D&D 5E "Mystics are Lame" thread

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, so lots of people are salivating over the Mystic, and I don't want to derail those discussions or lessen their joy, but surely somebody out there is as skeptical of Mystics as I am.

When I look at the Mystic I see basically a one-sized-fits-all, a la carte character class. Can't design exactly the concept you want using existing classes? Come roll a Mystic and be anything you want!

The class doesn't so much fit in neatly into the design spaces of other classes as replace them with something orthogonal. Sure, the abilities can be (even if they're not currently) "balanced" with the other classes; I don't have an issue with balance. It's just that it feels like an intruder from another game system.

Then, of course, there's the fluff of psionics. I have trouble seeing how psionics fits into the genre. It feels more science fiction than fantasy. I'm ok with Mind Flayers and other exotic creatures with a couple of abilities; it's building a whole character around the concept that feels incongruous.

So, yeah, anyway...given all the enthusiasm for mystic I'm almost afraid to post these sentiments, but surely somebody (lowkey?) out there agrees with some of this.

 

[Inchoroi]

You outline all the issues I have with Mystic; I'd have preferred it to be the themes of "Mind over Mind" and "Mind over Matter", i.e. telepathy and mind attacks/control, and telekinesis. As written, it's far too broad; you can make any theme and any character as a Mystic, and that's not including the fact that as written its still quite overpowered. I've toyed with rewriting it myself, but I can't get the desire to figure it out right now.

 

[Xeviat]

Ok, so lots of people are salivating over the Mystic, and I don't want to derail those discussions or lessen their joy, but surely somebody out there is as skeptical of Mystics as I am.

Sorry to hear that. I won't come into your thread and say you're wrong, but I do have some questions.

When I look at the Mystic I see basically a one-sized-fits-all, a la carte character class. Can't design exactly the concept you want using existing classes? Come roll a Mystic and be anything you want!

Do you think wizards or clerics are one-size fits all? They have diverse spells, and domains and schools allow a lot of diversity. War and Bladesinger allow for a martial bend, blasters and buffers can be built, or solid controllers with either class. Or do you feel the themes of those classes unite them better than the themes of all mystics?

The class doesn't so much fit in neatly into the design spaces of other classes as replace them with something orthogonal. Sure, the abilities can be (even if they're not currently) "balanced" with the other classes; I don't have an issue with balance. It's just that it feels like an intruder from another game system.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Is this a mechanical issue or one of flavor?

Then, of course, there's the fluff of psionics. I have trouble seeing how psionics fits into the genre. It feels more science fiction than fantasy. I'm ok with Mind Flayers and other exotic creatures with a couple of abilities; it's building a whole character around the concept that feels incongruous.

That's the very reason they changed the class to "Mystic" over "Psion". Ascetic monks (not warrior monks), spiritualists, ki users, warriors with unusual powers. Sure, they have a different vibe from the casters we already have.

So, yeah, anyway...given all the enthusiasm for mystic I'm almost afraid to post these sentiments, but surely somebody (lowkey?) out there agrees with some of this.

I'm sure there's plenty of people who agree. There are people who don't like the "Monk" in the game. Some think the "Barbarian" should be a background and not a class. I used to hate the "Bard", "Paladin", and "Ranger" as classes and used the UA PrC versions because I thought they stepped on the toes of other classes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guest 6801328]

Do you think wizards or clerics are one-size fits all? They have diverse spells, and domains and schools allow a lot of diversity. War and Bladesinger allow for a martial bend, blasters and buffers can be built, or solid controllers with either class. Or do you feel the themes of those classes unite them better than the themes of all mystics?

Well, since you ask....yeah, I'm not a fan of Bladesinger, Arcane Archer, et al. "Gish"....meh.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Is this a mechanical issue or one of flavor?

Flavor. Same reason I hate the rapier, Drow as a playable race...and a bunch of other things.

 

[Greg K]

I found the mystic disappointing and my disappointment began as soon as I realized that every mystic gains Telepathy and Psionic Body.

 

[jgsugden]

Remember: This is still a playtest. If there are criticisms, we shouldn't fear speaking them - we should share them and consider them with open minds.

Mystic works best as an optional class that people can choose to include or exclude as they see fit. Personally, I think they should break it up into several classes to make it easier to isolate features (so that not every mystic grabs the one overpowered option that makes it into the final version and so that DMs have an easier time limiting down to the options that make sense for his world), and I'd like there to be a greater difference between the mechanics of the psionic classes and the traditional spellcasters. The thinly veiled spellpoints are a pointless change from spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I look at the Mystic ...It's just that it feels like an intruder from another game system.

Then, of course, there's the fluff of psionics.

As always, 5e /is/ going for classic feel, and the original psionics, which didn't use class/level, was a random special ability some PCs just had for no reason, which introduced a new form of combat that proceeded by segment instead of round, used power points instead of hps, and % dice instead of d20, certainly felt out of place in 1e, like an intruder from another game system, presumably a science-fiction game.

So, your reaction is evidence of success.

I have trouble seeing how psionics fits into the genre. It feels more science fiction than fantasy. I'm ok with Mind Flayers and other exotic creatures with a couple of abilities; it's building a whole character around the concept that feels incongruous.

I've had the same problem prettymuch the whole time.

What I finally realized was that it was my problem, and made no difference to the game. If, as a DM, I find psionics clashes with my setting, I can ban it (or just not opt into it). If, as a player, I don't care for the fluff, I can play something that fits my concept better, or re-skin the psionic bits as something else ('mysticism' was often bandied about in the past, and 5e went with that for the name of the class). If I'm confronted with a fellow player who's all-in on his psionic character's science-fictiony feel, I can still just let him have his fun, and quietly/privately re-skin it as 'really magic under all the trappings' and live with it as well as any other lame-reference PC.

It's not like I haven't played the odd alien-to-genre lame-reference PC in my time.

(Daedalus, Minotaur Artificer Ghost of the Past and Field-Service Engineer)

So, yeah, anyway...given all the enthusiasm for mystic I'm almost afraid to post these sentiments, but surely somebody (lowkey?) out there agrees with some of this.

In addition to the above, I feel like the question of psionics=magic should be punted to the DM, it's not like 5e is generally shy about passing the buck like that, and the decision has significant implications for the campaign and setting.

 

[Ninja-radish]

I love psionics but the Mystic has been a huge disappointment for me. The "one size fits all" approach is the culprit here. There should be three different psionic classes: a mindf--king "Psion" type caster class, a beefy "Psychic Warrior" martial class, and a stealthy and crafty "Soulknife" roguish class.

Combining everything into one package is why the Mystic sucks so bad.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I love psionics but the Mystic has been a huge disappointment for me. The "one size fits all" approach is the culprit here. There should be three different psionic classes: a mindf--king "Psion" type caster class, a beefy "Psychic Warrior" martial class, and a stealthy and crafty "Soulknife" roguish class.

Combining everything into one package is why the Mystic sucks so bad.

A similar option, consistent with 5e design, would have been to have the Mystic as the 'caster'-level Psionicist(Psion), all-in on the psionic powerz, and then relegated the Psychic Warrior (Battlemind) and the Soul Knife to Fighter and Rogue sub-classes, analogous to the BM & EK, respectively. (Though that'd leave the Ardent out in the cold.)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

To dissent a bit I don't really see any of these things as problems- I have a player who really like psionics/biotics etc. in any game where they can play them and to them the mystic is pretty spot on.

it provides total coverage of all the old psionic archetypes through it's subclasses so with this one class you can build out all the psionics from previous editions. It provides a very different feeling from traditional spell casting, which is a feature not a bug. It's self contained which is nice because once we have it, I feel as if we don't need to depend on WOTC adding additional psionic support in the future.