exile said:
Is there any reason that you have to come up with a new base class for this? One of the beautiful features of D&D 3.X is the multiclassing.
It seems like you could make a great secular academic/explorer by combining levels of wizard and rogue primarily. You could even have a level or two of the existing expert NPC class (or other PC classes as needed to get to the heart of yoru concept).
Yeah, I could do that, but I wanted a scholar. The bard was close, but the music didn't work for me, nor the spellcasting. I didn't want a primary, or even secondary spellcaster. I also didn't want a rogue, because it is a skill-class, true, but it's one with a very specific flavor, involving melee-tumbling, sneak-attacking, sneaking, and trap finding/disarming.
I like multiclassing, heck, I'm playing a fighter/sorceror in another game right now. But I also like that the design of 3.x is transparent enough that it's straightforward (if not always easy) to create a class that fits your whackiest concept. It's encouraged, even; the witch class in the DMG is an example.
And also, in the campaign that just ended, I played a monk that, through the vagaries of the Deck of Many Things, ended up 4 levels above everybody else, and often more combat-effective than several of them put together. This guy is problem-solving, knowledge-focused, and totally not a combat character, vaguely as a reaction to that.
