D&D 5E "Mystics are Lame" thread

[Guest 6801328]

If I'm confronted with a fellow player who's all-in on his psionic character's science-fictiony feel, I can still just let him have his fun, and quietly/privately re-skin it as 'really magic under all the trappings' and live with it as well as any other lame-reference PC.

This is where (as with Warlord) you and I disagree. Well, I mean I don't disagree with your sentiment, but that I place more importance in genre consistency than you do. For example, I don't like guns (or laser guns) in my D&D games, even if they have the same stats as crossbows.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is where (as with Warlord) you and I disagree.

At least we're consistent.

Well, I mean I don't disagree with your sentiment, but that I place more importance in genre consistency than you do. For example, I don't like guns (or laser guns) in my D&D games, even if they have the same stats as crossbows.

In the case of psionics, I certainly see the genre-consistency issue, but if my choice is play in a game that's more science-fantasy (IMHO) due to the inclusion of psionics, and just sorta turn a blind eye to it, vs not play at all, or try to impose the preference on a fellow player, I'll adjust.
It is a personal decision. There's a point where it's just "why play at a table that has too many things going on that I don't care for?" There are other tables.
But, it's inevitable with 5e's design philosophy that sitting down to play at a 5e table doesn't guarantee you a specific sub-genre experience, while DMing 5e does give you the opportunity to create the genre experience you want, though the amount of work to get there may vary with sub-genre you have in mind. WotC providing the mystic adds a 'don't opt-into-the-Mystic' step to that. Not a great burden compared to 'create 5e psionics rules.'

 

[Coroc]

Ok, so lots of people are salivating over the Mystic, and I don't want to derail those discussions or lessen their joy, but surely somebody out there is as skeptical of Mystics as I am.

When I look at the Mystic I see basically a one-sized-fits-all, a la carte character class. Can't design exactly the concept you want using existing classes? Come roll a Mystic and be anything you want!

The class doesn't so much fit in neatly into the design spaces of other classes as replace them with something orthogonal. Sure, the abilities can be (even if they're not currently) "balanced" with the other classes; I don't have an issue with balance. It's just that it feels like an intruder from another game system.

Then, of course, there's the fluff of psionics. I have trouble seeing how psionics fits into the genre. It feels more science fiction than fantasy. I'm ok with Mind Flayers and other exotic creatures with a couple of abilities; it's building a whole character around the concept that feels incongruous.

So, yeah, anyway...given all the enthusiasm for mystic I'm almost afraid to post these sentiments, but surely somebody (lowkey?) out there agrees with some of this.

Ahm yes you summarize pretty much what a psion is, a mental master, spirit > body
He can be what he wants to be

The original 2e psion had alibi weapon /armor skills, no decent weapons maximum leather armor was it d8 or I believe it was only d6 for health I am to lazy to look it up right now. I think he used the quite subpar rogue tables for attack.

He had some basic powers like a psionic ranged attack which was not on par with what a mage could dish out, but otoh there were psionic sciences like disintegration (aka the 6th level mage spell! extremely deadly in 2e) or synaptic static which was the ultimate psionic defense, rolled good it could interrupt all psionic very nifty for darc sun or a bunch of mindflayers trying to tentaclorize you.

The mystic imho does try one thing quite well: Be in balance with other classes and their powers in 5E. Does he seem to feel like a 2e psionic? Hm I have not tried but I think not so much.

 

[mellored]

When I look at the Mystic I see basically a one-sized-fits-all, a la carte character class. Can't design exactly the concept you want using existing classes? Come roll a Mystic and be anything you want!

That's my favorite part of the mystic.
Though, it about the same number of choices as wizards/clerics/druids/bards/warlocks.

It's just that it feels like an intruder from another game system.

More than the warlock?

Then, of course, there's the fluff of psionics. I have trouble seeing how psionics fits into the genre. It feels more science fiction than fantasy.

I agree with that. Though, you can rewrite the fluff.

I'm really tempted to just call them sorcerers. People born as magical being, learning to manipulate the power from within.
Int based -> Cha based
Order -> Bloodline
Psi Points -> Sorcerer points
Psionic Surge -> Heighten
Discipline -> Metamagic
Consumptive Power -> Overchannel
etc..

 

[cbwjm]

I'm really tempted to just call them sorcerers. People born as magical being, learning to manipulate the power from within.
Int based -> Cha based
Order -> Bloodline
Psi Points -> Sorcerer points
Psionic Surge -> Heighten
Discipline -> Metamagic
Consumptive Power -> Overchannel
etc..

If I ever decided to play a dragonlance game during the age of mortals I'd definitely be using the mystic for sorcerers (and mystics but not 5e mystics). The way the disciplines work feels a lot more like the magic of a dragonlance sorcerer which didn't quite fit the 3e version of the sorcerer.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In the case of psionics, I certainly see the genre-consistency issue, but if my choice is play in a game that's more science-fantasy (IMHO) due to the inclusion of psionics, and just sorta turn a blind eye to it, vs not play at all, or try to impose the preference on a fellow player, I'll adjust.
It is a personal decision. There's a point where it's just "why play at a table that has too many things going on that I don't care for?"

As with the Warlord debate, I don't really buy this "impose something on a fellow player" argument because it tries to put one side of the debate on a higher moral ground. It's equally an imposition on me to taint my experience with rules/classes/races/subsystems/weapons/etc. that lessen the game for me. Inclusion (of options, not people) is just as much of an imposition as exclusion.

Furthermore, it's a different matter to say, "I don't like this and hope it doesn't show up as official content in the game I love" than it is to "impose a preference on another player".

There are other tables.

I do wish I had more options for other tables. Sounds like you are rolling in them.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I haven't liked any incarnation of psionics since 2nd Edition. That system had its flaws, but at least it felt different from the other magic systems. The entire approach of "refluff a sorcerer" that started with 3e really rubs me the wrong way.

That said, I dislike the 5e approach (so far) less than I disliked the 3e and 4e approaches, but it sill isn't quite my cup of tea. I don't have a problem with the "fills in for everything" angle, exactly, or no more than I have for other casters. But I find I am agreeing more and more with those who feel the discipline "specialization" is a subpar way to differentiate approaches, and we should have had the psion(icist), rogue, and fighter structure.

 

[SkidAce]

Ok, so lots of people are salivating over the Mystic, and I don't want to derail those discussions or lessen their joy, but surely somebody out there is as skeptical of Mystics as I am.

When I look at the Mystic I see basically a one-sized-fits-all, a la carte character class. Can't design exactly the concept you want using existing classes? Come roll a Mystic and be anything you want!

The class doesn't so much fit in neatly into the design spaces of other classes as replace them with something orthogonal. Sure, the abilities can be (even if they're not currently) "balanced" with the other classes; I don't have an issue with balance. It's just that it feels like an intruder from another game system.

Then, of course, there's the fluff of psionics. I have trouble seeing how psionics fits into the genre. It feels more science fiction than fantasy. I'm ok with Mind Flayers and other exotic creatures with a couple of abilities; it's building a whole character around the concept that feels incongruous.

So, yeah, anyway...given all the enthusiasm for mystic I'm almost afraid to post these sentiments, but surely somebody (lowkey?) out there agrees with some of this.

Everything you said is WHY I like it.

Its all good, play on!

 

[Immoralkickass]

Mystics lame? That's just like, your opinion man.

 

[77IM]

Then, of course, there's the fluff of psionics. I have trouble seeing how psionics fits into the genre. It feels more science fiction than fantasy. I'm ok with Mind Flayers and other exotic creatures with a couple of abilities; it's building a whole character around the concept that feels incongruous.

I wish they would go even further with this aspect. I only want new classes that change the genre. The traditional fantasy genre has all the classes it needs. A proper "psychic" class would give the game a wonderful "weird fantasy" vibe.

In other words, I think they should only introduce a new class if a substantial number of DMs look at it and say, "ohhhh HELL no, not in my setting!" Other classes that might fit this criteria would be gadgeteer, gunslinger, mutant, super-hero, demi-god, or hat magician.