I don't care about level 20. literally at all. IMO, it's almost entirely irrelevant to any discussion about comparative power in DnD. Levels 3-12 or so are the most important levels in the game, imo. 1-15 is the range I even care about for balance considerations. Beyond that, it is basically the epic game, and I don't expect balance or even good design. Because it's DnD and only one edition has ever designed the "end game" well, and even if had problems.
The Mystic also gets the bare minimum proficiencies. The already small subclass would have to use some of its power budget bridging that gap. I'm not sure that the basics of the monk could fit in the level 1 and 3 subclass set of features. The difference matters at low levels, and somewhat at mid levels, which is what matters.
So,
Use of a list of weapons as monk weapons, unarmed fighting boost, unarmored fighting boost (the monk should be able to wear light armor and still get martial arts and unarmored movement, imo, but that's a separate issue), some kind of boost to survivability (I'd be fine with something like adding Wisdom mod to hp or something), increased speed, and Ki abilities. Looking at the mystic disciplines, you can get there, but not if you want to also have any variation of concept. If your monk can't have a set of distinct and evocative disciplines/schools/styles/whatever...is it really a fantasy monk?
If unarmored movement, flurry of blows, step of the wind, etc are locked in to a psi discipline, anyone who wants to play the classic monk archetype is stuck with that one discipline.
And the base class still has some stuff that does nothing for the archetype. Some of it fits, but only a *very* supernatural monk. No room in a mystic subclass for a character that pushes the boundaries of the humanly possible without feeling *magic*, which is what the Open Hand Monk is there for.
Nah, mystic subclass would be a kludge. A better one than a sorcerer/rogue or a fighter subclass, but a kludge nonetheless.
Otoh, I'd love a rewrite of the four elements monk that gets wu Jen disciplines and can spend Ki on them. And one that gets the mystic's ability to paionically add damage to weapon attacks, and some nomad disciplines.
Basically, some of what the mystic does would be great as monk subclasses. The two classes are a lot like the paladin and Cleric, except that the Cleric is terrible.
I can't name one where it was entirely absent. Interesting difference in perception, there.Niche protection? I can't name a single edition where niche protction was actually a thing in the first place!
Everybody gets a lot of hps in 5e, eventually (20 HD + CONmodx20 adds up, and nobody gets d4 HD anymore), so yeah, don't see the big deal.So 12-15 hitpoints?
Sounds pretty reasonable, to me.I wouldn't attempt to put the Monk class into the Mystic. I would, however, fold the Sorcerer into the Mystic. So you would have elemental (dragon magic) and chaos (wild magic) disciplines. In addition, I would make one or two Mystic discipline using half casters classes that can cover a light to no armor wearing martial type and a heavy armor martial type. This would be where the monk class would reside as well as the kensai/samurai, ninja, soulknife, psychic warrior/battlemind, etc.
The fighter's also a clear candidate for modeling such heroes, and should have the oomph to do so...I think we should open up the monk archetype so that they don't have to only use monk weapons nor are forced into an unarmored style. (they should have a subclass devoted to those things however.) There are many variations of martial arts heroes, some that do and do not wear armor.
Oh, wait, is this like, "they were all married" or "editions don't have names?"I can't name a single edition ...
The fighter's also a clear candidate for modeling such heroes, and should have the oomph to do so...
So 12-15 hitpoints?
Yeah I agree with you about this. I wouldn't attempt to put the Monk class into the Mystic. I would, however, fold the Sorcerer into the Mystic. So you would have elemental (dragon magic) and chaos (wild magic) disciplines. In addition, I would make one or two Mystic discipline using half casters classes that can cover a light to no armor wearing martial type and a heavy armor martial type. Possibly one class with level 1 subclass choices that determine armor proficiency like the cleric, or two classes with a 3rd level subclass.
This would be where the monk class would reside as well as the kensai/samurai, ninja, soulknife, psychic warrior/battlemind, etc. I think we should open up the monk archetype so that they don't have to only use monk weapons nor are forced into an unarmored style. (they should have a subclass devoted to those things however.) There are many variations of martial arts heroes, some that do and do not wear armor.
This would allow a convergence of psionic/spirit/ki/sorcery wielding classes into a single style that would fit well into D&D's style of fantasy. (I'm cool with creating a new subsystem as long as it isn't only used by one class and it meshes well and is fairly balanced with the other classes. )
For settings that crave that sci-fi pulp style they can just explain it in their settings.
The fighter's also a clear candidate for modeling such heroes, and should have the oomph to do so...
Ummmm..... how does this have to do with sacred cows? Multi-classing does not get rid of any kind of sacred cow that I'm aware of. Vanician casting, for instance. Still pretty much everywhere but in the warlock, and even then? Pact magic is similar enough, and hardly like the 3e at-will caster. The six attributes, the alignment system, the existance of classes and levels... seriously. What new designs do we have with MCing? Seems like its just a repeat of old designs to me.
And, to be honest, my experience with multi-classing is that its only good for stealing mechanics for a main class, and not covering any new concepts. Trying to say that MCing does anything approaching new concepts rings hollow to my ears (well, eyes 'cause its all text, but you get my point). So, unless your concept is "Fighter with Cunning Action" - something I don't consider an actual concept - I'm going to have to disagree here. That is something that actually only appeals to a small portion of the player base, not the majority.
And, yes, there are penalties for multiclassing. Unless you're optimizing, doing it has a very high chance of putting you behind the game's power curve, or making your character MAD, or more. Multi-classing isn't some free-for all, all dreams granted option. Its something that gives more power to the min-maxers, but not as much really to a casual player.
I'm not sure I'm parsing this right, are you saying the monk would or wouldn't be separate from the mystic?
IMO, a class that can do both well would have too much variation in the core features to work in the 5e class paradigm. Better to have two classes.
I agree about the armor and weapons, except that it should be a situation where you only lose the armor benefits by wearing armor, just like Barbarian, not stuck in a subclass. No way should the kensai or shadow guy or other subclasses lose out on being able to be effective unarmored and with unarmed strikes. Be fine if Open Hand or an Iron Fist makes unarmed strikes better than it is otherwise, as its main thing, but the choice between unarmed/weapons/mix and the choice between armor/no armor should be outside the choice of subclass.