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

[Sunseeker]

@OP:

I don't think it's a bad class name, but it's awfully generic. Anyone can be a mystic, it's just a person who uses mystical abilities, this could easily cover Almost every non-martial class in the book. So I don't think it's a bad name, but it's not a good name either.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I also don't see why any given group can't use different fiction in their game.

Well, of course we can and will run the game however we like. But the baseline is important. It sets assumptions about the lore, and those assumptions should best represent what the fans of the game want. The ongoing discussion about the proffered material is an exploration and demonstration of how we feel about it.

 

[Remathilis]

@OP:

I don't think it's a bad class name, but it's awfully generic. Anyone can be a mystic, it's just a person who uses mystical abilities, this could easily cover Almost every non-martial class in the book. So I don't think it's a bad name, but it's not a good name either.

Well, a sorcerer was another term for "magic-user" until 3e rolled along. D&D class names are generic until they mean something specific. Mystics and Mystical powers right now are a generic term (like sorcerer and sorcery was in 2e) but soon it will refer to a specific type of mystical ability and user.

That, of course, is the problem with re-using a well defined word: it brings connotation with it. Warlord had a similar problem. However, the alternative is a made up word that has no connotation, but sounds artificial. Using natural English words has a ring to our ears ("A ranger, bard, mystic, and warlord all entered the dungeon") that invokes an image or expectation (rightly or wrongly), vs. a name that is basically game terminology ("A duskblade, psion, spellthief, and runecaster all entered a dungeon") which sounds fake but doesn't invoke any preconceived notion.

 

[Hussar]

Well, a sorcerer was another term for "magic-user" until 3e rolled along. D&D class names are generic until they mean something specific. Mystics and Mystical powers right now are a generic term (like sorcerer and sorcery was in 2e) but soon it will refer to a specific type of mystical ability and user.

That, of course, is the problem with re-using a well defined word: it brings connotation with it. Warlord had a similar problem. However, the alternative is a made up word that has no connotation, but sounds artificial. Using natural English words has a ring to our ears ("A ranger, bard, mystic, and warlord all entered the dungeon") that invokes an image or expectation (rightly or wrongly), vs. a name that is basically game terminology ("A duskblade, psion, spellthief, and runecaster all entered a dungeon") which sounds fake but doesn't invoke any preconceived notion.

And, to me, a psychic is just someone who reads palms and tries to talk to your dead grandmother. Psychics don't levitate and they certainly don't have anything remotely offensive in nature. A psychic is Jennifer Love-Hewitt talking to dead ghosts. At least, that's what I associate with psychic. A mystic, on the other hand, is mysterious, so, we don't really know what they're capable of.

And, I'm curious. For those that are really bothered by the idea of psionics being tied to the Far Realms, why don't you have similar issues with all magic being tied to the Weave? Isn't that just as intrusive? Maybe I've just missed it, but, for the past year of 5e, all magic, whether arcane or divine, comes from The Weave. That's a huge change from previous D&D lore where clerical spells were granted by gods. Why aren't clerics just another wizard?

 

[pemerton]

the baseline is important. It sets assumptions about the lore, and those assumptions should best represent what the fans of the game want. The ongoing discussion about the proffered material is an exploration and demonstration of how we feel about it.

For those that are really bothered by the idea of psionics being tied to the Far Realms, why don't you have similar issues with all magic being tied to the Weave? Isn't that just as intrusive

I've got no objection at all to discussing preferences for different versions of background lore. But I don't agree that the lore in the PDF fundamentally changes the nature of the class - because (i) it is fairly continuous with the 4e lore, and (ii) it is easily ignored with no effect at all on the mechanics or the flavour they generate.

Upthread [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong(Kaiilurker)[/MENTION] asserted that "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." But in fact, as Hussar points out, the flavour has changed radically. In AD&D (at least 1st ed) spells were memorised, and casting them involved channelling power from the positive and negative material planes. Since 3E spells are prepared, not memorised, and there is nothing about channelling power from the positive or negative material planes. In 5e, all spells involve manipulating "the weave", which hitherto was a purely FR notion.

In the same way that many players just ignore these shifting background flavours for magic-use, so I'm sure they can and will ignore shifting background flavours for psionics. Ultimately I think it's just not that big a deal.

 

[Remathilis]

And, to me, a psychic is just someone who reads palms and tries to talk to your dead grandmother. Psychics don't levitate and they certainly don't have anything remotely offensive in nature. A psychic is Jennifer Love-Hewitt talking to dead ghosts. At least, that's what I associate with psychic. A mystic, on the other hand, is mysterious, so, we don't really know what they're capable of.

Nearly any "real word" is going to bring a connotation with it. Psychic has connotations of fortune tellers or mind readers. Mystic implies eastern aesthetics or Victorian mediums. No word is going to capture the feel perfectly, unless we make one up like we did with psion(icist). Heck, go look at the ranger thread for a great look at how a term that existed in D&D for 30+ years still means different things to different people.

And, I'm curious. For those that are really bothered by the idea of psionics being tied to the Far Realms, why don't you have similar issues with all magic being tied to the Weave? Isn't that just as intrusive? Maybe I've just missed it, but, for the past year of 5e, all magic, whether arcane or divine, comes from The Weave. That's a huge change from previous D&D lore where clerical spells were granted by gods. Why aren't clerics just another wizard?

For most of D&D's history, magic hasn't had a source, it just is. Certain settings had answers for it (the Weave as Torils, Mystara had the Radiance, Krynn the three moons) and there has been nothing* so far that contradicts that. The Far Realm as psionic's "default" should be likewise inoffensive, as long as they call out the exceptions (or allow for exceptions to happen where previous lore did exist) I don't mind the "general unless exception" method of lore.

* that being said, we've not scene another setting to attempt to contradict the Realms/default system yet. I'd be very cross if, for example, Krynn's three moons were re-written to just a path to the Weave (and other casters could access it outside the Moons/Towers) or if Mystara's Radiance stopped being the radiation of a nuclear generator(!) and just became the Weave. The core rules lore should be the default when there is no other lore already in place.

 

[MoonSong]

None of that is a reason for you to change your preference, of course, but I don't see how the PDF stops you using the fiction you prefer. How does this backstory actually affect the mechanics (and resulting flavour) of the class? Not at all that I can see.

It is, changing too much at the same time.

Well, a sorcerer was another term for "magic-user" until 3e rolled along. D&D class names are generic until they mean something specific. Mystics and Mystical powers right now are a generic term (like sorcerer and sorcery was in 2e) but soon it will refer to a specific type of mystical ability and user.

That, of course, is the problem with re-using a well defined word: it brings connotation with it. Warlord had a similar problem. However, the alternative is a made up word that has no connotation, but sounds artificial. Using natural English words has a ring to our ears ("A ranger, bard, mystic, and warlord all entered the dungeon") that invokes an image or expectation (rightly or wrongly), vs. a name that is basically game terminology ("A duskblade, psion, spellthief, and runecaster all entered a dungeon") which sounds fake but doesn't invoke any preconceived notion.

But mystic has already been used twice, with different meanings. Once as another name for monks, and as a dragonlance divine caster, a very specific divine caster that doesn't really fit under psionics. And the new flavor steps pretty close to the monk.

And, to me, a psychic is just someone who reads palms and tries to talk to your dead grandmother. Psychics don't levitate and they certainly don't have anything remotely offensive in nature. A psychic is Jennifer Love-Hewitt talking to dead ghosts. At least, that's what I associate with psychic. A mystic, on the other hand, is mysterious, so, we don't really know what they're capable of.

And, I'm curious. For those that are really bothered by the idea of psionics being tied to the Far Realms, why don't you have similar issues with all magic being tied to the Weave? Isn't that just as intrusive? Maybe I've just missed it, but, for the past year of 5e, all magic, whether arcane or divine, comes from The Weave. That's a huge change from previous D&D lore where clerical spells were granted by gods. Why aren't clerics just another wizard?

Well, I come from the post-pokemon generation. To me psychics is exactly mind reading, telepathy, levitation and stuff. What you describe is more of a phony medium/fortuneteller -and I prefer witch for the nonphonies, psychic is almost despective in that context.

And well, for me wizards are those superpowered bookworms that carry heavy spellbooks and suck at being mundane, clerics don't fit that bill. (and wizards aren't the generic spellcaster, never were never will)

I've got no objection at all to discussing preferences for different versions of background lore. But I don't agree that the lore in the PDF fundamentally changes the nature of the class - because (i) it is fairly continuous with the 4e lore, and (ii) it is easily ignored with no effect at all on the mechanics or the flavour they generate.

Upthread @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) asserted that "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." But in fact, as Hussar points out, the flavour has changed radically. In AD&D (at least 1st ed) spells were memorised, and casting them involved channelling power from the positive and negative material planes. Since 3E spells are prepared, not memorised, and there is nothing about channelling power from the positive or negative material planes. In 5e, all spells involve manipulating "the weave", which hitherto was a purely FR notion.

In the same way that many players just ignore these shifting background flavours for magic-use, so I'm sure they can and will ignore shifting background flavours for psionics. Ultimately I think it's just not that big a deal.

Well, my point isn't that, it was that from edition to edition most of it was stable, from 1e to 2e only the name changed and it gained a class group (wizard). But nothing else between both, it was a small change. In the transition to 3e wizard went from class group to the class itself, but the schools -and forbidden schools- remained -save a few name changes-, but it played the same and the aesthetics were the same. The wizard evolved organically, and only changed a few things at the time. This mystic-psion thing is not the same, it is change everything at once, name, flavor, aesthetics and gameplay, all at once.

 

[RotGrub]

After listening to the recent podcast with Mearls I'm rather happy that dispel magic will not work on a psionic power. He is correct to say that it's not magic.

Now all he needs to do call the class a Psionicist or psion again.

 

[Remathilis]

Three times from memory. There was a 2e priest class in the forgotten realms pantheon book that was named a mystic.

Mystic: a name in search of a class.

 

[RotGrub]

Mystic: a name in search of a class.

yeah, it's already had several...

Google image "Mystic Character" and then "Psionic character".. Which term provides a more evocative image?