D&D 5E (2014) Is "Mystic" a bad class name?

[Wuzzard]

This is just WOTC trolling.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The class is called "Mystic." Awakened and Immortal are two sub-classes.

Huh. Looks like you're right. I missed that in my read through. I guess it's the fact that the article with the download is (for some odd reason) called "Awakened Mystic" that threw me off.

 

[Fralex]

It's just like news. Whatever is most interesting at the time gets talked about.

The name is most interesting?

This is just WOTC trolling.

In the next update, mystic is spelled "mystyk." Two factions spring up, arguing over the pair of letters:

Spelling it with a -yk is stupid. It's like when people call magic "magyk" to sound more sophisticated and new agey.

Yeah, but I kinda like the new-agey spelling, even if it is a little silly. It makes psionics feel more weird and different from magic.

I still think "psion" is a better fit.

Yeah, but "psion" is just a new agey way to say "psychic." Can't we just call the class what it clearly is?

Ah, let's just split the difference and call them "psyonistycs."

 

[Remathilis]

Huh. Looks like you're right. I missed that in my read through. I guess it's the fact that the article with the download is (for some odd reason) called "Awakened Mystic" that threw me off.

We weren't going to get Immortal at first, I think.

 

[RotGrub]

Put me down as someone who liked the pseudoscience of D&D psionics. To me, this feels like an attempt just to make it another flavor of magic (even though I know that's not really the intent).

I really hope it's not a type of magic. We have a number of D&D novels that have psionics completely ignoring the magical protections of high level wizards. There is one powerful drow psionicist of Menzoberranzan that comes to mind.

Why tread on established D&D lore that fans love if you don't have to? I really hope WotC hasn't decided to start changing things that don't need changing again...

 

[MoonSong]

I really hope it's not a type of magic. We have a number of D&D novels that have psionics completely ignoring the magical protections of high level wizards. There is one powerful drow psionicist of Menzoberranzan that comes to mind.

Why tread on established D&D lore that fans love if you don't have to? I really hope WotC hasn't decided to start changing things that don't need changing again...

Yes, it feels like changing lore for the sake of changing lore. Like I said appease the haters who won't play it at the cost of the fans who feel ignored. I thought they learned the lesson, gnome effect and all...

 

[Hussar]

But, hang on, if psionics is drawn from the Far Realms, then is specifically isn't just another kind of magic. Magic in D&D does not draw on any planes at all. Magic in core D&D draws on the Weave. Or it's granted by gods, using the weave. If we ignore 5e lore, where does arcane magic come from? Has any edition of D&D actually spelled it out (sorry about the pun)? Previous editions had gods granting divine magic, except when they didn't, because in 1e (and 2e?) 1st and 2nd level cleric spells didn't come from any gods, they just came from the devotion of the cleric.

But, supernatural power from the unknowable beyond has never been applied to any system of magic in D&D has it? As far as a "source" for psionics, the books have been mostly silent. There is very little lore to base anything on. If psionics is inherent, then do we need to start having systems for deciding if every single Monster Manual creature has psionics at any given time? If humans and dwarves and halflings can be psionic, why can't orcs and goblins and kobolds?

And, if it's an inherent trait, how do we jive this with mind flayers and aboleth? Why are they psionic? The species just has a natural affinity? But, how does that explain Demons and Devils being psionic? They aren't a species at all. They don't have inherent traits. They don't have a biology to speak of. Can undead be psionic? How does that work when a spirit doesn't actually have a physical brain? What inherent traits are being utilised here? On and on and on.

But, if psionics is something that you access, either through natural talent or training, suddenly all those issues go away. Some creatures are naturally psionic, and considering it's all the weird stuff that's already tied to the Far Realms, it does tie the lore of the game together nicely. Aboleth and Mind Flayers are the way they are because of Far Realms ties. Makes sense.

It's not like WOTC is creating this stuff whole cloth here. It's been in the game for a while in various forms. They're just cleaning things up.

-------

On a side note, it's really ironic. I argues vehemently against including lore in the 5e Monster Manual. I hate it. I really do. I think the 5e Monster Manual is a waste of space. But, everyone told me I was 100% wrong and that the game needs lore and that lore is important. Well, you got what you wished for. You want a game that's tied together with lore, well, here it is in spades. Funny how when it suddenly applies to people's favourite pet part of the game, it's a bad thing.

Careful what you wish for.

 

[hbarsquared]

Is "Mystic" a bad class name?

For a psion, yes.

 

[RotGrub]

But, hang on, if psionics is drawn from the Far Realms, then is specifically isn't just another kind of magic. Magic in D&D does not draw on any planes at all. Magic in core D&D draws on the Weave. Or it's granted by gods, using the weave. If we ignore 5e lore, where does arcane magic come from? Has any edition of D&D actually spelled it out (sorry about the pun)? Previous editions had gods granting divine magic, except when they didn't, because in 1e (and 2e?) 1st and 2nd level cleric spells didn't come from any gods, they just came from the devotion of the cleric.

But, supernatural power from the unknowable beyond has never been applied to any system of magic in D&D has it? As far as a "source" for psionics, the books have been mostly silent. There is very little lore to base anything on. If psionics is inherent, then do we need to start having systems for deciding if every single Monster Manual creature has psionics at any given time? If humans and dwarves and halflings can be psionic, why can't orcs and goblins and kobolds?

If you're looking for lore you should really pick up the 2e psionics handbook. I'd suggest a few Darksun novels or even the RAS books with Kimmuriel Oblodra.

Past editions allowed you to roll on a table for natural talents. If psionics are used in your game then some monsters will have additional abilities.

What's important for me is that psionics are alien enough to remain unabated by traditional magic. For example, you shouldn't be able to cast Dispel Magic on a psioniceffect because it's not magic.

On a side note, it's really ironic. I argues vehemently against including lore in the 5e Monster Manual. I hate it. I really do. I think the 5e Monster Manual is a waste of space. But, everyone told me I was 100% wrong and that the game needs lore and that lore is important. Well, you got what you wished for. You want a game that's tied together with lore, well, here it is in spades. Funny how when it suddenly applies to people's favourite pet part of the game, it's a bad thing.

Careful what you wish for.

I think the 5e monster manual is one of the best since 2e. Lore is 100% required and acceptable. The designers just have to be sure they don't tread on what has already been established. There is nothing wrong with expanding upon lore or making minor corrections, but to fundamentally change the nature of something like Psionics is a mistake.

Personally, I'd rather have lore than no lore at all.

 

[Hussar]

If you're looking for lore you should really pick up the 2e psionics handbook. I'd suggest a few Darksun novels or even the RAS books with Kimmuriel Oblodra.

Past editions allowed you to roll on a table for natural talents. If psionics are used in your game then some monsters will have additional abilities.

What's important for me is that psionics are alien enough to remain unabated by traditional magic. For example, you shouldn't be able to cast Dispel Magic on a psioniceffect because it's not magic.



I think the 5e monster manual is one of the best since 2e. Lore is 100% required and acceptable. The designers just have to be sure they don't tread on what has already been established. There is nothing wrong with expanding upon lore or making minor corrections, but to fundamentally change the nature of something like Psionics is a mistake.

Personally, I'd rather have lore than no lore at all.

Therein lies the irony. The 5e Monster Manual changes, sometimes radically (since when are Minotaurs a "curse race"? That certainly counters lore in Dragonlance), lore of all sorts of creatures. And many people, apparently including you, think that's great. So, if it's great to rewrite the background of a large percentage of the monsters in the game, why is it bad to change the background of psionics?

I haven't heard any complaints that the tie to the Far Realms is bad in and of itself. The idea has a pretty lengthy pedigree, even if it was never explicit. Yet, not adhering to 2e lore is now a bad thing?

Like I said, the irony is rather delicious.

As far as "is psionics affected by magic", well, I would hope they go the 3e route and sidebar the idea that "Psionics are different" to make every table happy. But, even if they don't, what's stopping you?