D&D 5E "Mystics are Lame" thread

[Chaosmancer]

Reading this thread has gotten me thinking about the place of psionics in the structure of my world, I do want to define them.

My gut is saying to make Mystics, Paladins and Monks all fit into the same "type of power". I prefer my Paladins to be OAthbound, but not bound to a diety. When I was explaining in-character the difference between a Cleric, a Druid (they had just received their powers and my cleric was sought for advice) and a Paladin (who was a terrible individual), they were all "divine" but defined differently.

Clerics are gifted power by the Gods, who gather their power from the communities which believe in them. To truly kill a god you must either have more power than the aggregate of their faithful (incredibly difficult if not impossible) or kill off all those who believe in and worship that god.

Druids draw their power from the world, very similiar to the Cleric, except that it would require the destruction of the world to remove their power.

Paladins contain a spark of Divinity, drawing power only from themselves and that spark. I can work that into Monks and Mystics as well, it is all drawing power entirely from within the self.


The only problem with this model is, ironically, it makes Arcane magic harder to explain. Why do Bards, Wizards and Sorcerers exist and do what they do. I'm still trying to find the best explanation, though I'm currently leaning towards planar structures to explain it. It is the currents and movements of the Planes and the structures they exist upon that are the source of Arcane magic... but I haven't spent as much time on this yet.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Reading this thread has gotten me thinking about the place of psionics in the structure of my world, I do want to define them.

My gut is saying to make Mystics, Paladins and Monks all fit into the same "type of power". I prefer my Paladins to be OAthbound, but not bound to a diety. When I was explaining in-character the difference between a Cleric, a Druid (they had just received their powers and my cleric was sought for advice) and a Paladin (who was a terrible individual), they were all "divine" but defined differently.

Clerics are gifted power by the Gods, who gather their power from the communities which believe in them. To truly kill a god you must either have more power than the aggregate of their faithful (incredibly difficult if not impossible) or kill off all those who believe in and worship that god.

Druids draw their power from the world, very similiar to the Cleric, except that it would require the destruction of the world to remove their power.

Paladins contain a spark of Divinity, drawing power only from themselves and that spark. I can work that into Monks and Mystics as well, it is all drawing power entirely from within the self.


The only problem with this model is, ironically, it makes Arcane magic harder to explain. Why do Bards, Wizards and Sorcerers exist and do what they do. I'm still trying to find the best explanation, though I'm currently leaning towards planar structures to explain it. It is the currents and movements of the Planes and the structures they exist upon that are the source of Arcane magic... but I haven't spent as much time on this yet.

You could use the idea that there are gods of music and scholarship who are rewarding their followers by giving them magic for furthering music and scholarship rather than worshipping the gods, thus there really isn't arcane magic, just an alternative approach to divine magic. Sorcerers are really just mystics, but the dominant paradigm is "casting spells", so they have shaped their mysticism to casting spells (and mystics are sorcerers who have spent enough time in meditative study that they realize they don't need to cast spells--and just like an athlete who trains to be a power lifter is probably not going to be a good long distance runner, the process of shaping mysticism has created different abilities).

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'd be more o.k. with the Mystic if it were less jack-of-all trades. As another poster phrased it, mind-over-mind or mind-over-matter. However, mind-over-matter becomes an awfully lot like Transmuation, so I think I'd go with mind-over-mind, e.g. attacks causing psychic damage, reading emotions, reading thoughts, telepathy, ignoring pain, causing/curing Frightened condition, bonuses to Cha-based skills, etc.
Your ability to sense strong emotions gives you a premonition of attacks, so Dex + Int when not wearing armor (and thus no armor proficiencies).

Sub-classes could be based on emotions: a Love-based subclass, a Fear-based subclass, an Anger-based subclass, Greed, Jealous, Hatred, Sorrow, etc... (In which case maybe it should be called Empath not Mystic, but I've always hated Mystic as a name for a psion anyway. "Mystic" suggests to me a connection to gods or spirits, not powers of the mind.)

Mind you, I still think psionics feels like sci-fi not fantasy, but at least it wouldn't be this "if you don't like classes, pick the classy class-less class!" class. Got that, class?

 

[zicar]

When I look at the Mystic I see basically a one-sized-fits-all, a la carte character class. Can't design exactly the concept you want using existing classes? Come roll a Mystic and be anything you want!

To me this is a feature, not a bug.

Then, of course, there's the fluff of psionics.

It's fluff. Think of it as point-based spellcasting.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To me this is a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. For people who don't actually want to play D&D, but would rather play a game where you can design a character with any combination of abilities, the Mystic is perfect.

It's fluff. Think of it as point-based spellcasting.

Great idea. In fact, since it's so easy to fluff things, you could simply fluff an existing class (or multi-class) into the psionicist you want, without the need for a new class.

 

[Aldarc]

I'd be more o.k. with the Mystic if it were less jack-of-all trades. As another poster phrased it, mind-over-mind or mind-over-matter. However, mind-over-matter becomes an awfully lot like Transmuation, so I think I'd go with mind-over-mind, e.g. attacks causing psychic damage, reading emotions, reading thoughts, telepathy, ignoring pain, causing/curing Frightened condition, bonuses to Cha-based skills, etc.

Interesting, as I regard transmutation more as matter-over-matter or energy-over-matter, especially when linked to the wizard's more studious approach to magic that harkens back to the pseudo/quasi-science of pre-chemistry transmutation. There is certainly no small irony in the two unequal treatments of the wizard and psion. The latter is accused of feeling "too sci-fi", whereas the former gets praised in its studious scientific treatment of magic as a tool. The former often has people imagining the incantations and spell names in Latin (or a Latinized "Draconic"), whereas the latter actually does use names and concepts with Greek (e.g., psyche, ego, metabolism) and Latin (e.g., id) roots.

Mind you, I still think psionics feels like sci-fi not fantasy, but at least it wouldn't be this "if you don't like classes, pick the classy class-less class!" class. Got that, class?

Psionics does not feel sci-fi to me, but, rather, "science"-fantasy or more arguably post-Enlightenment fantasy. That aesthetic can likely be attributed, in part, with how a lot of the psionic concepts come from a renewed sense of fantastic elements in the world amdist the marginalization of "fantasy" in the post-Enlightenment age of science and rationality. So I agree that, in some respects, psionics feels "modern." The aesthetic and concepts seem built on a hodge podge of concepts from the 19th to mid-20th century (e.g. Victorian spiritualism, paranormal phenomenon, mesmerism, early psychology, Western appropriation of East Asian mysticism, New Age spirituality, etc.). Here, however, I would argue that the psionicst (however we label this archetype) more closely emulates our sense for the "magic" of our historical traditions than the magic that many D&D classes perform (e.g. fireball, lightning bolts, grease, etc.), which are largely themselves rooted in modern literary notions of fantasy.

That said, I am not a fan of the 5e approach to psionics, though I am warming up to the concept of the mystic, particularly in light of the above mini-rant. I think that 5e does a disservice to psionics as it attempts to marginalize and sugarcoat the psionic tradition in D&D through rebranding, leaving a number of people loving and/or hating pscionics dissatisfied. My favorite implementation thus far has been with 3.5E and Pathfinder (i.e., Dreamscarred Press, Paizo's Psychic Adventures), where it admittedly is a form of magic, which I don't mind per se. The sorcerer, warlock, wizard, bard, cleric, druid, monk, and others all do "magic," but their differing approaches, aesthetics, and yes traditions within the game resulted in different classes that support those differences.

Great idea. In fact, since it's so easy to fluff things, you could simply fluff an existing class (or multi-class) into the psionicist you want, without the need for a new class.

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I don't think that represents their argument fairly, since I am sure that you recognize that the amount of effort to refluff things does not apply equally. So there is false equivalance at play here couched in unwarranted snideness given the non-negative tone of zicar's post. That said, I estimate that a psionicist would likely require enough fluff and mechanical changes to any of the pre-existing classes such that a new class would be sufficiently warranted.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Interesting, as I regard transmutation more as matter-over-matter or energy-over-matter, especially when linked to the wizard's more studious approach to magic that harkens back to the pseudo/quasi-science of pre-chemistry transmutation. There is certainly no small irony in the two unequal treatments of the wizard and psion. The latter is accused of feeling "too sci-fi", whereas the former gets praised in its studious scientific treatment of magic as a tool. The former often has people imagining the incantations and spell names in Latin (or a Latinized "Draconic"), whereas the latter actually does use names and concepts with Greek (e.g., psyche, ego, metabolism) and Latin (e.g., id) roots.

Psionics does not feel sci-fi to me, but, rather, "science"-fantasy or more arguably post-Enlightenment fantasy. That aesthetic can likely be attributed, in part, with how a lot of the psionic concepts come from a renewed sense of fantastic elements in the world amdist the marginalization of "fantasy" in the post-Enlightenment age of science and rationality. So I agree that, in some respects, psionics feels "modern." The aesthetic and concepts seem built on a hodge podge of concepts from the 19th to mid-20th century (e.g. Victorian spiritualism, paranormal phenomenon, mesmerism, early psychology, Western appropriation of East Asian mysticism, New Age spirituality, etc.). Here, however, I would argue that the psionicst (however we label this archetype) more closely emulates our sense for the "magic" of our historical traditions than the magic that many D&D classes perform (e.g. fireball, lightning bolts, grease, etc.), which are largely themselves rooted in modern literary notions of fantasy.


That said, I am not a fan of the 5e approach to psionics, though I am warming up to the concept of the mystic, particularly in light of the above mini-rant. I think that 5e does a disservice to psionics as it attempts to marginalize and sugarcoat the psionic tradition in D&D through rebranding, leaving a number of people loving and/or hating pscionics dissatisfied. My favorite implementation thus far has been with 3.5E and Pathfinder (i.e., Dreamscarred Press, Paizo's Psychic Adventures), where it admittedly is a form of magic, which I don't mind per se. The sorcerer, warlock, wizard, bard, cleric, druid, monk, and others all do "magic," but their differing approaches, aesthetics, and yes traditions within the game resulted in different classes that support those differences.

Interesting. And I agree with much of this.

What this has me thinking about is that maybe one of my instinctive negative reactions to psionics is that, yeah, it's just another version of (or attempted rationale for) "magic" that has emerged over the centuries. And D&D already has magic covered. So maybe it's analogous to not only introducing guns, but at the same time also introducing new combat rules for guns that don't simply reuse the rules for crossbows. "Ah, crossbows have range but guns have accuracy..." Or whatever.

I might hate the Mystic less if they were just spellcasters with their own lists.

@Elfcrusher, I don't think that represents their argument fairly, since I am sure that you recognize that the amount of effort to refluff things does not apply equally. So there is false equivalance at play here couched in unwarranted snideness given the non-negative tone of zicar's post. That said, I estimate that a psionicist would likely require enough fluff and mechanical changes to any of the pre-existing classes such that a new class would be sufficiently warranted.

Ok, it was a little snarky. But it was also facetious. Asking somebody to simply re-fluff elements they don't like is actually asking quite a bit. If I get stuck at a table with somebody playing a class (or race, or whatever) that "breaks" the fiction for me, in the sense that it simply doesn't fit in the fantasy world I envision, am I supposed to edit everything they say in order to refluff it in my head?

 

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I don't think that represents their argument fairly, since I am sure that you recognize that the amount of effort to refluff things does not apply equally. So there is false equivalance at play here couched in unwarranted snideness given the non-negative tone of zicar's post. That said, I estimate that a psionicist would likely require enough fluff and mechanical changes to any of the pre-existing classes such that a new class would be sufficiently warranted.

The key is whether psoinics is magic.

In a 'psionics-is-magic' campaign/setting, re-skinning GOO Warlock or creating a new Sorcerer 'Wild Talent' origin or Wizard Tradition of 'Mysticism' or whatever. It's not like learning/prepping spells and expending slots is all that tightly coupled to the concepts of the various caster classes as it is.

But, if the concept is that 'psionics are different,' then that runs up against not only feel but mechanical issues, some very obvious - you shouldn't be able to counterspell something that is neither a spell nor magical, for instance.

If I get stuck at a table with somebody playing a class (or race, or whatever) that "breaks" the fiction for me, in the sense that it simply doesn't fit in the fantasy world I envision, am I supposed to edit everything they say in order to refluff it in my head?

Yes.

By the same token, if you're playing your favorite class (or race or whatever), and that "breaks" the fiction for the guy across the table from you, he should extend you the same basic courtesy.

The exception is when you're DMing, if you decide the Mystic doesn't fit you campaign, it's out, end of story.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Greg K]

My issue with the Mystic is the design of the class itself. If it was done more like the 3e Psychic class from Green Ronin, I would be onboard.