Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8992668" data-attributes="member: 87792">No. It was an excellent attempt at making a psionics class for people that like D&D psionics. I like psionics - but I like them from the perspective of someone who grew up on the X-men and sci fi novels. And I've always found a huge disconnect between the way psionics worked in fiction and the way they mechanically work in D&D. The further we get from Tower Of Iron Will and Intellect Fortress the better (which to be fair the Mystic doesn't have)I find the mystic significantly worse than the Aberrant Mind for actually being a psychic that works in the way I'd expect a psychic to. First the Mystic tries to be all types of psychic while the aberrant mind is much more focused and leaves the physical combat styles to other subclasses (one for monk, one for fighter, one for rogue). The Soulknife for example is a much more low key psychic spy. Utterly inappropriate for e.g. Professor X - but far more so for 70s Sci Fi psychic spies (or even 1930s Lensmen) who were meant to be very competent at a range of things rather than being magic first.Second they are both primary casters with spell points (the Aberrant Mind changes the conversion rates to metamagic points), and cantrips/talents. But the Mystic is far more inflexible. The Aberrant Mind can pick exactly the spells to suit the character you want rather than entire disciplines being all-or-nothing. This means that when a caster broadens their specialisation rather than growing by only a few spells they get them all delivered to them in a single glurge wave. A level 8 bestial form mystic who first got the ability to bestial form at level 7 is precisely as good at it as one who's been doing that sort of thing right from level 1 - but they only know four disciplines. There's not much granularity in learning; it's all or nothing as if you download literally everything within the discipline as soon as you get it. There's far more granular control and progress if you aren't using such measures. And then as a DM I would find that the mystic (a 28 page document) with its entire parallel magic system would actively degrade my ability to run the game either by adding psychic NPCs (I'm not going to remember those disciplines) or by being able to assist the players. I don't always agree with what 5e does - but the decision not to have an entire parallel spell point using magic system that works largely in the way magic does was a good one.So no. I like psionics just fine. I've been playing them in RPGs since the 90s. 5e is the first time in the history of D&D I've seen more than a passing resemblance between the psionics I actually like and the D&D rules for them and find they add to rather than detract from the game. So don't tell me that the problems I have with the Mystic or the reason I actively like the current 5e implementations is that I don't like psionics. We just have extremely different ideas on what psionics are and how they should be represented.That said I am receptive to the idea that you shouldn't have tentacles enforced on you with the psion-type subclass.</blockquote>

Verification