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

[Hussar]

What's wrong with associating mystics with swamis and gurus? Isn't that what a psion is? And, at least with mystic, my verdampt autocorrect doesn't keep kicking in and trying to change psion to poison.

But, in any case, psionics is what a mystic uses. There's no real problem with that. We don't call a fighter a weaponist after all, even though that would likely be more accurate. We don't call casters magicists. Casters use magic (either divine or arcane). Heck, we dropped Magic User twenty or so years ago precisely because of this. Fighter types use weapons. Barbarians use Rage. Mystics use psionics.

Not naming the class after what it uses is pretty much in keeping with D&D naming practices.

 

[77IM]

I like "psionics" as a form of magic that is neither god-based nor spirit-based nor ritual/formula based, but rather meditation/concentration based. "Psions" are in the same broad club as monks and X-Men telepaths. They are often bald, and they touch their fingers to their heads when casting spells. In Rolemaster, this sort of magic is called "Mentalism".

Interesting. It sounds like you just want another type of spellcaster (or, "supernatural practitioner," since they are not casting spells). That makes sense; people want different amounts of "stuff" and some people want more than what the PHB provides.

But "just another supernatural practitioner" is exactly what I don't want from psions. I only want D&D supplements that change the nature of the game or setting somehow. Anything else is bloat.

 

[Mistwell]

Hermetisist?
Esotericist?
Theosophist?
Magi?
Channeler?
Oracular?
Vatic?
Mentalist?
Seer?
Supernaturalist?

 

[pemerton]

Interesting. It sounds like you just want another type of spellcaster (or, "supernatural practitioner," since they are not casting spells).

Correct.

For me it's not a big deal whether the system labels them spellcasters or not (in Rolemaster, clerics, magicians and mentalists all cast spells; in AD&D clerics and magicians cast spells but psionics involves disciplines; in 4e clerics use prayers, magicians (wizards) use spells, and psions use disciplines). If the system has magic detection and anti-magic effects then I prefer that psionics/mentalism be within its scope, simply because it makes adjudication and balancing easier. (This doesn't really come up in 4e, because 4e doesn't have anti-magic effects and downplays the importance of detecting magic.)

For me it's mostly about flavour - much like the contrast between a sorcerer, a warlock, a druid and a spell-book using wizard. In a very rules-light approach to PC-building these could all be mechanically the same thing, but D&D is not a rules-light system of that sort.

 

[Dragonhelm]

My problem is the possible confusion and double duty this class might bring. Mystic is very close to Dragonlance, so having a Mystic class having both psions and dragonlance mystics will water them down, and if it doesn't cover DL mystics there is lots of room for confusion.

When 3e came about, the sorcerer class was introduced. Dragonlance already had a sorcerer in the form of a Fifth Age role. Sovereign Press, who held the Dragonlance license, tried to create an alternate class to fit the DL sorcerer more, but WotC mandated that the DL sorcerer be the 3e sorcerer. Eventually, the Academy Sorcerer prestige class was created to give a bit of the Fifth Age sorcerer flavor back.

If history repeated itself, the psionic mystic would not be the best fit. In some areas, it would be fine. But the connection to the Far Realm really would not fit the Dragonlance flavor. Of course, the class could be re-skinned. Still, it would be missing things like healing (a HUGE staple of the mystic) and the sphere of Animism (which translates best to the Nature domain).

For anyone interested, I did a 5e conversion of the mystic, inspired by the favored soul.

Mystic Sorcerer (Sorcerous Origin: Mysticism)

And part of this all is tradition? I mean if it is supposed to be a Psion update why not call it Psion? Why use a name that was already used in two different contexts and is very closely linked to DL with a more divine flavor, won't that make psion fans feel marginated? it feels like another case of "change so haters like it at the cost of the fans". Do we need yet another flavor of magic? if Psion is a no go why still call the source Psionics? at which point does it stop being a rose by another name and starts being something completely different?

I think WotC is kind of following the trend that Paizo is doing by having psionics, but making it more fantasy-flavored.

 

[Dragonhelm]

In Rolemaster, this sort of magic is called "Mentalism".

One of the spheres of mysticism in Dragonlance was called Mentalism.

The Fifth Age mystic really could be divided into three D&D classes: the cleric (without gods), the druid, and the psion. It was the power of all living things, and of death. Really, domains can cover a lot of that. That being said, Mentalism never quite felt divine to me, even when used in the novels.

So I can see an argument for some sort of psionic inclusion in Dragonlance, based on the Fifth Age mystic. However, it would need a lot of reskinning to make it feel right.

Also, I would really like to see the emphasis on crystals return. I thought that was more fantasy-like and it had some good flavor.

 

[pemerton]

I would really like to see the emphasis on crystals return. I thought that was more fantasy-like and it had some good flavor.

I like the crystals.

 

[PnPgamer]

To original topic:
Only if your mystic class is not mystical.

 

[Yaarel]

Psionics/Psion is a modern term, coined in 1956, by John W. Campbell Jr. for the February issue of his Astounding Science Fiction magazine. It was an expansion of an earlier term, psi, coined by the science fiction authors B.P. Wiesner and Robert H. Thouless in 1942.

Psychic is a slightly older term, though still relatively modern, coined by French astronomer and spiritualist Camille Flammarion in the mid-1800’s, and later introduced to the English language by publisher Edward William Cox in the 1870’s.

Earlier archaic terms for such abilities, as opposed to the concept of Magic in western culture, are found in Indian Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. In Hindu and Tibetan/Chinese Bhudism the practice is called Sādhanā, in Japanese Bhudism it’s called Shugendo. Practitioners in Hindu are called Siddhas, in Japanese Buddhism they are called Shugenja (yet another thing D&D got wrong…). The abilities they exhibit are called Siddhis in Hindu, while in Buddhism they are called Iddhi. There are also correlates in Jainism and Sikhism.

These Siddhis commonly use knowledge gained through Sādhanā, Tantras, meditation, and the manipulation of Prana (Qi, Ki, or Chi in Buddhist belief).

In the West, practitioners are called Yogis or Mystics (Mystic from French mystique, Old French mistique, Latin mysticus, and originating with Ancient Greek mustikos (secret, mystic) and mustes (one who has been initiated).

So I prefer Mystic, or Siddhas, for psionicist/psion, and call psi/psionics either Prana or Sādhanā.

What these terms have in common - Psychic, Psi, and Psionics - is defining such mysterious phenomena as natural, a capability that any person has, even if some persons might be ‘stronger’ than others. In this sense, these natural abilities are ethically neutral, and depend entirely on how a person uses such talents. These are uncommon expressions, but are inherently naturalistic.

Other Indoeuropean traditions, besides India, also share the concept that ones mind is able to influence physical reality. For example, Nordic traditions refer to the power of the mind. Jewish mysticism correlates the intellect of a person with the highest aspects of reality. Australian Aborigines perceive reality itself as Dreamtime, in which all aspects of nature have psychic presences. And so on.

 

[Yaarel]

I get the impression that some players who want ‘psionics’ to have Hindu flavor, do so because they want psionics to be weird (and exotic) and they think Hindus are weird (and exotic).

It seems a replay of ‘Asia is different’. So Samurai has to be different from Fighter.

The fact is, all humans have minds, and therefore, any human can be psionic.

Stop trying to remove peoples brain.

The alienation by means of the Far Realms seems a similar hostility against D&D players who want psionic characters.

Likewising reserving psionics for monsters only.

Psionics is a persons own mind. Nothing else. Human. (And other beings whose minds resemble human minds.)