-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
BoldItalic
First Post
I like the idea of incorporating psi into the game, but making it a special class doesn't seem to me to be the right way to go about it because you end up duplicating all the other classes and spells and struggling to make them 'different'.
The simplest mechanic is to make it a feat that existing spellcasters can take, that allows them to cast spells and cantrips in their mind without needing to do the V and S components. You don't need any new classes or 'spells', so everything that is already balanced stays balanced.
As well as changing the narrative, it means that they can't be neutralised by binding and gagging them and their spells can't be counterspelled. This immediately makes them more powerful. To compensate this, I would give them vulnerability to psychic damage.
I haven't tested this idea, I'm just theorycrafting.
The simplest mechanic is to make it a feat that existing spellcasters can take, that allows them to cast spells and cantrips in their mind without needing to do the V and S components. You don't need any new classes or 'spells', so everything that is already balanced stays balanced.
As well as changing the narrative, it means that they can't be neutralised by binding and gagging them and their spells can't be counterspelled. This immediately makes them more powerful. To compensate this, I would give them vulnerability to psychic damage.
I haven't tested this idea, I'm just theorycrafting.
Immoralkickass
Adventurer
I don't think so. Being a psionic warrants its own class, if sorcerer and wizards can be separate classes. You don't tell a Fighter to take off his armour, yell loudly and call him a Barbarian, or believe in an god, swear an oath an call him a Paladin. Mystics play very differently from any of the core classes, even if they have some duplicate effects. But so do the core classes, with Fighting Styles, Expertise and some spells shared by most of the magic users.
Gardens & Goblins
First Post
Having actually played a mystic, after making up two different characters with the latest rules and scrapping one over the other so as to better gel with the table...
...I found that you can make a capable character who has a some solid tricks up their sleeves but who must combine said tricks to get the same results as a wizard/cleric spell at similar levels of play - and even then, there are simply many, many things that my mystic would never be able to do.
The character was not built for melee combat, instead focusing on range and utility. If I had to roughly summaries my character's play experience, it would, 'Magical Battle Master', with less oomph on the basic attacks and more focus on the fancy maneuvers. I will say that my character's healing capabilities was excellent, and in many ways he made a better general combat medic that most clerics, being able to teleport all over the place to heal and resurrect as required.
So aye, personally I had a great time. Once you realise you'll never have the raw power options of high level casters and instead must rely on a solid bag of customized tricks, then the class shines - shines, but in now way dominates or detracts from other classes. (At the table we had a rogue, cleric, ranger and wizard)
...I found that you can make a capable character who has a some solid tricks up their sleeves but who must combine said tricks to get the same results as a wizard/cleric spell at similar levels of play - and even then, there are simply many, many things that my mystic would never be able to do.
The character was not built for melee combat, instead focusing on range and utility. If I had to roughly summaries my character's play experience, it would, 'Magical Battle Master', with less oomph on the basic attacks and more focus on the fancy maneuvers. I will say that my character's healing capabilities was excellent, and in many ways he made a better general combat medic that most clerics, being able to teleport all over the place to heal and resurrect as required.
So aye, personally I had a great time. Once you realise you'll never have the raw power options of high level casters and instead must rely on a solid bag of customized tricks, then the class shines - shines, but in now way dominates or detracts from other classes. (At the table we had a rogue, cleric, ranger and wizard)
Waterbizkit
Explorer
So I like the Mystic. I even like the way they've tried to make the class modular so that is more "build your own" class rather than something as linear as another class. That said, I get why people either don't like that design or more importantly don't like psionics in their game at all because it's got a sci-fi vibe. Of course I feel like they've eased off of the sci-fi jargon this time around which helps a bit.
Anyway, to my question, and I promise I'm not asking to be an instigator: what prompted the thread now? Did I miss a new iteration of the Mystic? It's been a while since the last one was put out in UA, right? Or did they put it up on DMs Guild recently? I mean, no one needs a specific reason to bring the topic up of course, I was just curious why comment on the Mystic now? I just feel like I'm missing something.
Anyway, to my question, and I promise I'm not asking to be an instigator: what prompted the thread now? Did I miss a new iteration of the Mystic? It's been a while since the last one was put out in UA, right? Or did they put it up on DMs Guild recently? I mean, no one needs a specific reason to bring the topic up of course, I was just curious why comment on the Mystic now? I just feel like I'm missing something.
BoldItalic
First Post
Mystics as defined in UA as class will certainly play differently, I would agree with that. But does it have to be a separate class to play differently? I'm applying Occam's Razor, here.
Also, my scheme, using a feat, works for commoner NPCs without classes. Imagine a group of half-elves with the Message cantrip who can imperceptibly communicate with each other. You have telepaths. That's much more scary than if you can see them pointing fingers at each other.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Not really: you could make two copies of the same character sheet, give them different names, backstories, goals, and give them to different players, and they might play differently.
Psionics mainly needs to be it's own class or set of classes to make it distinct from casting. If psionics were casters, if they were meant to use whacky material components, wave their hands around, and mumble a lot, if they were meant to overtly use 'magic,' counterspell other casters and the like, then there'd be no need for a separate class, a 'Wild Talent' Sorcerer Origin and a 'Psioncist' Wizard Tradition could neatly cover it. But, psionics has always been mechanically and thematically distinct from magic, heck, even when it was optionally 'magic' it was a distinct sort of magic from spellcasting.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
I would be totally fine with the Mystic as a sorcerer (or monk) subclass. Psychic powers don’t give me genre fits, but the rules always have. They’ve rarely been well-balanced, and I fear that the latest iteration will be more of the same.
I’ve seen so many broken psionic munchkins over the years, I’d be happy if the Awakened Mystic never saw the official light of day.
I’ve seen so many broken psionic munchkins over the years, I’d be happy if the Awakened Mystic never saw the official light of day.
mellored
Legend
The 3.5 psion was more balanced than the 3.5 sorcerers or wizard.
If they can balance the wizard and sorcerer for 5e, they can balance the Psion. It's as simple as adding or removing psi points, or adding or removing damage dice, until you get the right amount.
The bigger 2 questions are...
1: Do you like the mechanics? (IMO, yes)
2: Do you like the flavor? (IMO, no)
Tony Vargas
Legend
Has any class ever been less balanced than the 3.5 wizard?
If they could, they chose not to. ;P
But, then it would lose its classic feel!
Similar Threads
