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

[RotGrub]

Three times from memory. There was a 2e priest class in the forgotten realms pantheon book that was named a mystic.

It's actually been used a total of 5 times.

1. 1e Monk
2. Faith's and Avatar's Divine Class (candle user)
3. Dragonlance 5th Age
4. 2e Wizard Kit
5. Al-Qadim

Any in 3e?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

And, I'm curious. For those that are really bothered by the idea of psionics being tied to the Far Realms, why don't you have similar issues with all magic being tied to the Weave? Isn't that just as intrusive? Maybe I've just missed it, but, for the past year of 5e, all magic, whether arcane or divine, comes from The Weave. That's a huge change from previous D&D lore where clerical spells were granted by gods. Why aren't clerics just another wizard?

I've got no objection at all to discussing preferences for different versions of background lore. But I don't agree that the lore in the PDF fundamentally changes the nature of the class - because (i) it is fairly continuous with the 4e lore, and (ii) it is easily ignored with no effect at all on the mechanics or the flavour they generate.

Upthread @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) asserted that "From Magic-user to Wizard:Mage there is little difference, the mechanics remain pretty much the same between editions, the flavor remains unchanged as are the aesthetics, only the name changed." But in fact, as Hussar points out, the flavour has changed radically. In AD&D (at least 1st ed) spells were memorised, and casting them involved channelling power from the positive and negative material planes. Since 3E spells are prepared, not memorised, and there is nothing about channelling power from the positive or negative material planes. In 5e, all spells involve manipulating "the weave", which hitherto was a purely FR notion.

In the same way that many players just ignore these shifting background flavours for magic-use, so I'm sure they can and will ignore shifting background flavours for psionics. Ultimately I think it's just not that big a deal.

For most of D&D's history, magic hasn't had a source, it just is. Certain settings had answers for it (the Weave as Torils, Mystara had the Radiance, Krynn the three moons) and there has been nothing* so far that contradicts that. The Far Realm as psionic's "default" should be likewise inoffensive, as long as they call out the exceptions (or allow for exceptions to happen where previous lore did exist) I don't mind the "general unless exception" method of lore.

* that being said, we've not scene another setting to attempt to contradict the Realms/default system yet. I'd be very cross if, for example, Krynn's three moons were re-written to just a path to the Weave (and other casters could access it outside the Moons/Towers) or if Mystara's Radiance stopped being the radiation of a nuclear generator(!) and just became the Weave. The core rules lore should be the default when there is no other lore already in place.

The Weave is just the Forgotten Realms name for the magical interface that allow you to use the magic in the multiverse. There are no special rules for it. The only thing that is official is that there is an interface between the raw ambient magic that fills everything (or if you prefer to take a more scientific angle, just say that this "raw magic" is mass-energy), and the spellcaster's will. On Krynn, that interface is the gods of magic. On Mystara it's that nuclear energy (I hadn't heard of that one--suitably wacky for the setting!) And clerical spells are still mediated by divine power. It's the gods (or your faith in them) which connect you to the magic interface.

So no real change. Clarification or codification, but it doesn't invalidate prior lore or force any specifics. Unless "there's raw magic and you access it via...something..." is too specific.

As far as the lore of psionics, I'm going to have to disagree. While the Far Realms might work fine for some 4e players, it is something that many 5e players (many of which had little to no 4e experience) are going to find rather alien. (pun intended)

Why do I care about the default lore? Because my players (at least some of them) buy D&D books. When you buy books, they give you expectations. Like most DMs I house rule, but I prefer to do it as little as I feel that I can. I don't want players coming into my game all excited about something they read in one of the very few official D&D player resources, only to hear me say, "nah, I'm not doing it that way. Here's the alternate fluff in my game..." I do have to do that on some things, but I prefer to minimize it.

By simply making that piece of lore an option rather than "the way it is" things like this aren't going to be a problem.

EDIT: My specific objection to psionics being connected to the Far Realm by default is that the Far Realm is icky. It's like someone puked all over psionics. It makes psionics unappealing and dirty feeling.

 

[Remathilis]

It's actually been used a total of 5 times.

1. 1e Monk
2. Faith's and Avatar's Divine Class (candle user)
3. Dragonlance 5th Age
4. 2e Wizard Kit
5. Al-Qadim

Any in 3e?

Several. A Mystic PrC appeared in Dragon 274, there was the Celestial Mystic (Exalted Deeds), Wandering Mystic (Magic of Faerun), Henshin Mystic (Oriental Adventures) and of course, the Mystic Theurge (DMG).

Oh, and the mystic was the name of the Basic D&D monk class in the Rules Cyclopedia, not the 1e one.

 

[Remathilis]

Surprisingly, only one in 4e: Entrancing Mystic was a warlock paragon path. There were three backgrounds and two feats with mystic in it.

 

[Diamondeye]

I don't see that it's all that bad compared to some of the other class names that have been used. "Hexblade", "Spellthief", "Dragon Shaman". I mean really, WTF?

 

[RotGrub]

Several. A Mystic PrC appeared in Dragon 274, there was the Celestial Mystic (Exalted Deeds), Wandering Mystic (Magic of Faerun), Henshin Mystic (Oriental Adventures) and of course, the Mystic Theurge (DMG).

Oh, and the mystic was the name of the Basic D&D monk class in the Rules Cyclopedia, not the 1e one.

Thanks, my memories of 1e are mostly flashbacks.

So that makes 10. Do we really need another? come on Mearls.... think this one through.

 

[RotGrub]

I don't see that it's all that bad compared to some of the other class names that have been used. "Hexblade", "Spellthief", "Dragon Shaman". I mean really, WTF?

I agree, a class name should be evocative of the concept to a non-gamer. All I'm saying is that Mystic doesn't exactly work for psionics, but it's far better than "Duskblade" I mean WTF is a duskblade anyway? Does his blade only work at Dusk?

 

[RotGrub]

1. D&D Basic Monk (Rules Cyclopedia)
2. Faith's and Avatar's Divine Class (candle user)
3. Dragonlance 5th Age
4. 2e Wizard Kit
5. Al-Qadim (Mystic of Nog, a sha'ir kit)
6. Mystic PrC appeared in Dragon 274
7. Mystic in 2e as part of Masque of the Red Death
8. Celestial Mystic (Exalted Deeds)
9. mystic character kit in the Player's Option books
10. complete book of humanoids had a wandering mystic
11. 1st edition had a mystic class in a dragon article
12. 4e: Entrancing Mystic was a warlock paragon path
13. Mystic Theurge (3.5e)
14. Mystic Wanderer (FR 3.0)
15. Henshin Mystic (oriental adventures)
16. Dragon Mystic (dragon 296)
17. Mystic Keeper of Corellon Larethian (dragon 328 )


ok someone send this list to Mearls and ask him if number 18 is the charm.

 

[RotGrub]

.dup

 

[RotGrub]

Looks like the name has a good history of magical kits and classes.

Yeah, Psionics is not magic.