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

[Hussar]

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)?

SHouldn't that be left up to whoever is doing the world building? Do fighters call themselves "fighters"? Do rogues call themselves "Rogues"? Some classes, sure, lend themselves to self naming. I'm Bob the Paladin is probably perfectly fine. Even, maybe, I'm Father Generic the Cleric might be okay, but, even then, usually there's more tacked on. I'm a Paladin of ... I'm a priest/cleric of ...

I'm not really seeing the problem here. Not all classes refer to themselves by class name. And, even if they do, not everyone else does either. "I'm Father Genericus of Hieronyous" could be very similar, in some circumstances to "that god bothering idiot".

 

[Remathilis]

SHouldn't that be left up to whoever is doing the world building? Do fighters call themselves "fighters"? Do rogues call themselves "Rogues"? Some classes, sure, lend themselves to self naming. I'm Bob the Paladin is probably perfectly fine. Even, maybe, I'm Father Generic the Cleric might be okay, but, even then, usually there's more tacked on. I'm a Paladin of ... I'm a priest/cleric of ...

I'm not really seeing the problem here. Not all classes refer to themselves by class name. And, even if they do, not everyone else does either. "I'm Father Genericus of Hieronyous" could be very similar, in some circumstances to "that god bothering idiot".

Both. A ranger might not call himself "Bob the ranger", but certainly the class names would describe groups of similar people; an order of rangers in the North Woods, a troupe of bards came to town, a cabal of wizards are meeting in the Golden Goat inn, etc.

The issue entails a divide between descriptive class names (those that describe what you do: fighter, rogue, magic-user) and those who are occupational (your class is your job: paladin, monk, druid). Mystic seems occupational, your job is being a mystic. Psion is descriptive; you use psionics to do something else.

 

[Hussar]

I'd buy that.

 

[pemerton]

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?

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'm not a "hater", but I don't care about changing the name to mystic. As I explained on the first or second page of this thread, that name doesn't involve any great departure from D&D lore.

As for psionics being different from magic, part of the issue is that not all the fans love it. For instance, I don't like psionics that ignores magical protections: it breaks the game for no good reason, either mechanical or in the fiction. I certainly don't care what was published in some FR novel that I never have, and never will, read.

4e removed all the lore and that didn't make every table happy.

4e did not "remove all the lore". Look at any of the following entries in the 4e MM: devils, demons, sphinxes, hydras, spiders, goblins. You'll find more lore than in the AD&D MMs or the 3E one. And as far as integrating all its lore into a single conception of the D&D world, 4e set a high watermark.

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.

<snip>

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

What has been established is not consistent, and not everyone uses it. So there's always some treading on things. Telling Hussar that salamanders once were slaves of efreets, for instance, is treading on the previous silence in respect of salamander-efreet relations.

The solution, if you don't like the story and it makes no difference to the fiction, is to ignore it! Given that the only way D&D's mechanics link the Far Realm and psionics is via mind flayers, aboleths, intellect devourers and the like I don't think anyone who ignore that particular fiction is going to be stuck with unacceptable mechanical byproducts.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I find the imbecilic nerdrage over an insignificant detail like a class name to be far more offensive than any class name could possibly be.

 

[aashintu1]

Hindu mythology had yogis. They were holy men who lived as hermits in the wild, spending their time meditating to gain spiritual and mental power. They underwent severe rites and penances to gain psionic powers. Mystic is an acceptable term for such a character type.

I love it. I think it is perfect to remove some of the sci fi nature of psionics.




I would say #1 is best...


I think a psion could be a person who seeks contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the absolute.

I thin a psion can believe in the spiritual apprehension of truth that are beyond the intellect.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm not a "hater", but I don't care about changing the name to mystic. As I explained on the first or second page of this thread, that name doesn't involve any great departure from D&D lore.

Changing names creates erasure.

Hindu mythology had yogis. They were holy men who lived as hermits in the wild, spending their time meditating to gain spiritual and mental power. They underwent severe rites and penances to gain psionic powers. Mystic is an acceptable term for such a character type.

It isn't mythology, it is a religious tradition. Inside the Indian traditions they have the ascetics, -yogis are a modern invention- holy men who seclude themselves to improve their spirit, mind and body. Mystic is a good name for this archetype, but so is Monk (Shaolyn monks are ascetics) and this class already exists in 5e. I don't like mystic because it is too specific for the supposed goal of including all psionic classes, you know things like the wilder and the 4e ardent that have nothing in common with meditation, monastic orders and discipline. 4e ardent's are basically empaths, wilders are out of control psychics, and 3e ardents are basically psionic clerics.

 

[pemerton]

Changing names creates erasure.

Are you serious? We're talking game design here, not Orwell's essay on Newspeak.

Wizards used to be called Magic-Users (with wizard a level title). Rogues used to be called thieves (with rogue likewise a level title). High level MUs were called Mages and Archmages, high level druids Heirophants. Sorcerers and Warlocks used to be MU levels. Evokers used to be called Inovkers, and the school of Transmutation used to be called Alteration.

There's no general principle that requires identity in the naming of game elements.

 

[Curmudjinn]

The normal English word for the concept is: a Psychic.

Exactly. I would've preferred that even. And some basic psychic powers like clairsentience, telekinesis and levitation. You wouldn't have to use Science Bros words either.

I don't hate mystic, but psychic is.. psychic.

 

[MoonSong]

Are you serious? We're talking game design here, not Orwell's essay on Newspeak.

Wizards used to be called Magic-Users (with wizard a level title). Rogues used to be called thieves (with rogue likewise a level title). High level MUs were called Mages and Archmages, high level druids Heirophants. Sorcerers and Warlocks used to be MU levels. Evokers used to be called Inovkers, and the school of Transmutation used to be called Alteration.

There's no general principle that requires identity in the naming of game elements.

Yay, ancient past and all, this is not the same. The level titles form 1e have nothing to do with the sorcerers and warlocks we know and love. From Magic-user to Wizard:Mage there is little difference, the mechanics remain pretty much the same between editions, the flavor remains unchanged as are the aesthetics, only the name changed. For 3e dropping the "Mage" part and leaving it at only Wizard is still fairly smooth and easy to identify -the biggest change was dropping all pretense of them encompassing all spellcasters under the sun-. On the other hand notice some of the 5e's translations of previous concepts:

Assassin -> Rogue: Assassin - same name, very similar mechanics, same flavour and aesthetics. I believe they are a good conversion of the 1e Assassin.
Warlord -> Fighter: Battlemaster - different name, different focus in mechanics, samish flavour but different aesthetics. No way it plays the same, not a cleric substitute, not making allies better, not being lazy, not being support. Kinda ticks only one out of four aspects.
Avenger -> Paladin: Oath of Vengenace - different name, similar mechanics, similar flavour but different aesthetics. Not sure if it plays the same, heavy armor and no manga weapons and all. Halfway between the previous two.

Favored Soul -> Sorcerer: Favored Soul - same name, similar mechanics (wings, heal if needed, spontaneous caster, lacks holy symbols, resistances, and signature weapon), same flavor same aesthetics. Not perfect conversion but a good one.

Now check Psion:

Different name - to make it more mainstream (so it is less sciencey, but what was wrong with psychic is beyond me)
Different mechanics - but similarish (what happened to the flexibility of psionics? all editions I know they are very flexible on the spot)
Different flavour - to make it more mainstream (not in your mind, you are channeling the far realm)
Different Aesthetics - to make it more mainstream (more hindu ascetic than psychic )

The only thing that makes me think they are supposed to represent the same stuff is the designers word for it. But on a larger scale the mystic of this UA and the psion of previous editions are as different as wizards and sorcerers on any edition with both. "Yeah 5e, has the psion, only it has a different name, story, flavor , shape and plays different yupy!"