D&D 5E Is "Mystic" a bad class name?

[RotGrub]

Therein lies the irony. The 5e Monster Manual changes, sometimes radically (since when are Minotaurs a "curse race"? That certainly counters lore in Dragonlance), lore of all sorts of creatures. And many people, apparently including you, think that's great. So, if it's great to rewrite the background of a large percentage of the monsters in the game, why is it bad to change the background of psionics?

They've been cursed for a long time. So, you're completely wrong. The default lore in my 2e MM includes such a curse for the Minotaur. So the 5e version didn't change anything in that regard. Dragonlance had its own MM with its own version of the Minotaur.

Campaign Settings can completely override the default lore for any monster or PC race in the game.

I haven't heard any complaints that the tie to the Far Realms is bad in and of itself. The idea has a pretty lengthy pedigree, even if it was never explicit. Yet, not adhering to 2e lore is now a bad thing?

Like I said, the irony is rather delicious.

As far as "is psionics affected by magic", well, I would hope they go the 3e route and sidebar the idea that "Psionics are different" to make every table happy. But, even if they don't, what's stopping you?

4e removed all the lore and that didn't make every table happy.

Many people have returned to D&D because much of the lore that D&D fans love has returned. This time around the designers made the effort to ensure that it returned. All I really want is for them to continue in that effort. I'm just not sure I'm seeing it with the Mystic (yet).

 

[Hussar]

But, that's the thing RotGrub. No, the lore didn't return. Since when were kobolds slaves to dragons? Since when were salamanders slaves to Efreeti? I'd forgotten the curse part of minotaurs in 2e to be honest. It was dropped in 3e and didn't appear in 1e.

Like I said, the irony is just palpable. You like the 5e Monster Manual, so, all the lore changes are great. However, psionics is something you really care about, so, the lore must follow whatever you like, otherwise, psionics just isn't psionics for you.

For me, I couldn't care less about earlier edition lore. Never could. A minor, throw away line about tying psionics to the Far Realms is a whole lot less intrusive than many of the monster entries in the Monster Manual, so, AFAIK, I simply don't care.

But it is fun watching those who do care squirm.

 

[Remathilis]

On a side note, it's really ironic. I argues vehemently against including lore in the 5e Monster Manual. I hate it. I really do. I think the 5e Monster Manual is a waste of space. But, everyone told me I was 100% wrong and that the game needs lore and that lore is important. Well, you got what you wished for. You want a game that's tied together with lore, well, here it is in spades. Funny how when it suddenly applies to people's favourite pet part of the game, it's a bad thing.

Careful what you wish for.

I'm okay with it, honestly.

Psionics tied to the Far Realm is mostly innocuous. I'm more concerned with that last paragraph which tried to tie Eberron and Dark Sun's psionics to the Far Realm. To me, that's like putting the Monster Manual drow in Eberron (complete with spiders, Lolth, and the Underdark) or forcing High, Wood, and Eladrin into Dark Sun. The core game isn't (nor has it been) fully generic; so adding a possible backstory to the core isn't a big deal; re-writing settings to fit the new core does.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Therein lies the irony. The 5e Monster Manual changes, sometimes radically (since when are Minotaurs a "curse race"? That certainly counters lore in Dragonlance), lore of all sorts of creatures.

Dragonlance minotaurs have never been the same species as standard D&D minotaurs. They share the name and the same general body shape, but other than that they are to standard minotaurs as Dragonlance "dark elves" are to drow--not the same thing.

The easiest way to see that is simply size. Dragonlance minotaurs are significantly smaller than standard minotaurs, in 3e and 5e terms it's the difference between Medium and Large size.

This is just an isolated comment not intended to be participating in the contextual discussion.

 

[Dausuul]

I haven't heard any complaints that the tie to the Far Realms is bad in and of itself.

There is obviously no way to prove that the Far Realm link is objectively bad (or good).

Subjectively and personally, I think it sucks. I don't care what edition it's from, I don't like the Far Realm. It's an attempt to port Lovecraft straight into D&D and it clashes sharply with the rest of the cosmology. I was much happier with the obyriths from Fiendish Codex I; clearly inspired by Lovecraft, but adapted to D&D's existing mythos.

(Then 4E redefined what obyriths were and knocked the whole thing into a cocked hat, but that's another story.)

 

[bogmad]

As far as "is psionics affected by magic", well, I would hope they go the 3e route and sidebar the idea that "Psionics are different" to make every table happy. But, even if they don't, what's stopping you?

What if they sidebar the idea that "Psionics aren't different"? Because that would make me happy, since the default keeps psionic mechanics and spell mechanics as different, and lets you have it your way with an optional rule.

If you're proposed route makes everybody happy, doesn't the inverse?
I mean, isn't that going the 2e way and not ignoring the 3e way, more or less? That's closer to "everyone" right?

 

[Sadrik]

Does Mystic class name work for a psionics class? Yes, though there are better
Should Far Realms be the default for psionics origin? No
Does Psionics need to be a unique casting method? No
Are psionics magic and be able to be dispelled? No/Yes, I think for consistency yes but for flavor no.
Can Psionics be completely under one class? Yes
Can Sorcerers, monks, and others have a psionic sub-class? Yes, not sure how to blend the classes' unique casting method.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't like the Far Realm. It's an attempt to port Lovecraft straight into D&D and it clashes sharply with the rest of the cosmology.

Lovecraft was a source of inspiration for D&D from the very beginning. Heck, they notoriously put the 'Lovecraftian Mythos' in the first printing of Deities & Demigods....

 

[MoonSong]

Well, I just casually asked my brother -who is a very casual gamer and not that involved in geeky stuff beyond what little he does to make me happy from time to time- the other day: "What is the first thing you think of about mystic?" his answer "Yugioh", Do you think it is a good moniker for psychics?" his answer "no".

 

[Dausuul]

Lovecraft was a source of inspiration for D&D from the very beginning. Heck, they notoriously put the 'Lovecraftian Mythos' in the first printing of Deities & Demigods....

Quoting myself:

I don't care what edition it's from, I don't like the Far Realm. It's an attempt to port Lovecraft straight into D&D and it clashes sharply with the rest of the cosmology. I was much happier with the obyriths from Fiendish Codex I; clearly inspired by Lovecraft, but adapted to D&D's existing mythos.