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

[variant]

A mystic is generally someone who deals with things that are esoteric and is associated with the occult. Both Far Realms and psionics fit this far better than anything else in the D&D universe. What else would a mystic be in a universe where magic and the explanation of magic is not concealed?

 

[MoonSong]

How many do you need?

Enough to get some variety? Out of those eight psychic classes (and the 4e ardent), not all of them are meditative. In fact part of their point is they are more reckless and less contemplative (wilders and 4e ardents are kind of empaths or more emotion driven than the serene picture painted by this mystic guy, there's more to mind that just plain intelligence, emotions and perceptions cout too you, know.). Not against making a single class to convert them all, but against making that class think only of one version of psionics and call it a day -and not even getting it right with all the changes to lore-. It is like the playtest Mage all over again: "yes lets put all arcane casters under a single roof, but that roof is only a good fit for the scholarly caster we call wizard, after all the other guys are only small variations of them for players who want to play fringe twink characters. Spellbook sorcerers and wimpy warlocks are only minor casualties to us wizard players."

Oh and the point of Krynn mystics is they get to be divine without the gods. Making them no longer divine and now psionic goes against that.

 

[Cleon]

*1st edition had a mystic class in a dragon article (not sure which issue)

There's mention of a Mystic class in a Gary Gygax editorial in Dragon Magazine #65, but it's just a paragraph with a basic outline of the class concept. It was a variant class of Cleric he was considering for "the AD&D expansion volume" which eventually became the first Unearthed Arcana. The editorial mentions a bunch of other classes, but most of them got cut out, and only the Cavalier and Thief-Acrobat made it to print.

I've read claims that Gygax was planning on incorporating the class in his take on "2nd edition AD&D", but he got kicked out of TSR before that got much development.

Unfortunately, that 1E Mystic's class writeup never got published. There may be some other Mystic class that appeared in a 1E issue of Dragon, but I can't think of one offhand.

Getting back on track, personally I'm not in favour of using on Mystic for a psionic-using class, I'd far prefer Psychic, Psion or maybe Mentalist.

To me, Mystic is a name that's far more appropriate to a variant divine class. The name's got a long association with secret and/or solitary religious practices.

 

[variant]

To me, Mystic is a name that's far more appropriate to a variant divine class. The name's got a long association with secret and/or solitary religious practices.

It has a long association with the occult and hidden knowledge, not religion per se. In a universe where magic and worship of gods that grant magic is common place, it's no longer esoteric.

 

[Cleon]

I've read claims that Gygax was planning on incorporating the class in his take on "2nd edition AD&D", but he got kicked out of TSR before that got much development.

Amendment:

In Dragon #103 (1985) Gygax had an editorial saying it's time for TSR's writers "to start seriously considering a second edition", in which he currently plans "Mystic, savant and jester to be introduced as new official classes".

So he definitely wanted to publish a Mystic class but never got around to it.

 

[Cleon]

It has a long association with the occult and hidden knowledge, not religion per se.

Mysticism free of any religious concerns seems a rather modern invention to me.

The word Mystic derives from Mysteria, assorted Mystery Religions of classical antiquity whose initiates were sworn to secrecy about their religious practices.

For the eastern forms of Mysticism, like Yoga, many of them are intimately intertwined with religion - such as ascetic forms of Buddhism and Shaivism (Hindus who revere Shiva).

In a universe where magic and worship of gods that grant magic is common place, it's no longer esoteric.

It can be esoteric as long as the initiates don't speak about their practices to non-Mystics! That's pretty much how Mystery cults work, and there's no reason a group of D&D Mystics won't also keep tight-lipped about what they get up to.

Indeed, the fact that magic works might prompt them to be MORE secretive about their practices, to reduce the change of rivals and enemies stealing them or learning counter-measures.

Just because magic exists and is widely accepted in D&D doesn't mean that all magic practitioners will be swapping their spells with anyone who asks. There are strong advantages to keeping their best magic to themselves or their fellow initiates. If or example, if your cult is the only one with a "bless crops" spell you'll be rolling in wealth from selling castings of it. Or maybe the "mystery" you know is how to cast bless crops more cheaply or lower-level than other cults, allowing you to undercut their prices.

 

[Remathilis]

Enough to get some variety? Out of those eight psychic classes (and the 4e ardent), not all of them are meditative. In fact part of their point is they are more reckless and less contemplative (wilders and 4e ardents are kind of empaths or more emotion driven than the serene picture painted by this mystic guy, there's more to mind that just plain intelligence, emotions and perceptions cout too you, know.). Not against making a single class to convert them all, but against making that class think only of one version of psionics and call it a day -and not even getting it right with all the changes to lore-. It is like the playtest Mage all over again: "yes lets put all arcane casters under a single roof, but that roof is only a good fit for the scholarly caster we call wizard, after all the other guys are only small variations of them for players who want to play fringe twink characters. Spellbook sorcerers and wimpy warlocks are only minor casualties to us wizard players."

I spent nearly a month arguing with people who wanted psionics to be subclasses for fighters, sorcerers, bards, and monks. I'm just happy to have a dedicated psionic class.

Lets look at the psionic classes we've had so far. We can roughly bundle them in in pairs to two. Psychic Warrior/Battlemind/Divine Mind are the warrior-psionics. They use psionics to augment their combat potential. Right now, the Immortal Mystic does a decent job of mirroring that with the weapon proficiencies and buffing powers. The soulknife and and lurk held the "sneaky, skirmisher" area of psionics, and I'm sure the Order of the Knife will emulate that. The psion and erudite represent the logical, introspective side of psionics (which the awakened mystic seems to fill) and the wilder and ardent are the raw, emotional side which might be filled via the Invisible Hand or some other order. I mean, I could see all four orders be separate classes as well, but I think it might be too much to go that route.

Aside from fluff, what differs a psion from a wilder from an ardent? Caster stat? Proficiencies? As far as I remember, psions got psicrystals, wilders knew less power but could overchannel, and ardents got mantles rather than disciples and were the best psionic healers. Not alot there, especially with how they are doing powers in 5e.

Oh and the point of Krynn mystics is they get to be divine without the gods. Making them no longer divine and now psionic goes against that.

There are 17 examples of mystics on RotGrub's list. How many survived more than a single edition? How many were even memorable without Googling lists of PrCs, Paragon paths, and Kits? Dragonlance has no more clout in claiming the Mystic name exclusively than Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft/Masque of the Red Death, or Mystara/Basic D&D does.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Here is the relevant passage (AD&D DMG, p 40):

...

Magic absolutely had a source in AD&D!

Thanks for that quote! I never had the 1e core books (had some fun supplements though), so I hadn't seen that particular explanation. I have to give credit to Gygax for actually explaining it. As far as I can recall (and correct me if I'm wrong) there hasn't been that level of detail since. The 5e description is, as far as I can tell, the only serious attempt to define how magic works in the game overall since that 1e description.

The Weave is very specific, and quite different from the AD&D lore that I just quoted. From the Basic PDF (p 81):

...

That's quite different from what Gygax wrote in his DMG.

I'll give you that it is different, but I don't think it is insurmountably different. Primarily, the parts of magic that the 1e DMG describes are mostly how spellcasting works. The 5e description of spellcasting basically just says that the arcane caster directly plucks at the threads of the magic fabric, while divine casters have their access mediated by another force. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that the Positive/Negative infused magical words are exactly what it is that allows the manipulation of the weave, and that arcane casters use their own skill to do so, while divine casters have the energy and capacity to do so intuitively grasped (mediated) by their divine communion.

I'm not saying that 5e version attempted to make them compatible. I'm just saying that it can be done via interpretation. It doesn't require abandoning either version.

Just for starters, it locates magic in the world itself ("the stuff of creation") rather than in other planes; and the caster manipulates magic (via the weave) rather than channeling energy from another plane. That's real change. It's certainly not clarification of what Gygax wrote.

And this is where they are still compatible! 5e actually does relate magic to the planes. It says it infused the entire multiverse. Most of the multivere is other planes!

One could easily say that Gygax's version is an actual in-world interpretation (perhaps on Greyhawk) that describes the universal magical interface posited in 5e as the planar energies.

Again, this is a matter of interpretation, not of contradiction. We could easily be having this discussion in-character and it would be a perfectly acceptable academic discussion between Elminster and Mordenkainen concerning whether magic inherently worked differently on their respective worlds, or if they were simply viewing it differently.

That, to me, is a successful (and interesting!) level of compatibility.

By contrast, the 5e MM gives a new backstory for the Yugoloths which outright disagrees with the prior one. The only way I can even let it stand as in-character lore is to say that is the lie that the Baatezu like to tell people to make themselves seem cooler than the Yugoloths. It is a real contradiction.

Amendment:

In Dragon #103 (1985) Gygax had an editorial saying it's time for TSR's writers "to start seriously considering a second edition", in which he currently plans "Mystic, savant and jester to be introduced as new official classes".

And that is why, unfortunately, Gygax was sometimes just off his rocker. A core PHB jester class? :rollseyes:

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, a core jester class does sound a little crazy. I'd love to read through all his notes to see everything that didn't make it into the books.

Sadly, so did we. But when Gary was posting here, he was asked and said he didn't have anything written down nor did he remember anything about what would have went into his 2e PHB. (I do think he mentioned bard as a regular class with jester as a subclass, psionics and monk would be gone, but that's fuzzy memory speaking).

 

[RotGrub]

When selecting a name for a game element the designers should take the fans of previous editions into consideration. In fact, I'd offer up the same set of arguments against the term Hit Dice being reconstituted in 5e. It doesn't mater how you want to spin it, reconstituting a term that has already been defined is not imaginative and the associated legacy proliferates confusion. I certainly won't be giving Mearls any props for this one.