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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Tell me, do you ever make an argument that is not in bad faith? "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

 

[RotGrub]

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.

Since most of the lore was removed in the last edition it did return. There is nothing wrong with Kobolds being slaves to dragons and salamanders being slaves to Efreeti because that's just additional lore. There is nothing forcing you from using it. 5e doesn't have pages of empty and uninspiring formulaic stat blocks.

On the other hand if a monster like the kobold was renamed to Mybold that would be a crime. It would cause confusion.

As for the Far Realm, I couldn't care less. That plane is not part of traditional D&D cosmology since it originated in 4e. I don't see why it's such a big deal, but perhaps it has something to do with how much 4e trampled over traditional D&D lore.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Not a huge fan of "mystic" for a psi class. To me the term "mystic" evokes Professor Trelawney from the Harry Potter books, which is definitely not my idea of a psi user. It's only saving grace is that it's leagues better than "psion" and "psionicist" in terms of fantasy flavor.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Potato, potahto. I really don't care so long as both options are available.

 

[Hussar]

Since most of the lore was removed in the last edition it did return. There is nothing wrong with Kobolds being slaves to dragons and salamanders being slaves to Efreeti because that's just additional lore. There is nothing forcing you from using it. 5e doesn't have pages of empty and uninspiring formulaic stat blocks.

On the other hand if a monster like the kobold was renamed to Mybold that would be a crime. It would cause confusion.

As for the Far Realm, I couldn't care less. That plane is not part of traditional D&D cosmology since it originated in 4e. I don't see why it's such a big deal, but perhaps it has something to do with how much 4e trampled over traditional D&D lore.

Nope. Far Realms is from 2e and much expanded in 3e.

Adding Far Realms to Psionics is just additional lore. There's nothing forcing you from using it. So, what's the problem?

 

[RotGrub]

Nope. Far Realms is from 2e and much expanded in 3e.

Adding Far Realms to Psionics is just additional lore. There's nothing forcing you from using it. So, what's the problem?

What's the 2e source?

Why do you think I'm complaining about the Far Realm? It should be clear to you, if you've read my posts that I'm not happy with the class name "Mysitc"

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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

Add my voice to list of complaints against a Far Realm tie-in. I don't hate the very idea of the Far Realm in D&D as much as used to, but I prefer it be left vague and not tightly tied to anything. Heck, in 5e, I'm not even sure they officially say that aberrations are related to the Far Realm, just that it's a theory. Keep it the same with psionics.

"Cthulu thou art" is hardly the transcendent spiritual experience my "mystics" are going for.

 

[Queer Venger]

So far Im liking the reference to the Far Realm, it matches the Forgotten Realms perfectly and gives psionics its origin story. Im also a huge fan of mystic, it aligns to the actual origins of psychic powers like psychometry. I never got 'psionic' souncs like sonic, 'psion' sounds like scion, but still sounds modern, not psychic.

 

[Hussar]

What's the 2e source?

Why do you think I'm complaining about the Far Realm? It should be clear to you, if you've read my posts that I'm not happy with the class name "Mysitc"

2e Gates of Firestorm Pass. From the blurb:

Expanding the Outer Planes. Firestorm Peak's largest contribution to the history of D&D was its introduction of the Far Realm, a Lovecraftian dimension of insanity and horror. The introduction of a new dimension for the AD&D game was pretty uncommon at the time, so the Far Realm probably would have gotten attention in any case. As was, it got a lot of attention because it was evocative and focused on one of D&D's influences that had long been neglected — the Cthulhu mythos.

Sorry, no, it's not clear what you're complaining about. You said:

I think the 5e monster manual is one of the best since 2e. Lore is 100% required and acceptable. The designers just have to be sure they don't tread on what has already been established. There is nothing wrong with expanding upon lore or making minor corrections, but to fundamentally change the nature of something like Psionics is a mistake.

Personally, I'd rather have lore than no lore at all.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ic-quot-a-bad-class-name/page11#ixzz3fsBFxomG

Very, very little has ever been established as to the source of Psionics. Since you have no issues with rewriting many, many monsters, why do you have an issue here?

And, if it's only the name that's an issue, why not just change it at your table? Is it really going to cause you that much angst to simply refer to it by a different name?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

2e Gates of Firestorm Pass. From the blurb:







Sorry, no, it's not clear what you're complaining about. You said:







Very, very little has ever been established as to the source of Psionics. Since you have no issues with rewriting many, many monsters, why do you have an issue here?



And, if it's only the name that's an issue, why not just change it at your table? Is it really going to cause you that much angst to simply refer to it by a different name?

It's reasonable to be okay with some changes in more, but not others. Each has to be considered on its own merits. I dislike the connection to the far realms because it doesn't fit with my view of psionics. I dislike the name change because I've loved the psion/psionicist for twenty years.

This is a playtest document. It's intended to get our feedback and to engender discussion. When the final version is released, then we all have to choose how we handle psionics in our campaigns. Until then, we can attempt to affect change.