is tainted scholar an update/replacement of tainted sorcerer?

[newguydude1]

The tainted scholar presented here is an adaptation of a class that has appeared in two earlier versions. The maho-tsukai prestige class in Oriental Adventures was part of the first exploration of the taint mechanics in D&D, and that class was revised and adapted for a more general D&D campaign in Unearthed Arcana. Comparing these different implementations of the same general concept is an interesting study in adapting a class to different settings and even genres of play. The tainted scholar is intentionally built like the loremaster class, as a way of highlighting the horror-genre role of a scholar who explores secrets too horrible for the human mind to grasp

there are a lot of differences between tainted scholar and tainted sorcerer
biggest one is blood component was nerfed to nothing in scholar
second biggest one is scholar is limited to arcane only.
third is that scholar has a reason to advance in it (additional class features) while sorcerer can be ditched after level 1 with no loss of benefit.

the rest is pretty much identical.

i want to say no, because i want the tainted sorcerer, but what i want is not really relevant. what i need to know is, objectively, is tainted scholar an update/replacement? or is it just a different class that happened to be similar?

my arguments is, maho-tsukai is still a valid prc on its own because it uses its own spell list and doesnt advance anything.
tainted sorcerer is a revision and adaptation so it doesnt replace maho-tsukai, its just an adaptation that is compatible with the rest of d&d.
tainted scholar is a revision and adaptation of both to be a loremaster-like class so people who dont want to be a loremaster tainted spellcaster should be allowed to take sorcerer and maho.

does this line of logic hold water?

edit: another major difference, tainted sorcerer and maho-tsukai need to be learned either from another practitioner or by summoning a shadowlands/fiend where as scholar doesnt.

edit2: another relevant excerpt

The taint system presented in this book is derived from a similar system that originally appeared in Oriental Adventures, with some modifications introduced in Unearthed Arcana. The rules in this book are an update and revision to the earlier rules, and replace the earlier system. If you wish, you can easily use monsters, maho (“blood magic”) spells, and other rules from Oriental Adventures with this taint system

[EndlessKng]

Yeah, it more or less is meant to be a new version of the Tainted Sorcerer, albeit one that works with the new version of the Taint rules, which was itself a rework of the Maho-Tsukai (which they couldn't use as-is because they no longer had the rights to L5R). The only feature that isn't applied at all is the Tainted Metamagic, which instead becomes one of the several options for the Secret ability (which is gained multiple times, alongside other abilities). All have parallel skill requirements and require some spellcasting, though Tainted Scholar is slightly different in requiring specifically arcane spells BUT also allowing Invocations, which RAW the other two didn't. Blood component is also weakened, as you note, but again, more powers were added in as options in lieu of this ability.

One thing it DOESN'T look at, interestingly enough, is the Will save requirement, allowing a character to enter Tainted Warlock with only a single level in casting and the rest spent in a low-will class. Finally there are more substantive differences in the Taint Ratings, which derives from how the systems, while getting at the same concept, reflect it in different ways. In terms of features, as mentioned, Tainted Scholar gets far more; however, Tainted Sorcerer does get higher Fort save and a Rogue BAB, as does Maho-Tsukai.

The real big difference is in the casting, as you note, between Maho-Tsukai and its successors. I'm... still not 100% sure what to think about that idea. Part of the issue is that, in L5R, maho can theoretically be learned by anyone willing to practice it; a peasant can absolutely learn a high-level maho spell. But, that doesn't fit into D&D's casting design, so they went with this instead, which has opened several arguments that I've seen, but also does fit with the idea that a shugenja could learn Maho to supplement whatever spells they knew, and does reflect an actual thematic difference between shugenja spells and maho (and divine and arcane magic to an extent). As a concept, it does make the prestige class something different from the two successors; on the other hand, Tainted Scholar pretty much removes the need for Tainted Sorcerer unless you either NEED that blood component boost or are a divine caster.

I think Scholar went with being Arcane and Invocation only to emphasize that Taint is something deities, even evil ones, wouldn't want to reward in followers. It's corrupting and degrading of mind and body, though arguably less cripplingly so than the OA and UA taint rules which outright penalize Con and Wis. It should be noted that ironically HoH Taint rules are slightly closer to L5R's rules and theming of Taint - while it could warp body and mind and provide mutations that were usually bad (or at least worse than any meager benefit they gave), Taint also gave access to special powers at certain levels. This Taint system rewards characters with Tainted Feats, and allows them to take on more. Taint didn't have a lot of benefits unless you took one of the prestige classes in the other versions of the system; now, there is a tangible benefit, albeit one that doesn't really make up for the penalties unless you find a way to suppress the Taint.

[gogogome]

I'd say no.

The fluff of Maho-Tsukai is anyone exposed to taint eventually losing their free will to evil spirits and becoming a creature of taint.

The fluff of Tainted Sorcerers is shortcut takers. Wizards frustrated at the slow pace of their studies, old scholars chafing at the limitations of traditional magic, cleric and druids of evil cults, etc.

The fluff of Tainted Scholars is wizards and other spellcasters being obsessed with uncovering secrets that mortal minds were not meant to know.

I believe there is enough of a gap here, both mechanically and fluff-wise, to treat all 3 PrCs differently. Doesn't make sense to push Tainted Scholars when Tainted Sorcerers and Maho-Tsukais are better fits.

So I'd say no. They're similar but different.

[magicalmagicman]

I think the keyword here is adaptation. Tainted Sorcerer is an adaptation of Maho-Tsukai for a more general campaign. Doesn't mean TS replaces MT even in its own book. Likewise Tainted Scholar is a loremaster adaptation of Tainted Sorcerer and not a replacement.

Same concept, different adaptations based on spirits, accessibility, and loremaster.