Mystic vs. Faerun

[Wolfy32]

So, I have a player that typically plays wizards playing a mystic. He's a great player and former DM.

I have several questions / issues with introducing psionics in a world that isn't seemingly prepared for it.

1. Some creatures specifically state resistance and immunity to psionic damage. So, we're good there.

2. Where things get fuzzy is when mixing arcane with psionics. What do I mean? Well, 5th edition has seemingly taken a standard stance for standard abilities of creatures. One of those standard traits is magic resistance. The monster has advantage on spell saves or spell like abilities.
So, my question is does spell resistance apply to psionics of a mystic? My initial arguement is yes, the mystic should be affected by spell resistance. Why? I think of psionics as a different class of mage. You have Wizard who draws energy from arcane energy, Cleric, who draws energy from a divine being, Druid and Ranger whom draw energy from nature and / or Gods of nature. So, in my opinion the art of psionics is magic with it's energy being drawn from self / will power and/or tapping into alternate realities to make something possible in this reality that otherwise existed in another reality. This means, that no matter what, psionics castings are spells with a different type of damage that some monsters are immune to (mostly clockworks and the like.)

3. If a wizard and a psionist fight, can psionic "castings" be countered by counterspell from the wizard? Based on my argument above, then, yes, they'd be subject to counterspell as well.


4. finally something else I hadn't thought of, but, I just saw when searching this via google - would a mystic have access to all of his abilities and power inside of an anti magic field?



Any arguments for why psionics should not be considered magical and thereforce cannot be countered and can go right through any magic resistance a creature has?

[moonfly7]

They used to draw from the plane of force. But if recommend using the new psionic subclass for wizard. Do not, I repeat, do NOT allow the mystic. That class is completely broken. Completely and totally. I've seen a couple played before(former DM and player loves them) not good. Let them use the subclasses or the psionic sorcerer.
Also, no, they shouldn't be able to cast in an antimagic field. All of the mystics powers should stop working, they should be as useless as a wizard in one.

[returnToThePast]

In past editions, the fact that psionics wasn't just another type of magic, but it's own distinct thing, was emphasized quite a bit. However, the mystic abilities which replicate the effects of a spell are performing magic and would thus be subject to the same rules as ordinary magic. Still no spell components though, should that matter.

[carrdrivesyou]

They used to draw from the plane of force. But if recommend using the new psionic subclass for wizard. Do not, I repeat, do NOT allow the mystic. That class is completely broken. Completely and totally. I've seen a couple played before(former DM and player loves them) not good. Let them use the subclasses or the psionic sorcerer.
Also, no, they shouldn't be able to cast in an antimagic field. All of the mystics powers should stop working, they should be as useless as a wizard in one.

This is pretty much the situation. Psionics is a unique form of spellcasting. Just a weird one.

The Mystic class, as-written, is broken beyond belief. There are some obvious fixes that could be penciled in, but some of the abilities are a bit more debatable. I have seen several homebrew rewrites, and most of them do the class justice, while fixing most of the problems. I'd suggest one of those, if you can find one you agree on.

[Millstone85]

Here is how I would fluff and crunch psionics.

The art of psionics is the manipulation of one's aura, which exists at the interface between one's ki and the Weave.




Weave




aura




ki









All spellcasting has a psionic component. A spellcaster uses the "fingers" of their aura to feel and rearrange the Weave. But true psionics is about producing wondrous effects directly from one's aura.

The difference is most notable in regions of the world where the Weave has particular properties, such as:

a dead-magic zone, where the Weave is all but useless.
a wild-magic zone, where the Weave behaves erratically.
a manifest zone, which shares the traits of another plane.
a wizard's tower, designed to facilitate spells of their school.

Arcane and divine spellcasting work differently in these regions, for weal or woe. Meanwhile, the use of psionics would get no benefit or hindrance from the area.

An antimagic field is not to be confused with a dead-magic zone. The field actively suppresses magical effects, including the form of magic that is psionics.

Spells such as dispel magic are harder to rule. Do psionic disciplines count as spells, meaning the art of psionics can also be called psionic spellcasting, or are they a separate kind of magical effect? I am not sure how I would answer.

Alas, neither the mystic nor the psionicist wizard, as written in UA, would be an adequate match. One is overpowered, while the other only allows a limited number of spells to be cast psionically.


Some creatures specifically state resistance and immunity to psionic damage. So, we're good there.I don't think that's true, at least in 5e. Some creatures have resistance or immunity to psychic damage, yes, but it is not quite the same thing.

[RifleAvenger]

Going to offer dissent to the expressed opinions here that Mystic is busted.

Running a game where I offer a dual-concentration feat that can be taken by most spellcasters before Mystic's multi-concentrate and Mystic powers added as spells to other classes' lists. My game has not burned to the ground.

I'd let Mystic's abilities be dispelable and counterspellable.

[Talsin]

Here is how I would fluff and crunch psionics.

The art of psionics is the manipulation of one's aura, which exists at the interface between one's ki and the Weave.




Weave




aura




ki









All spellcasting has a psionic component. A spellcaster uses the "fingers" of their aura to feel and rearrange the Weave. But true psionics is about producing wondrous effects directly from one's aura.

The difference is most notable in regions of the world where the Weave has particular properties, such as:

a dead-magic zone, where the Weave is all but useless.
a wild-magic zone, where the Weave behaves erratically.
a manifest zone, which shares the traits of another plane.
a wizard's tower, designed to facilitate spells of their school.

Arcane and divine spellcasting work differently in these regions, for weal or woe. Meanwhile, the use of psionics would get no benefit or hindrance from the area.

An antimagic field is not to be confused with a dead-magic zone. The field actively suppresses magical effects, including the form of magic that is psionics.

Spells such as dispel magic are harder to rule. Do psionic disciplines count as spells, meaning the art of psionics can also be called psionic spellcasting, or are they a separate kind of magical effect? I am not sure how I would answer.
...snip

So, if I'm understanding your argument; are four-elements monks actually more like psionics?
To OP then, are 4e monks normally able to be countered?

[Millstone85]

So, if I'm understanding your argument; are four-elements monks actually more like psionics?
To OP then, are 4e monks normally able to be countered?Maybe, yeah, or perhaps just arcane spellcasting that is fueled with ki.
In any case, RAW, they cast spells, and spells can be countered.

[moonfly7]

Going to offer dissent to the expressed opinions here that Mystic is busted.

Running a game where I offer a dual-concentration feat that can be taken by most spellcasters before Mystic's multi-concentrate and Mystic powers added as spells to other classes' lists. My game has not burned to the ground.

I'd let Mystic's abilities be dispelable and counterspellable.

Glad to here that someone else has had anything more than a dumpster fire with this class. My personal experiences are different, but I'm glad it worked for you.
But in general, I've mostly only seen it be broken and unfair, to the point where many players I know have become gun shy of all psionics, and won't touch games with mystics.
That being said, all the new psionic subclasses in UAC have slowly gotten them over their fears. Mine as well. The subclasses are great, and with a possible psionic sourcebook coming out, once and for all proving that even wizards agrees mystic was a bad idea when it's not included, you should allow the new subclasses in that book.

[Dork_Forge]

Going to offer dissent to the expressed opinions here that Mystic is busted.

Running a game where I offer a dual-concentration feat that can be taken by most spellcasters before Mystic's multi-concentrate and Mystic powers added as spells to other classes' lists. My game has not burned to the ground.

I'd let Mystic's abilities be dispelable and counterspellable.

Have to agree on the dissent, both playing, being in a party with and DMing a Mystic I've never felt it broken nor can I see it as such from a theorycraft point of vieow unless you start mixing it with multiclasses and taking liberties with playtest material (like assuming you can use psionics whilst raging). I'll agree that some disciplines need tweaking, but as a whole it was interesting and reasonable, when people get into debates about why it's broken it tends to end up more as "well people keep saying it's broken so it must be."

As for dealing with psionics, it should be dispelable and be affected by an antimagic field but not Counterspellable (mixture between they aren't spells and there's nothing to perceive like a Subtle spell).

I really hope the current direction UA is taking with Psionics gets some pushback.

[Seekergeek]

Going to likewise say that unless you want to break it, the Mystic can be just fine. Played one myself from 1-12 in cult of the dragon queen/rise of tiamat and while there was an element of self-control invovled no one felt it out-shined the rest of the party in any meaningful way. Likewise I've DMd OotA with a mystic player without issue. If you or your player want to break the game, they are going to try and break the game regardless of what class they play. That risk is inherent in a game like this - as a DM you can mitigate those risks or work within the game to minimize their impact. As a player you can realize that you don't 'win' dnd and that it is a team game that benefits the most from collaberative play not competative play.

[Wolfy32]

So, going forward what I've gathered from a generally accepted practice:

1. Mystics can be counterspelled
2. Are affected by anti magic fields (haven't encountered one yet, but they're fighting Thayan politics so, there will be more and more magic as we go and therefore anti magic protections.)
3. Mystic effects are unaffected by dispel magic (though I'm wondering why not?)
4. Mystic abilities are affected by monster "magic resistance".

Our biggest contention between the person playing the mystic and I is that psionics go through spell resistance. Monsters (that have magic resistance) do not get advantage on saves against mystic abilities.

The problem with this is that 5e didn't build psionics into magic resistance. Was that intentional or an oversight?

My thought is it's an oversight.

Then there's the question that a Dragon or a Demon that has legendary saves, couldn't choose to save against psionics?

[Millstone85]

If it looks like I am ignoring the post above, it is because it appeared while I had almost finished this one.

So, if you use the mystic, note that the relationship with magic has been redefined between the second and third versions.

Version 2 (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA6_AwakenedMysticv2.pdf)

Psionics and magic are two distinct forces. In general, an effect that alters or affects a spell has no effect on a psionic effect. There is one important exception to this rule. A psionic effect that reproduces a spell is treated as magic. A psionic effect reproduces a spell when it allows a psionic creature or character to cast a spell. In this case, psionic energy taps into magic and manipulates it to cast the spell.

For example, the mind flayer as presented in the Monster Manual has the Innate Spellcasting (Psionics) feature. This feature allows the mind flayer to cast a set of spells using psionic energy. These spells can be countered with dispel magic and similar effects.

Version 3 (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAMystic3.pdf)

Psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting.
Psionic disciplines are magical and function similarly to spells.
Psionics and spells are separate effects, and therefore their benefits and drawbacks overlap. A psionic effect that reproduces a spell is an exception to this rule.

It seems that, in both versions, most psionic disciplines would not be affected by counterspell or dispel magic. Indeed, those only work against spells, which psionic disciplines are not. But some psionic disciplines involve casting a spell, which can be countered.

If I understand the second version correctly, most psionic disciplines should also be immune to antimagic field, since psionic effects are not magical effects.

But in the third version, psionic effects are in fact magical effects, so antimagic field should work against all psionic disciplines, even against those that do not involve casting a spell.

In a recent tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1204514864388927489), Crawford said that the psionicist wizard is not meant to replace the mystic. But I would still take the glaring absence of psionic disciplines in this UA (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-PsychicSoulPsionics.pdf) as a sign that they are dropping the concept. It would sure be simpler to just give spells to the mystic, even if I really liked the way they did psionic disciplines.

[Wolfy32]

If it looks like I am ignoring the post above, it is because it appeared while I had almost finished this one.

So, if you use the mystic, note that the relationship with magic has been redefined between the second and third versions.


It seems that, in both versions, most psionic disciplines would not be affected by counterspell or dispel magic. Indeed, those only work against spells, which psionic disciplines are not. But some psionic disciplines involve casting a spell, which can be countered.

If I understand the second version correctly, most psionic disciplines should also be immune to antimagic field, since psionic effects are not magical effects.

But in the third version, psionic effects are in fact magical effects, so antimagic field should work against all psionic disciplines, even against those that do not involve casting a spell.


So, going with the third version. Would they be subject to monster magic resistance? (Advantage on spell saves or spell like effects).

[Millstone85]

So, going with the third version. Would they be subject to monster magic resistance? (Advantage on spell saves or spell like effects).*Advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects.

And yes, if psionic effects are magical effects, they should.


1. Mystics can be counterspelled
3. Mystic effects are unaffected by dispel magic (though I'm wondering why not?)Other way around, I think.

It has to do with this sage advice, which I forgot before:
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
By the same logic, counterspell should be of no use against psionic spellcasting, which removes the need for any component.


Then there's the question that a Dragon or a Demon that has legendary saves, couldn't choose to save against psionics?So, in the red dragon's stablock, it says:
Legendary Resistance (3/Day). If the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.
The source of the saving throw, psionic or otherwise, doesn't matter.

[Zevox]

So, I have a player that typically plays wizards playing a mystic. He's a great player and former DM.

I have several questions / issues with introducing psionics in a world that isn't seemingly prepared for it.

1. Some creatures specifically state resistance and immunity to psionic damage. So, we're good there.

2. Where things get fuzzy is when mixing arcane with psionics. What do I mean? Well, 5th edition has seemingly taken a standard stance for standard abilities of creatures. One of those standard traits is magic resistance. The monster has advantage on spell saves or spell like abilities.
So, my question is does spell resistance apply to psionics of a mystic? My initial arguement is yes, the mystic should be affected by spell resistance. Why? I think of psionics as a different class of mage. You have Wizard who draws energy from arcane energy, Cleric, who draws energy from a divine being, Druid and Ranger whom draw energy from nature and / or Gods of nature. So, in my opinion the art of psionics is magic with it's energy being drawn from self / will power and/or tapping into alternate realities to make something possible in this reality that otherwise existed in another reality. This means, that no matter what, psionics castings are spells with a different type of damage that some monsters are immune to (mostly clockworks and the like.)

3. If a wizard and a psionist fight, can psionic "castings" be countered by counterspell from the wizard? Based on my argument above, then, yes, they'd be subject to counterspell as well.


4. finally something else I hadn't thought of, but, I just saw when searching this via google - would a mystic have access to all of his abilities and power inside of an anti magic field?
All of that, I think, basically comes down to a question that any DM ruling on it needs to answer for themselves: do you favor simplicity and keeping a balance between Psionics and Magic, or do you favor emphasizing Psionics as something distinct from magic? The former is served by allowing anti-magic things to work against Psionics; the latter is served by not allowing it. Though in the latter case you should probably introduce other mechanics that can be anti-Psionic in similar ways to how the ones you mentioned are anti-magic, to prevent Psionics from just being straight-up better than magic due to lacking such counters.

Personally, I'd definitely have Magic Resistance apply against Psionics, unless there was a particular creature that it felt appropriate to have be resistant to typical magic but not Psionics for some reason (and I can't think of one, in 5E at least, off the top of my head). Counterspelling and anti-magic fields I'd probably be more inclined to have Psionics be immune to, but allow counterparts that worked against Psionics specifically to be researched if a player (or villain who knows they'll have to fight a Psionic PC) wanted to, in order to emphasize their being different them but hopefully not overpower them.

Incidentally, Psionics has been a thing in the Forgotten Realms for quite some time, it's just an extremely rare thing (sometimes called the "Invisible Art," in contrast to magic simply being "the Art"). There's even an old nation that was ruled by Psionicists from shortly after its founding until its fall, Jhaamdath, and a obscure God of Psionics, Auppenser.