The Mystic: Wizard/Psion base class

[RUMBLETiGER]

A PC with level 9 Arcane spells and level 9 powers would be and Erudite with the Convert Spell To Power alternate class feature.

Despite JaronK's list, The Erudite is generally considered a Tier 0 class because of this.

...adding on Binding abilities makes a rediculiously powerful build even more rediculious, in my oppinion.

I don't think this class is balanced if it scales to level 9 spells/powers.

Why do you want a class that can do so many things?

The balance with PrCs that progress 2 different casting classes etc. is that is slows down the progression of each slightly and doesn't progress class abilities. This balance is established in these PrCs on purpose.

 

[Empath Negative]

MTs don't alternate advancement at half, they advance as per their underlying classes simultaneously. What makes them "gimptastic" (to use your term) to some is the loss of class abilities (feats, turning, shapechange, etc.) and the prereqs that mean their access to the uppermost 2 levels of spells is a half to a third of the normal casters.

And IMHO, the 3 bonus feats, binding and chastisement easily make up for those lacks.

Note: I said Epic.

 

[Empath Negative]

A PC with level 9 Arcane spells and level 9 powers would be and Erudite with the Convert Spell To Power alternate class feature.

Despite JaronK's list, The Erudite is generally considered a Tier 0 class because of this.

...adding on Binding abilities makes a rediculiously powerful build even more rediculious, in my oppinion.

I don't think this class is balanced if it scales to level 9 spells/powers.

Why do you want a class that can do so many things?

The balance with PrCs that progress 2 different casting classes etc. is that is slows down the progression of each slightly and doesn't progress class abilities. This balance is established in these PrCs on purpose.

And Kobolds can become invincible gods... yes, yes.


However, at the standard players table Kobolds don't become invincible gods and any DM worth his salt will instantly squash any Mental Pinnacle or whatever.



Remember gang, keep this within the realm of sanity. It is impossible to balance any casting class with full progression and access to the wizards complete spell list without making them a god. That's simply the way it is.

However, at the gaming table Wizards rarely supplant the deities. Not saying they can't... but they rarely do.


So, grading the above character class on the extremes of what a wizard, a psion, or a binder might do is counter productive and inherently assumes that the player will break the social contract between themselves and others at the table.


How does the above character class compare to a Wizard who doesn't have a ring of infinite timestop rounds or... whatever.


To me he sacrifices versatility in one area and gains it in another... and loses special abilities in the form of feats and gains them as special abilities in the form of guardian spirit abilities and the powers of a single bound vestige. The Chastise Spirits ability is more for flavor than anything else.


Look at it this way... by sacrificing access to untold different spells in three different schools the Mystic gains 34 (afb) powers tat use a different resource. By sacrificing metamagic feats he gains access to a vestiges abilities and by sacrificing his familiar he gains power over spirits.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me he sacrifices versatility in one area and gains it in another

That he sacrifices schools of wizardry when he had Psion powers to make up for it isn't much of a sacrifice.

 

[emoplato]

And Kobolds can become invincible gods... yes, yes.


However, at the standard players table Kobolds don't become invincible gods and any DM worth his salt will instantly squash any Mental Pinnacle or whatever.



Remember gang, keep this within the realm of sanity. It is impossible to balance any casting class with full progression and access to the wizards complete spell list without making them a god. That's simply the way it is.

However, at the gaming table Wizards rarely supplant the deities. Not saying they can't... but they rarely do.


So, grading the above character class on the extremes of what a wizard, a psion, or a binder might do is counter productive and inherently assumes that the player will break the social contract between themselves and others at the table.

What I said is perfectly within the realm of capability of this character. You fail to realize how much control a DM has. Yes, he could say Pun-pun smites you and are dead no save but who would want to play with them? It is one thing to say no to a book as it may very well be thematically unsound with the campaign it is another to ban specifics. You first need direct experience with said combo, recognize it, and of course remember it. DM's do not have complete oversight of character creation unless the player really has no idea. It usually happens before it can be banned. Then lets just say you have such an cunning and precognitive DM. Your character has two full avenues and binding back ups allowing you to find another more than a standard Psion or Wizard as well as more uses. You are stepping on the toes of both types without even investing the time for both.
I say you need to go back to square one and maybe think about a new casting structure that fits a thralling mystic vs. studious scholars.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Were I to take a swing at this, I'd make it a Sorc/Wilder fusion, with Cha as the sole required stat.

The class would have access to all 9 levels, but would have a severely restricted number of spells & powers known per level.

And then I might borrow a mechanic from the Shadow Mage (ToM) and have certain lower level spells become at-wills...perhaps the Psionic side would see a discount in the PP cost for similarly low-level powers...

I'd toss the binding & chastisement, but I might give the class a spirit familiar (ancestral, elemental...something thematically appropriate.

I'd keep the taboos. I think that's a good flavor additive for something called a "mystic."

 

[Empath Negative]

What I said is perfectly within the realm of capability of this character. You fail to realize how much control a DM has. Yes, he could say Pun-pun smites you and are dead no save but who would want to play with them? It is one thing to say no to a book as it may very well be thematically unsound with the campaign it is another to ban specifics. You first need direct experience with said combo, recognize it, and of course remember it. DM's do not have complete oversight of character creation unless the player really has no idea. It usually happens before it can be banned. Then lets just say you have such an cunning and precognitive DM. Your character has two full avenues and binding back ups allowing you to find another more than a standard Psion or Wizard as well as more uses. You are stepping on the toes of both types without even investing the time for both.
I say you need to go back to square one and maybe think about a new casting structure that fits a thralling mystic vs. studious scholars.

What you seem to be suggesting is a player that's actively out to sabotage his DM... contrary to what you're saying a DM has ABSOLUTE oversight of a character's creation. If something smells even remotely fishy he can quash it in the same vein of "wishing for more wishes".

If someone at the table tries to recreate Pun-Pun the DM can simply say "no".

 

[Empath Negative]

Were I to take a swing at this, I'd make it a Sorc/Wilder fusion, with Cha as the sole required stat.

The class would have access to all 9 levels, but would have a severely restricted number of spells & powers known per level.

And then I might borrow a mechanic from the Shadow Mage (ToM) and have certain lower level spells become at-wills...perhaps the Psionic side would see a discount in the PP cost for similarly low-level powers...

I'd toss the binding & chastisement, but I might give the class a spirit familiar (ancestral, elemental...something thematically appropriate.

I'd keep the taboos. I think that's a good flavor additive for something called a "mystic."

I've been considering restricting the spells known to the discipline list. i.e. you're exchanging 3 schools of magic for access to the discipline of telepathy, or the seer clairsentience discipline. You walk away with only about 9... maybe 10 powers... but it would add a significant degree of "definition" to the character.


The big reason I added binding was because I love... love... LOVE... being required to show your sign. I'm trying to stack as much "non-alienist" weirdness into a single character as I can get away with. Almost wanted to make it race required: Feytouched.

 

[emoplato]

What you seem to be suggesting is a player that's actively out to sabotage his DM... contrary to what you're saying a DM has ABSOLUTE oversight of a character's creation. If something smells even remotely fishy he can quash it in the same vein of "wishing for more wishes".

If someone at the table tries to recreate Pun-Pun the DM can simply say "no".

Yet, again you are going to the extreme. It isn't a matter of screwing the DM. It is a matter of them wanting to get through the game. They don't know what the DM will throw at them so they want to get a reasonable combo in which the DM won't expect. It is easy to do with this class as so much going on without working for it.
So, in other words every single spell that they may get which is in a perfectly accepted book is instantly known by the DM and he can remember every step of the process? You over estimate the authority and oversight.

 

[Empath Negative]

A dm can step in at any time and say no. Even after a character has a spell or ability.

Would you tolerate a codzilla at your table? I wouldnt unless the game was specifically set up for it.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2