Ninja-radish
First Post
Pathfinder and 4E are by far my favorite editions of D&D, and I love to read so the image of a ton of books doesn't scare me. It just makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks for that!
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Pathfinder and 4E are by far my favorite editions of D&D, and I love to read so the image of a ton of books doesn't scare me. It just makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks for that!
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
I'm pretty sure I owned every one of those books. And they were cool. But the exponential increase in complexity of the game was a definite drawback to me both as a player and a DM. WotC's measured approach with 5e is much appreciated from my POV.
Ninja-radish
First Post
Sure I totally get that. However, you don't actually need to buy any book you don't want. Nobody is going to force you to buy stuff you don't want. Btw I love your user name, I'm a big 40k fan.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
Absolutely. If that's your thing, enjoy! It was definitely something I liked when I was younger. Just a lot of water under the bridge since then and an appreciation for the current approach.
Tales and Chronicles
Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I'd like to have psionics in my game, but I dont think the mystic is the answer for me. I let one of my player play one in a current campaign and we all agree it seems a little off. Its not a power thing, its balanced enought for us, but the main question is always: what are you exactly? The character herself is pretty cool, but the class seems to lack a unified theme, making it hard to explain what is a mystic.
Player 1: ''I'm an hermit who lived in reclusion from society and master the magic of the elements''
Player 2: ''ok, so you're a druid?''.
Player 1: ''No, its more like I removed myself from society to work on perfecting my inner self to manifest new powers''
Player 3: ''ha...he's playing a monk!''
Player 1: '' Nha, Its more like casting spell with my willpower, like, it comes from the inside''
Player 2: ''...a sorcerer?''
etc
In my games, ''classes'' do not exist, but my players still prefer when a character as a good narative in addition to cool mechanics (which Mystics have, IMO).
Player 1: ''I'm an hermit who lived in reclusion from society and master the magic of the elements''
Player 2: ''ok, so you're a druid?''.
Player 1: ''No, its more like I removed myself from society to work on perfecting my inner self to manifest new powers''
Player 3: ''ha...he's playing a monk!''
Player 1: '' Nha, Its more like casting spell with my willpower, like, it comes from the inside''
Player 2: ''...a sorcerer?''
etc
In my games, ''classes'' do not exist, but my players still prefer when a character as a good narative in addition to cool mechanics (which Mystics have, IMO).
Tony Vargas
Legend
There's a lot of Lovecraft influence in D&D. Wingless-Star-Spawn-of-C'thulhu 'Mind Flayers' are just the most obvious. They're also among the most notorious users of psionics. And they're aberrations.
Do you cut all aberrations from the game, or just change the type to something less annoying?
The Far Realm is just a plane no one can really go to, cutting it couldn't be easier.
Meh. Inventing something, even something as HPL-derivative as the Far Realm, may or may not be that easy for everyone, and, fluff can be a source of inspiration, even if you do end up changing it. So just not having it isn't a wonderful idea, especially when it comes to a game like 5e strongly tied to a setting (or settings... hmm... maybe I shouldn't have brought it up). Settling on just one fluff explanation just leads to exactly this kind of argument, where those who like it insist 'just don't use it' and those who don't insist 'just add it yourself.' Divisive and counter-productive.
What is easier is to just select from among several flavor options.
The Far Realm connection to psionics should be presented, as an in-setting hypothesis or a DM option, one of at least a few. Similarly, the Weave should be presented as one way of explaining arcane magic, that's nominally official in FR, at the most, but not the only one.
That's just taking the philosophy of DM Empowerment and optional rules that's already prevalent in 5e to the realm of fluff, where it works even better and with fewer downsides.
Last edited:
On the other hand, we have many wizard sub-classes, plus the Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock, Cleric, and Druid. Not to mention other sub-classes that are "magic type guys". And it's not like the Barbarian, Paladin, etc. bring along a whole new combat system that accomplishes a lot of the same things that the current one, but different. Which is to say, the analogy is a little off. We already have multiple classes that 'swing a sword' and none of them feel compelled to bring in a new combat system to represent 'swinging a sword'.
Now, that said, I'm not opposed to the idea of the Mystic, just concerned that it seems thematically unfocused and a bit--well, meh.
Tony Vargas
Legend
None of the classes, but the BM brings a new combat system - CS dice/maneuvers.
Ninja-radish
First Post
The Mystic isn't to my liking either to be honest, and the major problem with the Mystic is it tries to fit caster and martial into one "do it all" class. It really needs to be broken up into a martial "psychic warrior" class, a caster "psion" class and possibly a rogue type "soulknife" class. It's extremely difficult to create one class that can perform every single role, and that's the failing of the Mystic.
That said, psionics can be done and done well, but not the way WOTC has been doing it so far in this edition.
Similar Threads
