Unearthed Arcana 5E Psionics Alert! The Mystic Is Back In Unearthed Arcana

It's back! The long-awaited new version of the mystic - 5th Edition's psionic class - is here. "The mystic class, a master of psionics, has arrived in its entirety for you to try in your D&D games. Thanks to your playtest feedback on the class’s previous two versions, the class now goes to level 20, has six subclasses, and can choose from many new psionic disciplines and talents. Explore the material here—there’s a lot of it—and let us know what you think in the survey we release in the next installment of Unearthed Arcana." Click the image below for the full 28-page PDF!

SaveSave
SaveSave​

 

[Eric V]

Yeah...tops out at an average of 31.5 damage. Magic Missile cast at 7th level does the same average damage. Seemed OP at first, but yeah, it perhaps isn't.

 

[bganon]

To see how MAD things really are for Immortals/Soul Knives (I suspect not as much as people think), let's see what features actually key off Int.

Core Mystic:
None, except for Potent Psionics if you have a damage-dealing Talent (these are all ranged)

Order of the Immortal:
Psionic Resilience (temp hp)

Order of the Soul Knife:
None

Adaptive Body: None
Bestial Form: None
Brute Force: only the Knockback save
Celerity: None
Corrosive Metabolism: most of the abilities have saves
Diminution: only the Toppling Shift save
Giant Growth: None
Iron Durability: None
Psionic Restoration: None
Psionic Weapon: Ethereal Weapon's Dex save

So that's 6 disciplines with zero Int requirements, and 3 more with only one feature that benefits from Int. I've left out a lot of other disciplines that don't require Int, either, like many of the Nomad or Avatar disciplines.

Any Talent that isn't a ranged attack doesn't depend on Int either.

So as a Soul Knife, INT is completely a dump stat. For an Immortal, their only real use is for the temp hp, but you're free to dump those for CON if the AC/HP bonus is better, and you won't be lacking for disciplines.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Even though this table has labeled itself optional, the quirks are not, it is spelled out -paraphrased not quoted-"if you don't like these quirks you have to make your own, and they gotta be as disgusting and repelling as these"

Well, It was so horrible I'd like to pretend that was never the case and those paragraphs were blank thank you.

Any particular reason you were able to apply your second quote to the Far Realms connection but can't to it to the Mystic quirks?

At some point WotC does need to put some flavor on all of their classes. They can't all be blank slates of just game mechanics. This *is* a story-based game after all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why are you shoving a warlord build into the psion?

It's. An. Ardent. It doesn't do the 4e Ardent half bad. It's a little shy of the 3.5 version, though, on the surface - which is all the impression I ever had of the 3.5 version, so I could be wrong (IIRC, the 3.5 Ardent was into universal truths, not just a telempath).

If they'd just called it the Ardent...
...but 'Order of the Ardent' doesn't quite scan, and sounds like a fanclub. (While Order of the Avatar, face it WotC, sounds like a cult following an incarnated deity on earth.)

Of course, why a non-group of outcasts would have 'Orders' IDK, anyway.

(The whole coming up with different words for sub-class for most classes thing, BTW, it's working about as well as giving powers of different Sources different labels did in 4e.)

The soulknife should be a rogue subclass. Wheres the fighter/Psionic subclass wizards hinted at?

My guess is they'll hammer out the mechanics of the Mystic first, since mechanics are such a sticking point for psionics (they've been quite different in each edition, afterall, so there's no 'classic game' or 'first appearance as a PH1 class' touch-stone like there is for everything else.).

Second, I disagree re: re-skinning. I have found re-skinning to be remarkably easy. IMO.

I don't think it's in the least bit /hard/ to re-skin, it's an act of imagination!
Rather, just as 5e does great things in creating an expectation of DM rulings-over-rules and thus Empowering the DM again, it also creates an expectation that classes will cover concepts closely and in mechanically distinct ways. There's a flip side to everything, and just as 5e DMs must take responsibility for more of the game in return for being Empowered, fluff-rich mechanically distinctive classes discourage re-skinning, and encourage, unavoidably, calls for more mechanically-distinct classes that cover the concepts the existing ones don't.

Third, I completely agree re: psionics and magic. This is a fundamental problem when you try to graft on a psionics system after you have already releases a number of core rules sets, including several Monster Manuals; either the psinoics play by the regular rules, and are easy to incorporate (in which case, who care- they are just spells/abilities) or you don't, in which case everything you have previously released may be more vulnerable. It's a delicate balancing act.

It is, and I don't think they've done a terrible job so far, rough as it all is.
Keeping it all in a single class seems like it should help, for instance.


But, yeah, I don't envy designers their jobs one bit. 'Thankless' and 'Sisyphean' barely cover it.

 

[Argyle King]

It looks as thought a few 4E classes are making it anti the game under the guise of psionics.

 

[ZeshinX]

If they'd just called it the Ardent...
...but 'Order of the Ardent' doesn't quite scan, and sounds like a fanclub. (While Order of the Avatar, face it WotC, sounds like a cult following an incarnated deity on earth.)

'Order of the Ardent Mind' sounds better. To me anyway.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

It's a a surprise the wu jen like psionic class now, but I don't dislike it because background is too close. The mystic's quirks only for the wu jen.

I imagine the soul knife not like a subclass, but a psionic warrior/paladin/swordsagge/warblade.

I hope the return of the psionic ardent like a psionic paladin, because it can be used to create stories about love-hate relations with the divine spellcasters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Was the 4e PH3 really so obscure that no one recognizes the psionic classes?
(I mean, I didn't even bother looking at it, at first, because it said 'psionic' on the cover, but I thought that was just me...)

It looks as thought a few 4E classes are making it anti the game under the guise of psionics.

There's no 'guise of psionics' involved: the Ardent, Battlemind and Psion were Psionic, that was prettymuch the whole point of 'em. They're in witness protection, apparently, under false names (Avatar, Immortal, everything-else-but-the-Wu-Jen, but they're still psionic..
...er, Mystic.
Whatever.

The odd Order out(npi!), the Wu Jen - a 1e OA class and 2e Kit (and, like everything in the multiverse, presumably a 3.5 PrC) - though, is 'guised as psionic, for some reason.

'Order of the Ardent Mind' sounds better. To me anyway.

It does, to me, too, actually.

 

[mellored]

Ummm...is that a yes or a no? Do Warlord fans still need a "non-magical, non-psionic, non-supernatural" option?

IMO..

At low levels, you just don't have enough points to use warlord things all the time. And there is no warlord talent. (Though avatars at-will move granting is great). I can cross my fingers for a good warlord talent (say... as an action, you can give +1d4 to someone's next d20 roll), but won’t hold my breath.

At higher levels (11+), you have enough points to do warlord things each round.

Though I still feel there's plenty of room for a maneuver based weapon class. Which could incorporate Warlords amongst other classes, like dualists, weapon masters, kensi, etc... similar to how mystic can fit so many concepts.

 

[Aldarc]

Ummm...is that a yes or a no? Do Warlord fans still need a "non-magical, non-psionic, non-supernatural" option?

I would say, "yes."