Mystic or Psion? Mearls calls to vote now!

[Millstone85]

As the title says.

Link: https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1001569683353432065

Edit, final results:
* 10,180 votes
* 64% psion
* 36% mystic

[thoroughlyS]

I voted "Psion" for a few reasons:

Psion has roots all the way back to the AD&D 2nd Edition "Psionicist"
Psion is a made-up word with no dictionary definition, and yet has meaning in relation to D&D (like gish)
Psion sounds just the right amount of sci-fi for psychic powers
Mystic conflicts with another concept from the Dragonlance campaign setting
Mystic has a dictionary definition relating to more divine concepts than mental

[Nifft]

Mystic.

... because it has jack squat to do with Psionic powers.

Thus, when a homebrew Psion class comes out that definitively represents Psionic powers, there will be no confusion with the thing that is the Mystic.

[Matrix_Walker]

Out of the two, Psion is far more appropriate and intuitive.

I'm not fond of either. I'd go with Psychic.

[Naanomi]

I actually like ‘mystic’ in the general sense, but in the spirit of 5e being the nostalgia edition Psion should be used

[MrStabby]

Mystic has a feel more appropriate for a fantasy setting.

[Hecuba]

I voted "Psion" for a few reasons:
Psion has roots all the way back to the AD&D 2nd Edition "Psionicist"

Mystic has some D&D background too: that's what the class we now call "Monk" was introduced as back in BCEMI (specifically, if memory serves, the Expert set in 1983). Since many people think that it makes some sense for monks to have a psionic-flavored bent to their supernatural abilities, it does make sense to an extent, to tie that term in with it too. With proper Discipline selection, it also gives a way to properly reflect the idea of Mystics in the post-Chaos war Dragonlance setting: monastic, unarmored, power to heal, driven by self reflection, separate from a divine gift.

Really, though, that's just a case that Mystic should be the name of the psionic-focused monk subclass.
Which Psion or Psionist as the dedicated class name.

I would propose:

Psionic Base class: Psionist (or Psion if you must)

Martial subclass: War Mind
Arcanist Subclass: Wu Jen
As an aside the immunity reaction ability in the most recent draft still has me worried
Divine subclass: Spirit Talker (could slot into Dragonlace as Nightstalkers)



Fighter Psionic Subclass: Psionic Warrior
Barbarian Psionic Subclass: Far Seer
Cleric Psionic Subclass: Ardent
Rogue Psionic Subclass: Mind Thief
Monk Psionic Subclass: Way of the Mystic
Ranger Psionic Subclass: Pursuer
Play up the tracker/bounty hunter aspect.
Sorcerer Psionic Subclass: Ascendant
play up Dragon and Avangion for Dark Sun
Wizard Psionic Subclass: Mind Lord
Paladin Psionic Subclass: Oath of Steel
Druid Psionic Subclass: Circle of Lifeshaping
i.e. Dark Sun Master of Nature
Warlock Psionic Subclass: Templar
Bard Psionic Subclass: College of Lies

[Mortis_Elrod]

Mystic has some D&D background too: that's what the class we now call "Monk" was introduced as back in BCEMI (specifically, if memory serves, the Expert set in 1983). Since many people think that it makes some sense for monks to have a psionic-flavored bent to their supernatural abilities, it does make sense to an extent, to tie that term in with it too. With proper Discipline selection, it also gives a way to properly reflect the idea of Mystics in the post-Chaos war Dragonlance setting: power to heal, driven by self reflection, separate from a divine gift.

Really, though, that's just a case that Mystic should be the name of the psionic-focused monk subclass.
Which Psion or Psionist as the dedicated class name.

I would propose:

Psionic Base class: Psionist (or Psion if you must)

Martial subclass: War Mind
Arcanist Subclass: Wu Jen
As an aside the immunity reaction ability in the most recent draft still has me worried
Divine subclass: Spirit Talker (could slot into Dragonlace as Nightstalkers)



Fighter Psionic Subclass: Psionic Warrior
Barbarian Psionic Subclass: Far Seer
Cleric Psionic Subclass: Ardent
Rogue Psionic Subclass: Mind Thief
Monk Psionic Subclass: Way of the Mystic
Ranger Psionic Subclass: Pursuer
Play up the tracker/bounty hunter aspect.
Sorcerer Psionic Subclass: Ascendant
play up Dragon and Avangion for Dark Sun
Wizard Psionic Subclass: Mind Lord
Paladin Psionic Subclass: Oath of Steel
Druid Psionic Subclass: Circle of Lifeshaping
i.e. Dark Sun Master of Nature
Warlock Psionic Subclass: Templar
Bard Psionic Subclass: College of Lies


You left out my beloved soul knife.

[Arcangel4774]

Psion fits better for the sort of brain powered abilities of the int based class. Mystic seems more mysterius and fitting of a wis based class.

[Hecuba]

You left out my beloved soul knife.

Tarnations: I knew I was forgetting something important. Use it as the Rogue subclass instead then. Bard probably covers the mind spy angle better anyways.

[McSkrag]

Mystic has a feel more appropriate for a fantasy setting.

Same here. Don't know why exactly, but psionics always felt "out of place" in the D&D fantasy setting to me.

[Jerrykhor]

Same here. Don't know why exactly, but psionics always felt "out of place" in the D&D fantasy setting to me.

I always hear that argument thrown around. Why is that so?

[Ignimortis]

Since the question is actually about "the psionic class", the answer is pretty obvious :P

[Hecuba]

I always hear that argument thrown around. Why is that so?

Most of the terms and ideas behind psionics are borrowed from parapsychology rather than mythology, literary fantasy, or more distant historical practices like hermetic alchemy.

Parapsychology has a generally 19th century tone in popular culture - even though though it has roots in older philosophical inquiries - because the major flourishing of psychological inquiry in the late 1800s that brought us experimental psychology and it's modern benefits began before Parapsychology was acknowledged as psuedoscientific and segregated out of the mainstream.
As such, it retains much of the same tone and root terminology as more scientifically vaild psychological topics pioneered in the same period.

[SaurOps]

Most of the terms and ideas behind psionics are borrowed from parapsychology rather than mythology, literary fantasy, or more distant historical practices like hermetic alchemy.

Parapsychology has a generally 19th century tone in popular culture - even though though it has roots in older philosophical inquiries - because the major flourishing of psychological inquiry in the late 1800s that brought us experimental psychology and it's modern benefits began before Parapsychology was acknowledged as psuedoscientific and segregated out of the mainstream.
As such, it retains much of the same tone and root terminology as more scientifically vaild psychological topics pioneered in the same period.

On the other hand, the Complete Psionics Handbook suggested looking to non-western cultures for ideas about powers to adapt, and compares psionics to Zen philosophy (pages 111-113). That certainly didn't seem to last for very long, but it was in someone's head when they were doing D&D internal powers, so there's more than one way to consider what one culture calls "psychic powers". And there's really no reason for D&D to push some kind of western European default, since the core lists a number of different human ethnic groups in Faerun.

(Still extremely salty about the 5e samurai and kensei here, yes.)

[Jerrykhor]

Most of the terms and ideas behind psionics are borrowed from parapsychology rather than mythology, literary fantasy, or more distant historical practices like hermetic alchemy.

Parapsychology has a generally 19th century tone in popular culture - even though though it has roots in older philosophical inquiries - because the major flourishing of psychological inquiry in the late 1800s that brought us experimental psychology and it's modern benefits began before Parapsychology was acknowledged as psuedoscientific and segregated out of the mainstream.
As such, it retains much of the same tone and root terminology as more scientifically vaild psychological topics pioneered in the same period.

But D&D always had creatures/monsters with innate psionic abilities, like mind flayers, gith, and duergars.

[Sception]

I voted psion, though i still think it's a mistake to have only one psionic class, and said as much. Mystic v3 showed psionic concepts are too broad for that. And while soulknife & psychic warrior could work as subclasses of the same '1/2 psi' class, '1/3 psi' subclasses won't do them justice.

In the same way that paladin, ranger, and barbarian would have been disappointing as fighter subclasses, monk and bard would have been real let downs as rogue subclasses, druid would have been sad as a cleric subclass, and sorcerer and warlock wouldn't have been nearly as fun as wizard subclasses.

Just like none of their half harted swipes at warlord as a fighter subclass have been worth printing. Just like the early version of artificer as a wizard subclass was so totally underwhelming. Just like the bladesinger wizard is so very boring compared to 4e's swordmage. Just like hexblade/bladelock probably would have worked better from the start as a half caster, related to the warlock the same way the paladin is related to the cleric, sharing some mechanical concepts without having to also share the same proficiencies, hit dice, caster progression, spell and invocation lists, patron features, etc.

Just because you can, if you stretch, shove a concept under an existing class doesn't mean you should. 5e is my favorite edition overall, but how many good character concepts that I would have loved to actually play in 5e will I have to watch the designers of this edition squash all the life out of due to this arbitrary aversion to designing new classes?

[Kane0]

Bah, I ain't gonna sign up just to vote.

Hopefully they will have something more formal than twitter, like a UA feedback form.

[McSkrag]

I always hear that argument thrown around. Why is that so?

Yeah, I think it comes down to personal taste.

For me, the whole concept of "The Weave" really works. You can do anything you want with it in terms of storytelling, spells, powers, adventures, magic items... It's literally magic.

Psionics and magic, as described in the UA, "are two distinct forces." So by adding psionics you are adding a second kind of "magic" to the world and it just seems to break the continuity of The Weave.

I like the concept and mechanics of the UA Mystic just fine. But if I were DM I would refluff the class features to originate from The Weave instead psionics.

[Knaight]

Mystic. For whatever reason it feels more evocative, and seems to fit a bit better with the rest of the names.

[Nifft]

Yeah, I think it comes down to personal taste.

For me, the whole concept of "The Weave" really works. You can do anything you want with it in terms of storytelling, spells, powers, adventures, magic items... It's literally magic.

Psionics and magic, as described in the UA, "are two distinct forces." So by adding psionics you are adding a second kind of "magic" to the world and it just seems to break the continuity of The Weave.

I like the concept and mechanics of the UA Mystic just fine. But if I were DM I would refluff the class features to originate from The Weave instead psionics.

In old D&D, Arcane Magic was secrets stolen from the universe. A Wizard could challenge the gods because her power was not gifted from some singular other entity.

The Weave takes that and turns it into "mother may I", forcing a Wizard to beg a god for scraps just like a Cleric would.

That's just sad.


Old D&D had crashed space ships with ray-guns, power armor you could steal, and mighty robotic servitors. It had hyper-intelligent aliens and brain-eating horrors from the deep. It had monsters from fantasy Mars (like the Displacer Beast) next to monsters from Lovecraft, being fought by heroes from Tolkien and Howard and Leiber, and on the way they encounter Baba-Yaga and her Oni-Magi.

Psionic powers fit into D&D's genre just fine, because D&D's genre has always been YES, with a generous side-helping of kitchen sink.

[McSkrag]

Psionic powers fit into D&D's genre just fine, because D&D's genre has always been YES, with a generous side-helping of kitchen sink.

Like I said, it's a matter of personal taste.

An every-genre-and-the-kitchen-sink "Heavy Metal" campaign would be loads of fun as long as the story is good. It always comes back to the story.

[Nifft]

Like I said, it's a matter of personal taste. To be fair you also said manifestly untrue stuff like:


For me, the whole concept of "The Weave" really works. You can do anything you want with it in terms of storytelling, spells, powers, adventures, magic items... It's literally magic. You can't tell stories about Wizards challenging gods when the Wizard has to beg for scraps at some god's foot.

You can't tell stories about discovering a new type of magic, and experience the wonder of uncertainty about its nature, if you've already got the nature of all magic nailed down.

The Weave is fine for your stories, I guess, and that's fine for you -- but it wouldn't ever work for a game where magic is intended to be dynamic or mysterious, or a game where magic worked differently for different classes, or even for different PCs in the same class.

[Drascin]

Personally, for the class that exists, "Mystic" feels more appropriate. It brings to mind a certain level of daoist hermit that feels very appropriate to both the genre and the class.

[Potato_Priest]

Psionics and magic, as described in the UA, "are two distinct forces." So by adding psionics you are adding a second kind of "magic" to the world and it just seems to break the continuity of The Weave.

I like the concept and mechanics of the UA Mystic just fine. But if I were DM I would refluff the class features to originate from The Weave instead psionics.

Agreed. I've not yet been satisfied by anyone's explanation of the difference between psionics and magic. It's manipulating the world in ways not possible through the conventional laws of physics using one's mind. How much more magic could it be?

[Millstone85]

Psionics and magic, as described in the UA, "are two distinct forces." So by adding psionics you are adding a second kind of "magic" to the world and it just seems to break the continuity of The Weave.The first two UAs said that "psionics and magic are two distinct forces". The third UA instead said that "psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting". And now Mike Mearls is apparently thinking of making psionics just another school of spells like abjuration or necromancy.

In any case, I think psionics should be based on the development of a personal Weave-like aura, as opposed to deepening one's connection with the world wide Weave.


The Weave takes that and turns it into "mother may I", forcing a Wizard to beg a god for scraps just like a Cleric would.I think the PHB says that the Weave by any other name exists on every D&D world, and that FR spefically associates it with the goddess Mystra. It doesn't have to be under divine control on every world.

[Ignimortis]

The first two UAs said that "psionics and magic are two distinct forces". The third UA instead said that "psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting". And now Mike Mearls is apparently thinking of making psionics just another school of spells like abjuration or necromancy.

In any case, I think psionics should be based on the development of a personal Weave-like aura, as opposed to deepening one's connection with the world wide Weave.

I think the PHB says that the Weave by any other name exists on every D&D world, and that FR spefically associates it with the goddess Mystra. It doesn't have to be under divine control on every world.

If they make psionics "just another Wizard subclass"... I mean, I don't like Psionics, but this obsession 5e has with shoehorning everything into archetypes of existing classes instead of admitting that some things need a class of their own will have gone too far in this case.

[Amdy_vill]

psion. never really like mystic as it sounds like pokemon or a paladin/cleric thing

[Millstone85]

If they make psionics "just another Wizard subclass"... I mean, I don't like Psionics, but this obsession 5e has with shoehorning everything into archetypes of existing classes instead of admitting that some things a class of their own will have gone too far in this case.I want one or more dedicated psionic classes, but I could see the Wu Jen being a wizard subclass with access to psionics.

[Unoriginal]

I like Mystic, because it makes it feel like someone who managed to reach that kind of power through meditation and knowledge beyond the normal world. Psion feels too "yeah, this is a guy who got this power, yoohoo. Now let's do something more interesting".




And now Mike Mearls is apparently thinking of making psionics just another school of spells like abjuration or necromancy.

That was just a metaphor to explain what he was doing.

Basically, psionic powers will be on a "spell list" only psionic classes can access.

Still a kind of magic, probably, but not quite the same as a school of magic.


If they make psionics "just another Wizard subclass"... I mean, I don't like Psionics, but this obsession 5e has with shoehorning everything into archetypes of existing classes instead of admitting that some things a class of their own will have gone too far in this case.

Mearls literally said the Mystic will still exist as a class, this is just a non-official vote for the name.

[Naanomi]

Agreed. I've not yet been satisfied by anyone's explanation of the difference between psionics and magic. It's manipulating the world in ways not possible through the conventional laws of physics using one's mind. How much more magic could it be?
Simplified traditional FR lore: psionics is the ability to, through intense meditation and focus (or, for monsters, innate ability) to create your own ‘one person weave’; independent from both the Weave and Shadow Weave

[Millstone85]

That was just a metaphor to explain what he was doing.

Basically, psionic powers will be on a "spell list" only psionic classes can access.

Still a kind of magic, probably, but not quite the same as a school of magic.I thought he was talking about a literal spell list that only psionic classes and subclasses could access.

This way I wouldn't have to say things like "talents are basically cantrips but don't count as such" or "disciplines are basically 1st-level spells with upcasting options but don't count as such".

[Unoriginal]

I thought he was talking about a literal spell list that only psionic classes and subclasses could access.

This way I wouldn't have to say things like "talents are basically cantrips but don't count as such" or "disciplines are basically 1st-level spells with upcasting options but don't count as such".

Well it's probably going to be a literal spell list.

[Hecuba]

But D&D always had creatures/monsters with innate psionic abilities, like mind flayers, gith, and duergars.

I agree, and I personally like the diversity of tone it adds. But it is a decidedly different tone than that quasi-medieval mid-to-high fantasy tone hat sits at the nominal core of D&D.

The basic sword and sorcery conceit is something many people like, and a continually present PC disrupts that tone differently than a single encounter or two with a mindflayer.

That said, you could always just call it headology for those settings and rename the class something like Nanny or Granny.

[Millstone85]

Five hours left before the poll is closed.

My vote went to "psion", by the way.

[Unoriginal]

I agree, and I personally like the diversity of tone it adds. But it is a decidedly different tone than that quasi-medieval mid-to-high fantasy tone hat sits at the nominal core of D&D.

The basic sword and sorcery conceit is something many people like, and a continually present PC disrupts that tone differently than a single encounter or two with a mindflayer.

Even in Conan the Barbarian there was people who could control you with the power of their mind and that kind of stuff.

[Pex]

I wouldn't want Psionics to be Spellcasting with a different name. I like how the Mystic was set up already.

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not tied to either name specifically but I do think there is another angle to consider.

Anyone remember the Favored Soul sorcerer and how it got a lot of heat for not being exactly like the Favored Soul class from 3.5?

I worry using the name Psion will have the same effect, with a portion of the feedback going to "why isn't this like the 3.5 or 4e psion that I liked" instead of looking at how the new class fits and brings psychic powers to 5e.

It just seems better to cut those old ties and call it the Mystic so the design team can make it what it should be instead of what people remember it being. If that makes sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

As the title says.

Link: https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1001569683353432065
Mystic.
Sorry to see Psion pulling ahead.
Sounds too close to Xylon's from battle star galactica.

Mystic has some D&D background too: that's what the class we now call "Monk" was introduced as back in BCEMI (specifically, if memory serves, the Expert set in 1983). Monk arrived in Blackmoor, OD&D, 1975. One of the guys in our group played one.

I always hear that argument thrown around. Why is that so? Because Kask and Gygax, back when they introduced it in 1976, realized how clunky it was and where it came from. I cover a bit of that here. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/72422/22566)

• From this web interview, we find that Kask and Gygax did not like psionics with equal vigor (http://dyverscampaign.blogspot.com/2014/01/tim-kask-on-problems-with-dave-arneson.html)

Tim Kask: I LOVED psionic combat and had great fun devising it with all of its tables and charts. Apparently I was in the tiny minority. I guess mental combat was too esoteric for most D&Ders; not enough of them shared my fondness for the Dr. Strange Marvel comics and Mindflayers. God, I loved Mindflayers; they were all over my dungens. I just loved the idea of turning an annoying PC into a gibbering idiot.. Oh well, live and learn...)
•

Gary Gygax: As for the psionics, that can of worms was my doing. I had created the mind flayer as a fine monster, and I should have left well enough alone; but no! I had to add mental powers, send the initial draft around. I soon hated the whole business, but Len Lakofka and his group in Chicago loved the concept, and Tim was enthused about the addition as well. So, as said Pilate, I washed my hands of the matter."

Old D&D had crashed space ships with ray-guns, power armor you could steal, and mighty robotic servitors. It had hyper-intelligent aliens and brain-eating horrors from the deep. It had monsters from fantasy Mars (like the Displacer Beast) next to monsters from Lovecraft, being fought by heroes from Tolkien and Howard and Leiber, and on the way they encounter Baba-Yaga and her Oni-Magi. Psionic powers fit into D&D's genre just fine, because D&D's genre has always been YES, with a generous side-helping of kitchen sink. Yeah, it fits, but the initial implementation was clunky as hell. We tried it when Eldritch Wizardry came out; arrgh, complexity and such. Tried in 1e. Arrgh, more added crunch for the special PC who had it. At least 3.5's Psionics Expanded psionics handbook got it close to right (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67010/are-psionics-overpowered-or-especially-exploitable/67016#67016).

[Hecuba]

Monk arrived in Blackmoor, OD&D, 1975. One of the guys in our group played one.

Huh. I pulled Supplement II out of the case and you're right - it's right there on page 1. It's nominally a cleric variant, but not really. I though that the version my group started using in OA '81 was the first instance on the non-basic side of the game, but apparently that was just a heavily needed revision.

[Nifft]

Mystic.
Sorry to see Psion pulling ahead. Same.


Yeah, it fits, but the initial implementation was clunky as hell. We tried it when Eldritch Wizardry came out; arrgh, complexity and such. Tried in 1e. Arrgh, more added crunch for the special PC who had it. At least 3.5's Psionics Expanded psionics handbook got it close to right (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67010/are-psionics-overpowered-or-especially-exploitable/67016#67016).

No argument there -- 3.5e did Psionics pretty well.

But honestly I'd love to see them do a better version of what 1e Psionics tried to do, where it's a thing that happens to normal PCs rather than a thing that's separate -- maybe implement Psionics as a bunch of feats and subclasses, rather than starting off with a base class.

Not sure if Psychic Combat needs to be a thing, but 5e could do it better than most other editions -- just make a Defense Mode cost your Reaction, make most Attack Modes cost your Bonus Action, and it's easily possible to fit that whole mess into the system relatively unobtrusively, since you'd still be able to contribute to regular non-Psychic Combat with your action.

[Millstone85]

Psion won with 64% of the votes. Yeah!

However, this feels like a miss of the symbolic mark of the 66%.

[KorvinStarmast]

Psion won with 64% of the votes. All that means is that raw democracy once again shows its true colors: if enough people support a bad idea, it can become law/the rule. :smallyuk:

Response to Nifft:


But honestly I'd love to see them do a better version of what 1e Psionics tried to do, where it's a thing that happens to normal PCs rather than a thing that's separate.
The big thing to change is the need to roll something near 00 on percentile die to have a chance at it ... such as your proposals ..

-- maybe implement Psionics as a bunch of feats and subclasses, rather than starting off with a base class.
Yes, the sub class is a way to approach it, but isn't the monk most of the way there already? A feat prerequisite IMO needs to be 13 or higher intelligence (I hope). The problem with this is that wizards , EK's, and AT's (from an optimization PoV) are one of the few classes who would go for the feat. On the other hand, making this feat available opens up ... what? Are we back to feat chaining?


Not sure if Psychic Combat needs to be a thing, but 5e could do it better than most other editions -- just make a Defense Mode cost your Reaction, make most Attack Modes cost your Bonus Action, and it's easily possible to fit that whole mess into the system relatively unobtrusively, since you'd still be able to contribute to regular non-Psychic Combat with your action. I like that idea, and it sure beats the crap out of how 1e did it (fiddly bits arggghh) ... your idea also makes the decision to burn a psi point in combat linked to an opportunity cost.

[Millstone85]

All that means is that raw democracy once again shows its true colors: if enough people support a bad idea, it can become law/the rule. :smallyuk:Bad ideas become law under any form of government, though. :smallamused:

[KorvinStarmast]

Bad ideas become law under any form of government, though. :smallamused: Speaking of government as a form of necessary evil, had a DM in the early 80's who managed to fold that into a campaign. No matter where we went, there was a form of government, and each was slightly corrupt in its own way. He had taken the advice in the 1e DMG about the various kinds of government, and tried to set up partial models in a variety of different places. Guilds in that campaign had a lot of influence.