D&D 5E State of the mystic

Parmandur · May 23, 2019

Retreater said:
In an interesting turn of events, I'm going to be playing in a one-shot Dark Sun game. The DM is opening up the Mystic class. So this is the first time I've honestly looked at it.

Wow. Upon a first look, it's garbage. The Disciplines are very underwhelming. Psi Points should recover after a short rest like Ki points for a monk. There's a talent (which is the only at-will ability you get) that basically all Mystics get for free at 2nd level anyway. No way is this comparable to a wizard.

I would consider it only because it's thematic to Dark Sun, but even so I feel it's a punishment to have to play one.

The Psi-points have an exact mathematical relationship with slots: if they recovered on a short rest, it would be more like the Warlock, and even more overpowered than it is already.

Parmandur · May 23, 2019

CapnZapp said:
No, that's not the case. Being allowed to use spell points means a huge increase in flexibility (for wizards, sorcerers have it built-in) and thus in power.

Wizards are already incredibly flexible.

cbwjm · May 23, 2019

I did like the last version of the mystic, it still needed some work but on the whole, I thought it was pretty cool. I even went and replaced the four elements monk with the elemental psionic powers instead allowing them to choose a new discipline on each subclass level and using ki points to power psionics.

The work Mearls was doing with cantrips powers that were expandable with spell slots was interesting although I don't like spell slots for psionics (Actually I don't like spell slots for magic, but I like them even less for psionics). This is similar to the psionics of 4e that let you boost your at-wills making them more powerful.

I'm not sure what the best way of managing psionics would be, perhaps wild talents (warlock invocations) would be a good addition. I'd like to see psi disciplines come back but that is likely just going to be something that is the focus of a subclass and judging by the backlash on the themed warlock invocations I wouldn't be surprised if people were against wild talents that required having the telepathy discipline to choose.

Some things I would not like is psionics with levels like in 3e, I thought that was terrible implementation of psionics. I wouldn't like to see the various skills checks of 2e to activate a power either, that can all be covered via the standard attack or save of 5e.

Retreater · May 23, 2019

Parmandur said:
The Psi-points have an exact mathematical relationship with slots: if they recovered on a short rest, it would be more like the Warlock, and even more overpowered than it is already.

I can understand that. But the disciplines are nowhere as good as 1st level wizard spells.

Mercule · May 23, 2019

Giltonio_Santos said:
I expect a psion with spell slots to appease players who are waiting for psionic rules in the same way the beastmaster ranger appeases players who want a warrior pet...

Yup. I finally asked the psionics fan in my group why he likes them, a couple years back (we've gamed together for 25+ years, so it's a bit delayed question). His answer: change up from the slots of wizards.

Fenris-77 · May 24, 2019

I might prefer them to go with key skills and skill trees. So you'd have basic abilities (lets call them Facets) that were gates to related abilities that would themselves be gated by level, or whatever. Let's pretend for a second there were 7 basic psionic Facets and a Psion started with one or two, and gained additional ones every so many levels. These would function like class abilities and could scale by level. On top of that, you have a second class of abilities that work like Invocations - these have prerequisites including a facet, plus perhaps other invocations and character level. The Invocations could be a combination of one-off powers plus a core set of interlinked invocations that build on each other.

Each facet plus invocations would scale and have a capstone ability (like pretty much any skill tree in a video game). If there were enough to pick from characters would have to chose to go broad or deep. The whole system could run on a points engine, but could just as easily run as leveled abilities without points.

You could take that basic idea and use the 7 disciplines from 3e, or you could change it up to make things more unique. I like it because it doesn't use spell slots and doesn't have to run on a points engine that involves more math than I prefer to see at the table. If you add in a modest number of psionic charges that can be used to power up certain abilities you get that flexible points feel without having to track a huge point pool.

Tony Vargas · May 24, 2019

Yaarel said:
The 4e Psion used the same at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers that other classes used.

Almost. In order to call back psionic power points, they made the encounter powers into power points that enhanced at-wills, the results were not terrible, but the exercises struck me as unnecessary - mechanical difference for the sole sake of being /mechanically/ different.

Yaarel said:
The spellcasting mechanics of the Warlock are pretty good for psionics. But not the flavor.

The GOO Warlock even gets telepathy!

Azzy said:
I really wouldn't say that the 3.5 version was comparatively overpowered—CODzilla and Wizards ran rings around it (like everything else).Sure, if you're comparing it to Fighters and Rogues...

So only Tier 2, then?

Yaarel · May 24, 2019

Giltonio_Santos said:
Now I'm curious. If you want the psionic class to work mechanically like the other casters, what do you want to be different about it? Only the flavor?

Arcane casters and Divine casters can feel different because flavor. Likewise Psionic casters.

Note, Arcane casters can vary somewhat mechanically with regard to how they access spells. Compare Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer. But all of them are using standard spells, and none of them are reinventing the wheel.

Likewise Psionic casters.

Tony Vargas · May 24, 2019

Yaarel said:
Arcane casters and Divine casters can feel different because flavor. Likewise Psionic casters.

Note, Arcane casters can vary somewhat mechanically with regard to how they access spells. Compare Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer. But all of them are using standard spells, and none of them are reinventing the wheel.

Likewise Psionic casters.

While I in no way begrudge folks who want them their psionic classes, for me it always seemed the problem with psionics - and the reason game designers kept resorting to novel mechanics for it - is that it's not really that different, in fluff, from magic. A lot of what people who believed in magic would have called magic, is what we'd today call a 'psychic power' (or a temporal lobe seizure, as the case may be). If anything, some you might be wishing for psionics for something that feels /more/ like real/traditional magic than D&D fireball & lightning SFX. The difference is context, "psionics" was coined for science fiction, it brought psychic powers/magic into the realm of the science-sounding 'electronics' or 'cryonics' or 'bionics' or psychotronics (brace yourself & google it) or whateveronics that were buzzing mid-century, the way "dot-com" did at the turn of the millennium.

For that matter, arguably, Sorcerers & Warlocks are mainly differentiated from Wizards by the mechanics, because the fluff distinctions among them aren't as robust as they might be. (Though, I suppose history really says the opposite: the Sorcerer was introduced as a vehicle for spontaneous casting, and the Warlock for at-will casting. The fluff was just making excuses. ::shrug:

#mindmagic.com

CapnZapp · May 24, 2019

Parmandur said:
Wizards are already incredibly flexible.

What is that supposed to mean?

If you mean the wealth of different spells you can choose, yes that makes them flexible, but it also has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

If you mean spell points isn't inherently much more flexible than spell slots, given everything else stays the same, you're plain mistaken.