Lets see. Light armor. Stealth and mobility as options, non-flashy magic. Some healing, but not as much as a standard cleric. Inspirational abilities. That sounds like he should have been a bard in 3e terms, or maybe some sort of bard multiclass. Sure the bard class is not explicitly religious, but the arcane/divine split is just flavor for the most part anyway.
Although you're absolutely correct in your instincts on one level- much of Kalevala magic is based in "songs of power"- Bard wouldn't really have captured the flavor (though the KoK Spellsinger might, or possibly the ToM Binder).
He is stealthy & mobile, but more in the woodsman sense. The skills & weapon list should be more akin to that of the ranger- like the heroes of the Kalevala, he is supposed to be largely self-sufficient, able to survive in the wilderness all alone if he has to. A mighty warrior as well as spellcaster. Had it not been for the Player's Option book, the likely build would have been Rgr/Cleric/MU, though that would not have been ideal (mainly because the PC would have too many spells that are too flashy).
As for the arcane/divine split, most people in our group- myself among them- don't consider the divide to be trivial.
The problem is that you and I have such a different idea of what a character concept is, that we are never going to remotely agree on this.
That's kind of judgemental. Give me a try- I might surprise you.
The closest analogue would be a Cleric of Fharlanghn with fewer cleric spells (but more than 2 domains), access to arcane Abjuration spells, Chainmail, a Maul, and a Bow who could Inspire Rage.
Which is not I would note actually a concept.
That was not the concept, that was translating the concept into game terms. The concept was (as I stated):
a cleric from a Northern warrior culture based on Finno-Russian legend, particularly from the Kalevala.
To expand upon that, the PC was more or less on a "missionary" trip- exploring the warmer climes south of his people's territory, seeking knowledge of culture and science- anything to improve things for his village...and because of his youth, adventure along the way.
Hogwash. The exact spell list might be difficult, but the rest of what you mention is easy
IF your DM allows the use of alternative rules or lets you customize things, which is
not guaranteed.
In point of fact, most of the DMs in our group do not use alternative rules, do not tweek classes. Even on those occasions when we can use books beyond the core, we don't get to use classes beyond those in the PHB.
(I'm one of 2 exceptions to this, but I'm not interested in running this as an NPC.)
...With the exception of the giving up turning undead for inspire rage, you could do that in my campaign as it is using just the house rules I've already got, and I while I'd have to think about it giving up turning undead for inspire rage sounds close to balanced so I'd happily consider that a new player option.
But none of that is a concept nor do I see how any of that is essential to a concept. It sounds to me alot more like a shopping list of abilities.
Which, as we both point out, involves a lot of customizations and HRs that are not Core, thus may not be available, which was my initial point:
...there are PC concepts that are simultaneously non-munchkinny and not buildable with 3.x PHB classes without significant houseruling, alternative rules, or DM alteration.
(emphasis mine)
Furthermore, since you weren't there, you don't know: I asked to have certain abilities (like the tracking, Move silently, and Hide) limited to wilderness environs, but the DM refused.
The "shopping list of abilities" reflected the aspects common to many characters of Finno-Russian legends- powerful in battle, capable of singing great songs of power (in game terms, both arcane & divine). Its an animist type of magic, reflected more in classes like the OA or KoK Shaman than the PHB cleric.
The way clerics handle spell lists with domains is about as ideal as flexible spell access can be made.
Not as flexible as the Spheres in 2Ed Players Option.
But something which gave a divine spell caster access to a whole arcane school of spells sounds to me to be right out simply because the access to a presumably stronger spell list is the only thing arcane spell casters have going for them.
While you're right, and the PO rules weren't perfect, access to Abjuration by a cleric wasn't anywhere near game-breaking.
The failure of PO in this regard was that, unlike the way Spheres were handled- the better/more powerful the Sphere, the more it cost, so that Minor access (no spell higher than 3rd) to Combat or Healing cost as much as Major access (full access) to Guardian or Travelers*- all schools of wizardry were priced identically. Divination or Abjuration would cost as much as Evocation or Conjuration.
* Pricing was based upon a combination of the power of the individual spells and the absolute number of spells within the Sphere- some only had a few spells over 3rd level.
So there's really no logical reason to even have classes any longer. Bring on character points, price out various things - BAB, saves, spell levels, feats, skill points - and let people make whatever they want.
That would be a 3.X version of Player's Option- which I, for one, would support.
Of course, that won't sell supplements, so it's not going to happen, but from my point of view, trying to keep up with the various supplements is a colossal waste of time and money.It's a waste of time I could be spending making my game better.
It sold 4 hardcover books in 2Ed, I don't see why it wouldn't work for 3.X.
Instead of new base classes and PrCls, each supplement would present new options and how they would be priced for each class.
++++
Re: Paladins
What does such a character give you that a Fighter/Cleric does not?
Well, full BAB, for one.
