Scholar class you try to turn into all types of classes that have to do with magic. Also, in further support of a Priest class, Xaltotun and Orastes are or were priests. In REH's world, it seems this tie in with gods and demons, was what he wanted. In the end, Xaltotun was not done in by Conan, but by another Priest! To me this speaks volumes, and I think you guys are missing the boat. IMO.
 
Yogah of Yag said:
Knowing REH's stories, scholars are universally (?) the bad guys. I insist that the PC's are--relatively speaking--the good guys. Thus, I prefer to keep scholars as a NPC class. Scholars sacrificing people, summoning up demons from the Outer Dark, becoming insane, twisted monsters themselves--these activities, IMHO, are not really good concepts for my younger players.

What about Hadrathus and the witch (forget her name ) from Hour of the Dragon? Also Pelias was not a "bad-guy" in the Scarlet Citadel. He was definitely creepy, but he was at least a temporary ally of Conan's for the extent of the stories.

I think there is interesting potential in playing a "clean" priest of Mitra or Ibis or the like or as an independent in a campaign which focused less on combat. The continual temptation of the dark arts makes for an interesting role-playing opportunity.

I also think there are lots of intriguing adventure hooks for scholars - in fact, I think there are more than for any other characters. Seeking after secret knowledge, collecting rare herbal items, raiding for sacrifices, and the like are all activities which will get the scholar out of his proverbial tower.
 
Since I experiment with my own systen of Sorcery I have a lot of Scholar characters in my campaign willing to serve as guniea pigs. In fact the conflict between the prejudice that most people have against Sorcery- be it right or wrong- and the players use of it provides a great deal of the conflict in the game. And then of course I give them the lure of falling to Sorcery's 'Dark Side' in the form of 'helpful' demons, artefacts too powerful to be used safely and useful spells that require sacrifice or other heinous costs. The resultimg moral conflicts are entertaining at the least. I think that the high point was a PC sorcerer sacrificing another PC for the 20+ Power Points he'd need to defeat a rival sorceress.
 
A player of mine started off as a Stygian Scholar.

After about 3rd level he decided to take a level of Soldier since he had been doing so much more traveling and fighting and his spells were non combatative.

After he realized the benefits DR he has decided to continue to take Soldier levels.

He is now Soldier6/ Scholor3 ands wears a mail a huberk, steel cap, carries a shield and excels with the Stygian bow and arming sword.

His spells (mostly divination) are saved for the campfire or some other relaxed setting where he feels comfortable taking off his armor. He will probably take another level of scholar in the future.

He tuned out a cool character but much different than the silk-robed sorcerer of feared power my player aspired to be in the beginning.

I even joked with him how all the previous players who wanted to go around shirtless quickly pcked up what armor they could after a few battles. :lol:

Here out I am discouraging the scholar class for new characters unless someone really really wants to play one. Everyone is cool with it as they like the idea of Hyborean villianous corruptive sorcerory as being secrets man was not meant to know.

Now if a group wanted to play as initiates in a coven or society I would be for that!! 8)
 
dunderm said:
It is difficult to have a class built into the rules, and then find it a bit hard to implement it in play. Particularly should a player really want to be one. I think all of you should really add Priest to your base class list. Priest are spread throughout the Conan books and play very promenent roles. I think your adherence to a set of rules is folly and thus you have a Scholar class you try to turn into all types of classes that have to do with magic. Also, in further support of a Priest class, Xaltotun and Orastes are or were priests. In REH's world, it seems this tie in with gods and demons, was what he wanted. In the end, Xaltotun was not done in by Conan, but by another Priest! To me this speaks volumes, and I think you guys are missing the boat. IMO.

Don't take the term "scholar" literally. The scholar class is a flexible class which can be used to craft multiple different archetypes including the Priest. Think of it like the the Soldier (or Fighter in D&D) which can be customized to a variety of roles (like the knight for example...).

Of course, that analogy might not work for you, since you are still playing a game which is, what, 25 years old?
 
I'm beginning to get the drift of this "base" class. I don't understand the controversy then. You build the Priest of Set, a Necromancer, from the Scholar. This means you have to multi-class in order to create a Noble that is a Scholar, correct? To create a Knight you would have to multi-class a Noble and a Soldier? The only problem would be to have them select the "base" skills or feats that would distinquish them as a Priest or Knight? Then the issued should concentrate around skills and feats or what have you, not should there be a Scholar class? The "base," as the word indicates, is just something to build upon. What is added to this "base" is what makes your PC? This could be important, as a Barbarian can be from many cultures. You really can't just be a "Barbarian," you have to add something to this base, in order for the Barbarian to mean something. In my game I have a Steppes Barbarian, good on a horse, good with a bow, something like your Nomad, I think. Have I got all this right?
 
Back
Top