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

[Tony Vargas]

As for the Far Realm, I couldn't care less. That plane is not part of traditional D&D cosmology since it originated in 4e. I don't see why it's such a big deal, but perhaps it has something to do with how much 4e trampled over traditional D&D lore.

Nope. Far Realms is from 2e and much expanded in 3e.

What's the 2e source?

Some Bruce Cordell adventure.

Edit: Gates of Firestorm Pass

Why do you think I'm complaining about the Far Realm? It should be clear to you, if you've read my posts that I'm not happy with the class name "Mysitc"

You said you couldn't care less, except you did care enough to fire some miss-directed edition-war shots at it.

I don't care what edition it's from, I don't like the Far Realm. It's an attempt to port Lovecraft straight into D&D and it clashes sharply with the rest of the cosmology. I was much happier with the obyriths from Fiendish Codex I; clearly inspired by Lovecraft, but adapted to D&D's existing mythos.

Since Lovecraft has always been an influence on the D&D mythos, your objection to something Lovecraftian 'clashing' with that mythos remains nonsense, no matter how many time you choose to repeat it. Sorry if you don't care for Lovecraft in your D&D, but it's always been there. If it helps, I can empathize: I've never much cared for having science-fiction tropes in D&D, but they've always been there, too.

...

All that said, locking in any explanation for psionics (and locking in whether it's 'magic' or not - even though 'not magic' can be mechanically problematic, and changing the name to 'Mystic' is at odds with making it 'not magic,' as well) are bad ideas.

Give us side-bars with several options for what it is and how it arises, including just leaving it 'mysterious & unexplained.' Everyone can pick what they like or exclude what they don't. Even just presenting the fluff with qualifiers ("...some sages say.... psioins, themselves argue... blah...blah....blah").

 

[Dausuul]

Since Lovecraft has always been an influence on the D&D mythos, your objection to something Lovecraftian 'clashing' with that mythos remains nonsense, no matter how many time you choose to repeat it.

It's my aesthetic opinion (specifically relating to the Far Realm, not to all Lovecraft-influenced elements; as I said, obyriths are a great example of how Lovecraft can be integrated into the D&D mythos). The converse claim, that they do not clash, is your aesthetic opinion. Neither can be proven in an objective way. Your opinion is no more or less nonsensical than mine.

As for how long Lovecraft has influenced D&D, a lot of people have been arguing that in this thread, and I don't understand why. Folks seem to think that if you can prove the Holy Gygax introduced Controversial Element X, all the people who don't like it will suddenly agree that it's fine. And, conversely, if you can prove the Heretic Mearls introduced X, all the people who like it will suddenly agree that it's bad. This never works, and it wouldn't make any sense if it did. You could show me a supplement proving that the Far Realm was actually part of the Chainmail rules that spawned OD&D, and my response would be, "So what?" Why should that change my opinion of it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's my aesthetic opinion (specifically relating to the Far Realm, not to all Lovecraft-influenced elements). The converse claim, that they do not clash, is your aesthetic opinion.

If you want to explain why the Far Realms clashes with D&D, try something other than 'because it's Lovecraftian,' - that won't fly, D&D already has Lovecraftian elements, and you, yourself, don't object to them across the board.

What's the real problem with the Far Realm? How does it clash with a multi-verse that already posits all sorts of odd realms (from obscure pocket-dimensions to overwhelmingly significant cosmology-redefining Sigil) and infinite Prime Materials, in addition to the outer planes? How can anything clash with something so wide-open?

 

[Yaarel]

D&D has a number of examples of alternative names.

Dark Elf, also called ‘Drow’.

The 5e Forgotten Realms setting now has ‘the Feywild, also called the Plane of Faerie’, opposite ‘the Shadowfell, also called the Plane of Shadow’.



Similarly, the class can be called ‘the Mystic, also called Psion’.

The benefit is, the Mystic (like Dark Elf) is the nomenclature that fits better within the D&D taxonomy. But the more opaque alternate name, Psion (like Drow), adds official legitimacy to those who prefer to use the alternative name. (Also, like Drow, the alternate name can sometimes see more usage.)

The double naming seems helpful in this case. ‘A Mystic! Great, I understand the basic idea of the class. But what kind of Mystic? A Psion? What is that? So psionics means the science of psychic energy. Interesting.’

 

[Remathilis]

D&D has a number of examples of alternative names.

Dark Elf, also called ‘Drow’.

The 5e Forgotten Realms setting now has ‘the Feywild, also called the Plane of Faerie’, opposite ‘the Shadowfell, also called the Plane of Shadow’.

But in those examples, it appears to be a proper name/common name scenario (the Drow call themselves drow, while other races refer to them as dark elves.). Other examples of this nomenclature include Mind Flayer/Ithilid, Devilfish/ixitxachitl, Deep Gnome/Snirfneblin, etc. However, there is always a "I call myself/others call me" element to it.

So is Mystic the name they call themselves (and others call them psions) or are they psions (and others call them mystics)?

 

[Dausuul]

If you want to explain why the Far Realms clashes with D&D, try something other than 'because it's Lovecraftian,' - that won't fly, D&D already has Lovecraftian elements, and you, yourself, don't object to them across the board.

What's the real problem with the Far Realm? How does it clash with a multi-verse that already posits all sorts of odd realms (from obscure pocket-dimensions to overwhelmingly significant cosmology-redefining Sigil) and infinite Prime Materials, in addition to the outer planes? How can anything clash with something so wide-open?

D&D has had a couple of different cosmologies (mainly the Great Wheel and the World Axis), but each has its own overarching design, which is tied into the origins and history of the setting. The World Axis is very cohesive and unified, built around the conflict of primordials versus gods. The Great Wheel was constructed after the fact*, rationalizing a bunch of stuff created in early adventures, but it still does a pretty good job of fitting everything together. There are the Inner Planes of physical forces, and the Outer Planes of ideology and alignment, with the Astral connecting them. Good versus evil is the obvious conflict in the Great Wheel, but digging deeper reveals a more primal battle between law and chaos, most visible in the Blood War.

The Far Realm has no connection to any of this. It's just bolted onto the side, like a new villain introduced out of nowhere in a sequel because the writers wanted to up the stakes. I feel much the same way about Dark Sun, which is one of my favorite settings as a stand-alone, but doesn't mesh well at all with the Great Wheel. But nobody is trying to explicitly link psionics to Athas.

[SIZE=-2]*At least, I think it was. I don't actually know how much of the Great Wheel is rationalizing previous material and how much was invented new in the 1E Manual of the Planes. I also don't really care.[/SIZE]

 

[Yaarel]

So is Mystic the name they call themselves (and others call them psions) or are they psions (and others call them mystics)?

It depends on the setting. But the name ‘Mystic’ lends itself to being the common name, by which others refer to them. Meanwhile, the more obscure technical name ‘Psion’, lends itself to being the name by which these Mystics refer to each other.

So, the common name ‘Dark Elf’ and the self-identifying name ‘Drow’, is a good analogy for how common ‘Mystic’ and self-identifying ‘Psion’ work.

At the same time, in your own setting, it might be, the members of this class are always called ‘Psions’ by everyone. If so, you still enjoy official support, easy recognition, and no rules contradictions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are the Inner Planes of physical forces, and the Outer Planes of ideology and alignment, with the Astral connecting them.
The Far Realm has no connection to any of this. It's just bolted onto the side, like a new villain introduced out of nowhere in a sequel because the writers wanted to up the stakes.

So it's not that it's Lovecraftian, at all, just that it doesn't neatly fit the formula. OK, I get that, I felt the same way about Sigil when it was introduced.

[SIZE=-2]*At least, I think it was. I don't actually know how much of the Great Wheel is rationalizing previous material and how much was invented new in the 1E Manual of the Planes. I also don't really care.[/SIZE]

The GW never seemed that different from the rectangular diagram in the AD&D 1e PH, but for being round, of course.

 

[Hussar]

It's reasonable to be okay with some changes in more, but not others. Each has to be considered on its own merits. I dislike the connection to the far realms because it doesn't fit with my view of psionics. I dislike the name change because I've loved the psion/psionicist for twenty years.

This is a playtest document. It's intended to get our feedback and to engender discussion. When the final version is released, then we all have to choose how we handle psionics in our campaigns. Until then, we can attempt to affect change.

Which is perfectly fair. You're stating your preference and making it known that you like one and not the other.

Rot Grub is trying to claim that there is something objectively better about using the name psion rather than mystic. That because the name was psion, it should always be psion. Yet, that logic doesn't hold up when we call thieves "Rogues" and magic users "Wizards".

 

[Hussar]

It's my aesthetic opinion (specifically relating to the Far Realm, not to all Lovecraft-influenced elements; as I said, obyriths are a great example of how Lovecraft can be integrated into the D&D mythos). The converse claim, that they do not clash, is your aesthetic opinion. Neither can be proven in an objective way. Your opinion is no more or less nonsensical than mine.

As for how long Lovecraft has influenced D&D, a lot of people have been arguing that in this thread, and I don't understand why. Folks seem to think that if you can prove the Holy Gygax introduced Controversial Element X, all the people who don't like it will suddenly agree that it's fine. And, conversely, if you can prove the Heretic Mearls introduced X, all the people who like it will suddenly agree that it's bad. This never works, and it wouldn't make any sense if it did. You could show me a supplement proving that the Far Realm was actually part of the Chainmail rules that spawned OD&D, and my response would be, "So what?" Why should that change my opinion of it?

The problem is, even in this thread, people are making the claim that because the name was psion previously, it shouldn't be changed. Not because mystic is good or bad, but, because psion has precedence, it should not be altered.