D&D 5E Mystic Speculation

[Aldarc]

Dude, really? You're upset about the name change?

When we have a tradition of "psionics" and "psion" in three editions, it's certainly a sore point that comes across more as appeasement to anti-psionic haters than something for psionic fans to be happy about. This, plus the controversial Far Realms flavor text leaves me somewhat less than enthused about the prospects of 5e psionics.

Further, I think you are creating a false dichotomy between "fans of all editions/best of D&D" and "D&D tradition."

I don't think "false dichotomy" means what you think it means.

D&D tradition is a massive four+ decade edifice and means different things to different people, depending upon their own history and when they imprinted with D&D (that is, started playing). Even the term "psionicist" didn't come out until maybe 2E (if I remember correctly).

Indeed, D&D tradition is as you say, but the term psionics and psion have been part of it for a solid portion of D&D's history.

 

[Parmandur]

Considering that in 4 editions, psionics has meant four entirely different things...there is room for innovation here, since no previous approach was fully accepted.

 

[Mercurius]

When we have a tradition of "psionics" and "psion" in three editions, it's certainly a sore point that comes across more as appeasement to anti-psionic haters than something for psionic fans to be happy about. This, plus the controversial Far Realms flavor text leaves me somewhat less than enthused about the prospects of 5e psionics.

So what you're saying is basically a variant on, "I don't like how 5E is doing things different from my personal associations and what my preferred approach is." Tons of people have versions of that and there's no way to avoid it, nor do I think it was ever the serious intention of WotC to try to make every single fan happy with every single aspect of 5E. What they have done--and in a way that I think exceeds reasonably expectations--is please a rather sizable percentage of players, which is the best they could have possibly done.

I don't think "false dichotomy" means what you think it means.

Perhaps I should have written "false equation" or "false conflation" in that sentence. But I do know what false dichotomy means, I just misused it in that sentence. But the false dichotomy is between D&D tradition and not pleasing all fans, or between D&D tradition and taking new approaches which can still honor tradition.

Indeed, D&D tradition is as you say, but the term psionics and psion have been part of it for a solid portion of D&D's history.

5E is including psionics. So far you've said that you're unhappy about the word "mystic," the (presumed) lack of certain terminology, and the use of Far Realms flavor text. Fair enough, but why is that a bigger problem than a mild irritation? I get that. But "giant middle finger" seems a tad hyperbolic (not to mention that you don't need to use their flavor text and you can re-skin it however you want).

I haven't been following UA closely so I don't know if they've stated the reason they are using mystic, but I assume it is because it is more fantastical and less scifi-ish. As I said up-thread, it is an avoidance of the midichlorian approach, or rationalized magic. I personally like that approach.

 

[Inchoroi]

Its a mix of things but I believe it is a concept issue. How i think it should feel when I use it is not what Im getting and the name and flavor just confuses me further, everytime I say mystic in my mind I see an oriental type mage with scrolls and talismans, thr name of the subclasses like inmortal makes it worst. Idk it really is a feel thing.

What does Uncle always say? Magic must defeat magic!

I really do want to play that someday. Maybe make my own arcane monk subclass....

In truth, I don't expect anything outside of FR, which makes Kara-Tur more likely than, say, Eberron or Dark Sun. I'd also prefer a more....disturbing?...twisted?...strange?...bent to Mystic (and do away with the name entirely, really, and just make them the "Psion" again). I've always thought Psionics in general were intended to be weird, a subversion of the traditional "Magic" of a setting. But, fluff is easily changed, so I'm not worried about that, as long as its balanced.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

We still have how many classes to get through? Four? Five?
I imagine we can expect the mystic in mid-February. Maybe...

"Mystic" is the next class in alphabetical order. Since Mike Mearls said they got the article finished by the end of last year, I'm expecting it either tomorrow or next Monday.

The other most likely class would be rogue, since I doubt ranger will be in this round, as much as it is "Under Construction".

About the fluff tangent, the discussion got me thinking of a better way to explain why I don't like the "just re-fluff it" approach.

Refluffed D&D is just d20. The more I have to refluff it, the less I am playing D&D, and the more I am playing a different game built off of d20 mechanics. I'm not buying that; I'm buying official D&D products. Therefore I care about what fluff gets published. Heck, personally D&D for me is more about the fluff than the mechanics anyway.

 

[Inchoroi]

"Mystic" is the next class in alphabetical order. Since Mike Mearls said they got the article finished by the end of last year, I'm expecting it either tomorrow or next Monday.

The other most likely class would be rogue, since I doubt ranger will be in this round, as much as it is "Under Construction".

About the fluff tangent, the discussion got me thinking of a better way to explain why I don't like the "just re-fluff it" approach.

Refluffed D&D is just d20. The more I have to refluff it, the less I am playing D&D, and the more I am playing a different game built off of d20 mechanics. I'm not buying that; I'm buying official D&D products. Therefore I care about what fluff gets published. Heck, personally D&D for me is more about the fluff than the mechanics anyway.

If memory serves, the next UA is January 9th.

I can understand, however, that you'd like the fluff to be good...

 

[Jester David]

"Mystic" is the next class in alphabetical order. Since Mike Mearls said they got the article finished by the end of last year, I'm expecting it either tomorrow or next Monday.

The other most likely class would be rogue, since I doubt ranger will be in this round, as much as it is "Under Construction".

About the fluff tangent, the discussion got me thinking of a better way to explain why I don't like the "just re-fluff it" approach.

Refluffed D&D is just d20. The more I have to refluff it, the less I am playing D&D, and the more I am playing a different game built off of d20 mechanics. I'm not buying that; I'm buying official D&D products. Therefore I care about what fluff gets published. Heck, personally D&D for me is more about the fluff than the mechanics anyway.

They ended the year when the paladin. If they were adding the mystic to the mix, they would have done that a couple weeks back.

 

[MoonSong]

Considering that in 4 editions, psionics has meant four entirely different things...there is room for innovation here, since no previous approach was fully accepted.

Not really, if you compare 4e with 2e's version it would seem that way, but if you see it in order it is evident each iteration of the psion built over what the previous edition left. The disciplines were there, the flavor of the psion/pisonicist was there, the "it's not magic was there".

Mechanically there was much evolution and streamlining, but the basics of the psion were the same, from what I can see the psion went from Wis&Con, to Wis,Con&Int remained there in 3.0 then to just Int in 3.5 and remained there in 4e. The disciplines were there form day one and remained there even in 4e, only lack of resources and edition failure prevented all disciplines to show up.

And that is what happened from the hodgepodge of 2e, there was progressive streamlining and evolution to the needs of the edition in turn. Not even 4e burned the bridge and wiped the state clean like 5e is doing.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

They ended the year when the paladin. If they were adding the mystic to the mix, they would have done that a couple weeks back.

Mystic was one of the very early, if not the first, classes they did for UA. I wouldn't be surprised if this year they were not starting to beta test some class concepts in preparation for a UA book later in the year.

 

[Jester David]

Mystic was one of the very early, if not the first, classes they did for UA. I wouldn't be surprised if this year they were not starting to beta test some class concepts in preparation for a UA book later in the year.

I doubt the book will be an "Unearthed Arcana" book. That's a name that means nothing to many people, and doesn't tell you what the book is about. And it makes it harder to make a second book building on the UA articles for the next few years.

Very likely the book with have a theme and story, like the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide or Volo's Guide to Monsters that makes it apparent what it's about but also works as a place for both the mystic and new class archetypes.