D&D 5E "Mystics are Lame" thread

[Tony Vargas]

As a matter of first principle, I fully support the right of anyone to like, or dislike, anything for any reason- good, bad, or no reason at all. People like what they like!

Which is why I often find it both amusing and disheartening that so many D&D discussions about preferences devolve into pseudo-factual discussions. Preferences are not so easily reducible. I believe that this is, in part, because of the type of people that are attracted to the game in the first place. Just a working theory.

It is entirely possible to acknowledge the underlying facts on which those preferences are based, though. For instance, psionics is a sci-fi bit, the word itself was coined as such.

That makes it iffy for fantasy, the more so the more of a purist you are about the genre, less iffy for 'science-fantasy,' and prettymuch dead-on for Dying Earth-inspired sub-genres of science-fiction-with-fantasy-trappings like Darkover and...

.... along with ideas I picked up from literature (mainly Julian May's Many Colored Land); it was AWESOME! But it was only awesome because it was focused on psionics; all the characters had it, the challenges were designed for it, and so on.

Many Colored Land was a pretty cool, less-Dying-Earth take on that sub-genre. You had the Tanu clearly referencing the Tuatha de Dannan of Celtic Mythology, complete with torcs and the wild hunt, who were actually aliens using psionics rather than fey using magic.

That's exactly what 'psionic' was coinded for.

Love it or hate it for that, by all means. Or for other reasons. :shrug:

 

[BoldItalic]

It will all be sorted out in a post that somebody is going to make next week.

 

[Aldarc]

The key is whether psoinics is magic.

In a 'psionics-is-magic' campaign/setting, re-skinning GOO Warlock or creating a new Sorcerer 'Wild Talent' origin or Wizard Tradition of 'Mysticism' or whatever. It's not like learning/prepping spells and expending slots is all that tightly coupled to the concepts of the various caster classes as it is.

But, if the concept is that 'psionics are different,' then that runs up against not only feel but mechanical issues, some very obvious - you shouldn't be able to counterspell something that is neither a spell nor magical, for instance.

This strikes me as a false dichotomy. This is not really an either/or scenario. For example, in your latter example of "psionics are different," psionics could use a spell system but not have dispel magic or other regular spells apply. But in the former example of "psionics-is-magic," dispel magic and such could still apply but with the hypothetical psionicist having different mechanics than the regular spell system. That said, I don't think that your suggestions of just reskinning or creating a new subclass of preexisting class (e.g., warlock, sorcerer, wizard) would work for a psion/mystic. At least no more than reskinning a fighter, bard, or cleric to make a warlord. (We wouldn't want you to look like a hypocrite, Tony Vargas.) It simply would require to much work in terms of adjustments to spells, mechanics, and re-fluffing of flavor to make it work. Wizard traditions, for example, are fairly terrible at encouraging a thematic spell list, but instead foster a lot of homogeneous or optimal choices that don't necessarily fit for a psionic class. This also applies for the warlock and sorcerer.

Interesting. And I agree with much of this.

What this has me thinking about is that maybe one of my instinctive negative reactions to psionics is that, yeah, it's just another version of (or attempted rationale for) "magic" that has emerged over the centuries. And D&D already has magic covered. So maybe it's analogous to not only introducing guns, but at the same time also introducing new combat rules for guns that don't simply reuse the rules for crossbows. "Ah, crossbows have range but guns have accuracy..." Or whatever.

D&D has some magic covered and within a limited scope, which have been largely defined and reinforced by its own traditions, and which also now include psionics for how many editions now? Perhaps psionics should be considered "different" in much the same way that arcane and divine magic are considered "different" from each other within the traditions of D&D? (I also do think that 4E probably had the right approach by grouping the monk and psionics together.)

I might hate the Mystic less if they were just spellcasters with their own lists.

I'm of several minds with this issue. On the one hand, I agree that I would not mind the mystic if it did just opt for spell points and had its own spell list (cf. 3.5 era psionics). But on the other hand, I think that 5E likes to use new classes to explore alternative options for class mechanics. And the fact that we are seeing people look at the mystic and think, "this is what the sorcerer should have been like," or "this is what the warlock should have been like" also suggests to me that there is value in exploring these alternative mechanical venues.

If I get stuck at a table with somebody playing a class (or race, or whatever) that "breaks" the fiction for me, in the sense that it simply doesn't fit in the fantasy world I envision, am I supposed to edit everything they say in order to refluff it in my head?

If it breaks your fiction, then maybe you had the fiction of the fantasy world you envisioned wrong to begin with. So perhaps it would be worth your time to reevaluate your own sense of the fiction as a player rather than accusing the class, the other player, or the world of being wrong or so insensitive as to break "your immersion." It's basic table etiquette. It's the GM's call and not the players'.

If you sit a GM's table who has envisioned dragonborn or monks in their world, but you find dragonborn or monks as immersion breaking, then it strikes me as your problem and not theirs, unless you become THAT player who decides to disrupt things by accusing the GM (or player) of badwrongfun for having dragonborn or monks in their campaign world. But having to edit personal fluff at the table is nothing new at all. Nothing new, so acting like having to do this for psionics requires extra effort. A GM for one of my campaigns loves the big-headed halfling 5E art so much that all halflings now have ridiculously big heads in her campaign. I'm not a fan of it. It does not match my default conception of halflings, but I know that this is how halflings look in her campaign so I run with it. And there are all sorts of flavor and fluff changes across the board at her table and other tables that I run or that I am in. But I don't think that envisioning psionics as point-based casting requires much effort on your part to refluff in comparison to other refluffs that exist with pre-existing classes and races between settings and editions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This strikes me as a false dichotomy. This is not really an either/or scenario. For example, in your latter example of "psionics are different," psionics could use a spell system but not have dispel magic or other regular spells apply. But in the former example of "psionics-is-magic," dispel magic and such could still apply but with the hypothetical psionicist having different mechanics than the regular spell system.

It /could/, hypothetically, sure. But, 5e tends to give different things different mechanics, even when the differences may seem like something that's arbitrary and could be done with just re-fluffling.

And, re-fluffing spells as 'psionics,' even when accompanied by a ruling that they're, in essence, spells that are immune to dispelling ('broken' though that arguably might be), still has mechanical implications. Components, for instance.

That said, I don't think that your suggestions of just reskinning or creating a new subclass of preexisting class (e.g., warlock, sorcerer, wizard) would work for a psion/mystic.

Not my suggestion, rather, I was holding it out as something that /wouldn't/ work for the psionics-is-different feel, at all. Since psionics has been different or optionally different in every edition, it's not a viable solution, on it's own.

At least no more than reskinning a fighter, bard, or cleric to make a warlord.

Exactly right, and for the same reason. Re-skinning spell-casting class to act as a non-magical class is simply fraught. Even if they're accomplishing some of the same things, they should be doing so quite differently, if they're to fit in the broader 5e design aesthetic.

Perhaps psionics should be considered "different" in much the same way that arcane and divine magic are considered "different" from each other within the traditions of D&D? (I also do think that 4E probably had the right approach by grouping the monk and psionics together.)

I was not at all sanguine about dropping Ki as a power source at the time - even though, personally, I never cared for either the monk nor psionics, it seemed like a cheap trick to combine them like that. In retrospect, I suppose, it was OK, and it did lead to conversations that spelled out what was ethically wrong with D&D's traditional "orientalist" treatment of the Monk, so that was enlightening.

In the case of 5e, though, Ki is firmly established as actually being magic of its own stripe, so Ki-as-psionics would imply psionics-is-magic, which is really something I think should be left in the DM's court, as 5e is the DM-Empowerment edition.

If it breaks your fiction, then maybe you had the fiction of the fantasy world you envisioned wrong to begin with. So perhaps it would be worth your time to reevaluate your own sense of the fiction as a player rather than accusing the class, the other player, or the world of being wrong or so insensitive as to break "your immersion." It's basic table etiquette. It's the GM's call and not the players'.

It's not 'wrong,' no matter which way you slice it, whether you're the odd player out or coping with an odd player out or the DM dictating how it'll be at your table. It's just something you have to reconcile one way or another. I feel like there's no need to make a big deal out of it when you're the odd player out, just keep your opinions and visualizations in your head and let everyone else enjoy the game.

having to edit personal fluff at the table is nothing new at all. Nothing new, so acting like having to do this for psionics requires extra effort.

There's a lot of things at the table that are going to be imagined a little differently by each player present, regardless, without anyone even noticing. It's a shared experience in concept, but it can't be a perfectly consistent one.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Well, since you ask....yeah, I'm not a fan of Bladesinger, Arcane Archer, et al. "Gish"....meh.

Sounds to me like the problem is you want a very traditional game where the party cleric looks like a cleric, the party wizard looks like a wizard, where they guy in heavy army and carrying longsword and shielf MUST be a fighter .

That is all your choice and it is neither right nor wrong.