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

[Hussar]

/snip

And, no 'mystic' isn't a great name - not if you're going to keep calling the powers 'psionic,' anyway.

Well, we still call them clerics and bards and wizards, despite them both being spell casters and casting spells. Saying that a mystic uses psionic powers isn't that different is it?

To me, I'd look at something like the Jedi. Which would describe Jedi better? Would you call Yoda or Ben Kenobi a psion or a mystic? Again, for me, mystic fits the bill much better, since psion or psionicist is a purely D&D thing that is only self-referential. Mystic implies an otherworldly cabalist that deals in the mysteries of the universe. IOW, an interesting connotation that carries all sorts of RP goodness. To me, a psion or psionicist is a flat, D&D only term that has no actual connotations and evokes very little.

Again, just to be 100% clear, I'm only talking about myself. The only archetype references I've seen in this thread for psion come from D&D novels, which, honestly, I don't read. So, obviously, the word carries little weight for me. Mystics, on the other hand, have thousands of years of real world traditions to mine for inspiration.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, we still call them clerics and bards and wizards, despite them both being spell casters and casting spells. Saying that a mystic uses psionic powers isn't that different is it?

Squares & rectangles. In D&D, wizards, clerics, bard (in 5e, all 12 classes) are special cases of spell-casters, all using magic, all at least referencing spell write-ups to do so.

The mystic using psionic powers isn't that different except...

...there's only one psionic class, so it's not a specific case..

and, this is the kicker: 'Mystic' was chosen to be more 'fantasy' than psychic, psionic, or psionicist - so were the sub-classes and at least some of the powers. But, then they go and call the powers they're using 'psionic' and decide it's 'not magic.'

That just seems a little conflicted.

If we're going all 'fantasy,' it would be consistent as magic, even if it's not spells, but 'mystical powers.'
If we're sticking with it being 'not magic' psionics, it'd be consistent to call the class psionicist or psion or even psychic.


That's the issue. It's not a big deal, just odd.

To me, I'd look at something like the Jedi. Which would describe Jedi better? Would you call Yoda or Ben Kenobi a psion or a mystic? Again, for me, mystic fits the bill much better, since psion or psionicist is a purely D&D thing that is only self-referential. Mystic implies an otherworldly cabalist that deals in the mysteries of the universe.

Sure, and if they used 'mystical powers' that were a form of magic, or 'mastery of the force,' which wasn't (or was ambiguous) that'd be cool - cooler than Vancian magic (Star Wars, in some ways, having more fantasy in it's science-fantasy than the Dying Earth), for that matter. But, if they go around referring to everything they do as 'psionics' instead of 'the force,' that wouldn't be so awesome.

 

[DM Howard]

I think it's as good a name as any for what it is. However, I'll always be thinking of Dragonlance when I hear the words "Mystic" in the context of class discussion.

 

[MoonSong]

Well, we still call them clerics and bards and wizards, despite them both being spell casters and casting spells. Saying that a mystic uses psionic powers isn't that different is it?

To me, I'd look at something like the Jedi. Which would describe Jedi better? Would you call Yoda or Ben Kenobi a psion or a mystic? Again, for me, mystic fits the bill much better, since psion or psionicist is a purely D&D thing that is only self-referential. Mystic implies an otherworldly cabalist that deals in the mysteries of the universe. IOW, an interesting connotation that carries all sorts of RP goodness. To me, a psion or psionicist is a flat, D&D only term that has no actual connotations and evokes very little.

Again, just to be 100% clear, I'm only talking about myself. The only archetype references I've seen in this thread for psion come from D&D novels, which, honestly, I don't read. So, obviously, the word carries little weight for me. Mystics, on the other hand, have thousands of years of real world traditions to mine for inspiration.

The problem is, this class is the one psionic class to own them all, not just psions, and not all psionics fit with the mystic flavor or aesthetics.

I think it's as good a name as any for what it is. However, I'll always be thinking of Dragonlance when I hear the words "Mystic" in the context of class discussion.

So do I, what are they going to do when Dragonlance happens and they need the DL mystics? force them to be psionic?

 

[epithet]

Mystic is a good name for the class.

If some setting flavor item from Dragonlance shares the name, or gets renamed, so be it. The term "psionic" is like the term "magic user," the game is improved when mechanical terms are replaced by terms of art.

 

[Cleon]

To me, I'd look at something like the Jedi. Which would describe Jedi better? Would you call Yoda or Ben Kenobi a psion or a mystic? Again, for me, mystic fits the bill much better, since psion or psionicist is a purely D&D thing that is only self-referential. Mystic implies an otherworldly cabalist that deals in the mysteries of the universe. IOW, an interesting connotation that carries all sorts of RP goodness. To me, a psion or psionicist is a flat, D&D only term that has no actual connotations and evokes very little.

Yes, but "otherworldly cabalist that deals in the mysteries of the universe" could apply just as well to an arcane or divine spellcaster. To me, it reads more as a rather scholarly wizard than a psionicist.

There are a couple of other problems I have with it.

Firstly, "cabalist" suggests the mystic gains their abilities by study like the aforementioned wizard, and in D&D there are lots of psionics who are born with their powers innately.

Secondly, many Mystics in the real world claim(ed) to have knowledge of the natural or supernatural "mysteries of the universe" beyond un-illumined folk. If this is true in a D&D sense, being a mystic sounds more like a 3E Prestige Class - they are, say an Wizard who also knows "Wizardly Mysteries" that give them powers unknown to ordinary wizards.

In that sense, the 3E Archmage and Mystic Theurge are both "mystics". Heck, the latter even has it in the prestige class name!

My tastes still run against Mystic for a psionicist class. Something like Psychic or Mentalist would suit me better.

Hmm... or maybe Esoteric? That has a similar meaning to Mystic, but I like that better for the class name, since to me it has more philosophical connotations than religious ones. That might raise arguments over whether one can use esoteric as a noun (Some dictionaries I checked only accept it as an adjective).

Esotericist might be more correct, but I like the ring of "Esoteric" better.

Still, considering how D&D occasionally mangles English, it wouldn't bother me even if it was bending the language a bit...

 

[Dragonhelm]

So do I, what are they going to do when Dragonlance happens and they need the DL mystics? force them to be psionic?

A distinct possibility. WotC forced the 3.5 sorcerer on DL back in the day, rather than letting us develop one that felt more like the SAGA sorcerer. We made a good compromise with the Academy Sorcerer prestige class in Age of Mortals.

Many, though not all, of the spheres of mysticism could be considered psionic in nature. My guess, though, is that WotC either doesn't remember or doesn't really care about them.

I think the solution is a compromise solution. A new mystic order, the Order of the Heart. Make this one all about emotion. Yes, it can be written for Dragonlance, but if done correctly, can also work for other settings as well.

 

[Yaarel]

While I agree Psionics can be considered to fall under the bailiwick of "magic", I wouldn't want it to be considered "spellcasting".

That is an interesting distinction. Psionics is ‘magic’, but is ‘not spellcasting’. I like it.

This articulation works well in 5e, where psionics lacks any component, having neither verbal, somatic, nor material. By definition, psionics cannot be ‘spellcasting’.

It also reminds me of the suggestion that all ‘spell-like abilities’ can be by definition psionic manifestations.

Being ‘not spellcasting’, psionics can still interact with ‘magic’, dispelling magic, and viceversa.

Magic & Psionics were different in 4e. It just wasn't problematic, since magic was not being kept in check only by magic-countering/dispelling-magic, anti-magic, and magic-resistance/immunity. In 3e, psionics was optionally magic or not-magic. In 1e, it wasn't explicit: but it did a lot of magicky things. All I remember clearly about psionics in 2e was that it was broken and I didn't use it in my ongoing campaign, replacing it with a school of magic, instead.

Honestly, 3e had the best idea: leave it explicitly up to the DM.

Provide rules options for both and advice for using them (for instance, how to deal with a psionic PC in a world where psionics is both rare and 'not magic').

I agree the DM can decide how psionics interacts with spells. In 3e, the default is psionics and magic are ‘transparent’, meaning they interact normally. At the same time, the rules instructed the DM about the alternative option where they dont interact, if that is what the group prefers.

4e, and if I recall correctly 3e too, uses the term ‘psionic magic’, making unequivocal the identity of psionics as a type of magic.

The 4e approach appeals to me most, where there are very different ways and styles of magic, each having a different ‘source’ with its distinctive thematic flavor. So, the psionic magic is just as different from the ‘arcane magic’ of Wizard, as ‘divine magic’ is different from the ‘primal magic’ of a Druid. But it is all different kinds of magic.

This goes back to the suggestion that psionics is a kind of ‘magic’, but a way of magic that has nothing to do with spellcasting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e, and if I recall correctly 3e too, uses the term ‘psionic magic’, making unequivocal the identity of psionics as a type of magic.

I don't recall either doing anything like that. 3e had explicit options - magic or not-magic. In 4e 'magic' actually had no particular jargon meaning I recall, though it often seemed synonymous with the Arcane source. Some items or feats related to a Source keyword, but 'magic' was not such a word. Arcane spells were certainly magic, and there's little reason do doubt Divine prayers were, as well. Primal Invocations, OTOH, used the power of the Primal Spirits, who are part and parcel of nature and the natural world - that might be magic, but almost by definition, 'natural' (perhaps even 'not super-natural' to get a little pedantic) as well. Psionics were certainly supernatural, especially as used by Psions, but whether they were 'magic' was largely moot. They definitively weren't Arcane or Divine, the two Sources most traditionally thought of as 'magical.' The psoinics of monks, OTOH, could be taken for 'martial arts,' and the Martial Source is the one that's traditionally not magical or supernatural, at all.

Ultimately, the 4e take is that Psionics are there own, separate, unique thing - a Source. That's ambiguous with regard to things that aren't explicitly Sources, I suppose. The 3e take, of letting the DM decide both whether psionics is nominally magic, and how it interacts with magic, seems like the best choice for 5e, which is meant to be 'modular,' DM-empowering, and open to many styles.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't recall either doing anything like that.

For example, the 4e Players Handbook 3 routinely refers to ‘psionic magic’.

For examples, on pages 5, 21, and 42:

"
Powerful wielders of psionic magic naturally gather disciples and devotees who seek to learn from them, forming the basis of what amount to philosophical schools or sects.

"

"
Psionic Augmentation: Through discipline and careful study, you have mastered a form of psionic magic that offers greater versatility than other characters command.

"


"
Your mind is as deadly as your weapon, and with the aid of your psionic magic, your body can turn aside attacks as effectively as a suit or plate armor can.

"

And so on.



With regard to 3e, the SRD makes ‘transparency’ the default and has statements like the following:

"
The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency.

"

"
For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, clairsentience powers are equivalent to powers of the divination school (thus, creatures immune to divination spells are also immune to clairsentience powers).

"

And so on.



Both 3e and 4e emphasize how psionics is a different type of magic, but magic all the same, or virtually the same.