Mystic fixes?

[WadeWay33]

Any good homebrew mystics or fixes for the UA mystic that you’ve seen?

Bonus Question: When do you think we are going to get an official mystic, and with what book?

[Man_Over_Game]

A few popular ones on the Homebrew forum:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?411727-New-Class-Mystic-Warrior-(Fighting-Arcane-Hybrid)-PEACH
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?421986-Psionics-a-homebrew-system
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?593739-Psionics-Reloaded-the-Psion-and-Psychic-Warrior-ALL-DISCIPLINES-NOW-COMPLETE-(PEACH)

Although, as to when a Mystic would ever come out? Never. The issue the team discovered is that it was impossible to develop anything when their audience couldn't decide on what it is they wanted. Nobody can agree on how Psionics fit with the current world of magic, so how do you work on anything that has no direction?

I think that's why the Mystic was originally designed to have so many ways of building it: as a means of trying to make everyone happy. Even if there was something that didn't fit your image of the Mystic, there was still a way to make your Mystic. Unfortunately, it just had too many moving parts and it kinda collapsed on itself, while still having more identity issues than the Warlock. It didn't feel like a psionic, but just a generic and versatile mage.

I'm of the opinion that they already introduced Psionics with the Monk and its Ki system. Adding Ki points to Sorcerer, Wizard or Barbarian would fit well in the existing system while also appeasing pretty much everyone. Subclasses are only as relevant as long as a player is using them, and who can define a Barbarian using Ki points more than the player?

[Jerrykhor]

Yeah, with 5e's flexibility for refluffing, they shouldn't have to cram that many Disciplines in. I felt that the Giant growth. Diminuation, Mastery of wood and earth, and Mastery of Light and Darkness to be very weird thematically. Mechanically, they have issues too, though i suspect they are more typo mistakes than balance.

Personally, i played this version for a few years:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/462kev/the_psionic_handbook_a_homebrew_continuation_of/

[Dork_Forge]

This comes up quite a lot and I'm always rather confused about it. What do you not like about the last iteration of the Mystic? I think it would be easier to tweak that to your liking rather than create or adopt something completely homebrew.

[FinnS]

Wish there was. I have yet to see a balanced Mystic class come out in any edition of D&D which is unfortunate because I love the concept.

[Arkhios]

From my point of view, a few of the fundamental differences between psionics and magic in 3rd edition was that psionics worked even while wearing armor without any difficulties (even if you didn't have proficiency), and that it had different components. In 5th edition, spellcasting is possible by all classes as long as they have proficiency in the armor they're wearing (if you don't have the proficiency, you can't cast any of your spells - even if you're a cleric), psionics as it used to be has lost quite a bit of its previous flair. Since many, if not all, psionic effects mimicked spell effects, it stands to no reason to create duplicates of exactly same effects. At least not in my opinion. YMMV of course. Currently, my approach would be to introduce new mental components that would replace the standard Somatic and Verbal components, but they too would have to have as much impact on the game, as standard components have.

Honestly, in my opinion, Pathfinder's Psychic Magic (http://pathfinder.d20srd.org/occultAdventures/psychicMagic.html) works phenomenally well, with their key components Emotion and Thought replacing Somatic and Verbal components for psychic spells (most of which are still same spells, just with a different method to cast them). How would this work in 5th edition environment? Well, we've seen the next wave of psionics having already been introduced via UA, and it's following similar steps as this. Psionics can indeed work as subclasses to some of the existing classes (namely those that gain their subclass features immediately at the same level when they gain their Spellcasting/Pact Magic feature).

So, it's perfectly reasonable to implement psionic subclasses to sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards, and same could be said about clerics as well, to be honest. But that doesn't have to be the only way. You could also introduce psionics as a variant class feature, that simply replaces the spellcasting or pact magic with psionic equivalent, that would simply use different components, as I suggested above.

And there's still room for a new psionic only class.

[werescythe]

So I do like the Mystic class, however I feel they are going to go down the route we saw with the psychic fighter, rogue, wizard and technically sorcerer subclass. I do kind of hope they will release a UA with a psychic monk (unless you want to claim the Astral Fists is psychic), just because it makes sense thematically.

[DarknessEternal]

So I do like the Mystic class, however I feel they are going to go down the route we saw with the psychic fighter, rogue, wizard and technically sorcerer subclass.

What psychic sorcerer?

[Arkhios]

What psychic sorcerer?

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-AberrantLurk.pdf

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think that's why the Mystic was originally designed to have so many ways of building it: as a means of trying to make everyone happy. Even if there was something that didn't fit your image of the Mystic, there was still a way to make your Mystic. Unfortunately, it just had too many moving parts and it kinda collapsed on itself, while still having more identity issues than the Warlock. It didn't feel like a psionic, but just a generic and versatile mage.
Agreed. That's why one of the most important changes I made in my rewrite was taking an axe to the list of Disciplines-- instead of everything being available to everyone, the majority of Disciplines are locked behind subclasses. Only Wu Jen can take the elemental ones, only War Minds can take the mantles, and so on.

(Other big changes include switching psi points to a short rest resource, expanding psi limit to encompass the entire round, adding Warlock-style "high psionics" to provide high-level progression, and cutting the class in half to make a full caster and a half caster)


https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?593739-Psionics-Reloaded-the-Psion-and-Psychic-Warrior-ALL-DISCIPLINES-NOW-COMPLETE-(PEACH)
...and I see you already linked said rewrite :smallredface:

[Christew]

Mystic as presented in UA was fundamentally broken. Like belongs in another rules system broken. The fix is to forget you ever saw it and instead fluff/reskin existing classes to achieve whatever it was you liked about the Mystic. If the brokenness IS what you liked then play a different game.

[Dork_Forge]

Mystic as presented in UA was fundamentally broken. Like belongs in another rules system broken. The fix is to forget you ever saw it and instead fluff/reskin existing classes to achieve whatever it was you liked about the Mystic. If the brokenness IS what you liked then play a different game.
Are you going to provide any evidence to back up those wild claims?

[Sam113097]

I have a question: what do people want from a mystic class? What role would a mystic play in a party?

As someone that has only ever played 5e D&D, I've only read a bit about how psionics worked in previous additions (as far as I understand it, as sort of a point-based alternate casting system). It seems to me that the Monk and the new UA subclasses work flavor-wise as psionics, and I suppose that the alternate spell points system presented in the 5e DMG could be used to represent the traditional point-based casting of a psionic character.

[Christew]

Are you going to provide any evidence to back up those wild claims?
Evidence it is irrevocably broken: WotC has abandoned it.

The original document read like the worst kind of homebrew. Even after revision it has serious problems.
1) The versatility is obscene. Nobody wants to play in a party with someone who is good at everything. Kind of defeats the purpose of the party based adventuring that d&d is designed for.
2) The Psi point system is poorly implemented. Having the spell points of a full caster but with enhanced flexibility is a significant power boost over other classes.
3) The covert nature of psionics is overpowered. Subtle spell costs sorcery points. The mystic can do this without cost.

Honestly thought all this was common knowledge.

[Dork_Forge]

Evidence it is irrevocably broken: WotC has abandoned it.

The original document read like the worst kind of homebrew. Even after revision it has serious problems.
1) The versatility is obscene. Nobody wants to play in a party with someone who is good at everything. Kind of defeats the purpose of the party based adventuring that d&d is designed for.
2) The Psi point system is poorly implemented. Having the spell points of a full caster but with enhanced flexibility is a significant power boost over other classes.
3) The covert nature of psionics is overpowered. Subtle spell costs sorcery points. The mystic can do this without cost.

Honestly thought all this was common knowledge.

Your proof that they abandoned it is..?

Just because in your opinion something is too versatile doesn't make that thing so good it's broken. Pretty much everything a Mystic can do can be replicated or exceeded by another class.

The Psi point system was fine, it made the player balance using their abilities throughout a day and flexing enough to get things done, it's extremely easy to burn through your points with encounters left in the day.

Psionics also didn't go beyond 5th level spells in power, it was meant to be different to casting and in the Mystic they achieved that. It was just UA so the supporting rules around Psionics was a bit thin but that's hardly the fault of the class.

Have you played or seen a Mystic in play, or are you just repeating opinions regularly voiced? I've seen criticism on the Mystic many times so in that sense, sure it's common knowledge. But I've never seen any real substantial back up of those claims. If something isn't to your taste that's one thing, but it's hardly broken.

[Christew]

Your proof that they abandoned it is..?
Your insistence on "evidence" and "proof" for what is ultimately my opinion smacks a bit of a child repeatedly asking why. Because the last iteration was released like three years ago. Because the last Psionics UA abandoned the concept entirely and instead built upon existing classes. Because.


Just because in your opinion something is too versatile doesn't make that thing so good it's broken. Pretty much everything a Mystic can do can be replicated or exceeded by another class.
I mean, in a game that is built around bringing diversely talented characters together in a party to solve problems in the course of adventure, yes being too versatile is a problem. Yes, individual classes can replicate or exceed the Mystic in one sphere. The issue is that the Mystic can perform in all spheres.


The Psi point system was fine, it made the player balance using their abilities throughout a day and flexing enough to get things done, it's extremely easy to burn through your points with encounters left in the day.
A mystic could burn psi points to use abilities at their highest level without being limited by encounter spell slots, like a warlock. They can alternatively spend all of their points on low priced, efficient abilities without having to convert higher level slots at a loss, like a sorcerer. It is hardly balanced when it surpasses the power curve for two comparable base classes in two different ways.


Psionics also didn't go beyond 5th level spells in power, it was meant to be different to casting and in the Mystic they achieved that. It was just UA so the supporting rules around Psionics was a bit thin but that's hardly the fault of the class.
I'll give you that it is different. I won't give you that it is well designed, balanced, or destined for actual publication. Again, it surpasses the power curve of a similar ability on a base class. The class was a sum and total approach to psionics (again, apparently abandoned), so yes it is the fault of the class to introduce mechanics that are poorly supported. I don't fault it for being a UA -- the very purpose of which is to sling stuff at the wall and see what sticks -- I fault it for being so far outside the balancing ethos of the rest of WotCs released material. Hence my original advice to ignore it instead of trying to fix it.


Have you played or seen a Mystic in play, or are you just repeating opinions regularly voiced? I've seen criticism on the Mystic many times so in that sense, sure it's common knowledge. But I've never seen any real substantial back up of those claims. If something isn't to your taste that's one thing, but it's hardly broken.
I played a Soul Knife in tiers 1 and 2. I also DMed for a Wu Jen. While fun, I found myself deliberately holding back both in terms of allowing other players to shine and on not selecting the more powerful abilities.

What you are describing is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that borders on preponderance. Perhaps this is because the community at large agrees that the Mystic is broken through both theorycrafting and playtesting (again, the goal of UA). I can't provide you with an aggregate study analyzing every player's experience, but the proof is in the pudding. If the Mystic had any viability, we would have seen a design schedule approximating that of the Artificer (UA, Revision, WGtE, and finally publication), instead we saw a stall out over a longer period (UA, Revision, silence). And that's with fans of psionics tending to outnumber those of artifice/Eberron.

If you like the Mystic, do you. Your game is your game. But for discussion purposes, my view remains unchanged: the Mystic is broken and it offers so little in the way of compelling or balanced design that I find it difficult to believe anyone who says they want to play it for any other reason than said brokenness. Almost any character concept can be built on the better designed and balanced existing classes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Evidence it is irrevocably broken: WotC has abandoned it.
As I understand it, it was abandoned because of conceptual issues, rather than mechanical ones-- there was too much argument about if it fit into standard D&D fantasy and if it needed to be a base class or not.


1) The versatility is obscene. Nobody wants to play in a party with someone who is good at everything. Kind of defeats the purpose of the party based adventuring that d&d is designed for.
I agree with you on this one. The Mystic as written suffered from trying to cover too many bases-- it was trying to replace all ~7 of the psionic classes in 3.5 (Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Lurk, Ardent, Divine Mind, Psychic Warrior) and offer support for all possible archetypes, so you wound up being able to pick and choose the best options from everything. Like if you had a single "Mage" class who could learn every spell in the game. When you combine that with the fact that a bunch of the Disciplines and-- especially-- Psionic Focus abilities were overtuned... yeah, you get someone who can be the best at everything.

(And to be honest, I think (some of) that was known. The Mystic already read like something that was going to get chopped up after playtesting. The developers wanted to get feedback on everything, so they front-loaded the class and left in a ton of options so that every part would get tested. You see the front-loading a lot in experimental UA like the early Ranger revisions.)

But it's not beyond repair. Fix the Disciplines, and you get rid of the "better than everyone else at their own schtick" problem. Restrict subclass Disciplines to subclasses, maybe break off the gish archtypes into their own class (as I did in my rewrite), and things get far, far better.


2) The Psi point system is poorly implemented. Having the spell points of a full caster but with enhanced flexibility is a significant power boost over other classes.
It's 100% identical to the Spell Points variant in the DMG. There are issues (you can nova harder than other full casters, the way psi limit is written loses the one-leveled-spell-per-turn restriction), but they're hardly irrevocable.


3) The covert nature of psionics is overpowered. Subtle spell costs sorcery points. The mystic can do this without cost.
That can be fixed with one sentence.

[WadeWay33]

*snip*

I’d like to say that after reading through your rewrite, it’s one of the most balanced versions is psionics I’ve seen in 5e. Well done!

[Christew]

Okay. Mea culpa. This was admittedly a cogent and thoughtful defense.


As I understand it, it was abandoned because of conceptual issues, rather than mechanical ones-- there was too much argument about if it fit into standard D&D fantasy and if it needed to be a base class or not.
Fair point, though I'd wager it was at least a combination of the two.


I agree with you on this one. The Mystic as written suffered from trying to cover too many bases-- it was trying to replace all ~7 of the psionic classes in 3.5 (Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Lurk, Ardent, Divine Mind, Psychic Warrior) and offer support for all possible archetypes, so you wound up being able to pick and choose the best options from everything. Like if you had a single "Mage" class who could learn every spell in the game. When you combine that with the fact that a bunch of the Disciplines and-- especially-- Psionic Focus abilities were overtuned... yeah, you get someone who can be the best at everything.

(And to be honest, I think (some of) that was known. The Mystic already read like something that was going to get chopped up after playtesting. The developers wanted to get feedback on everything, so they front-loaded the class and left in a ton of options so that every part would get tested. You see the front-loading a lot in experimental UA like the early Ranger revisions.)

But it's not beyond repair. Fix the Disciplines, and you get rid of the "better than everyone else at their own schtick" problem. Restrict subclass Disciplines to subclasses, maybe break off the gish archtypes into their own class (as I did in my rewrite), and things get far, far better.
You have convinced me to look at your rewrite. Touche.


It's 100% identical to the Spell Points variant in the DMG. There are issues (you can nova harder than other full casters, the way psi limit is written loses the one-leveled-spell-per-turn restriction), but they're hardly irrevocable.


That can be fixed with one sentence.
My point was that lacking the restriction makes it not %100 identical. You get the points of a full caster with added nova ability.

You advocate for what seem like reasonable tweaks, but it adds up to almost death by a thousand cuts. If we are retooling the psi points, and the subclasses, and the available powers, and the subtle casting, and limiting versatility at what point have we stopped fixing the Mystic and started just designing a better Psionics class.

Will return after reading your rewrite.

[Dork_Forge]

Your insistence on "evidence" and "proof" for what is ultimately my opinion smacks a bit of a child repeatedly asking why. Because the last iteration was released like three years ago. Because the last Psionics UA abandoned the concept entirely and instead built upon existing classes. Because.


Please refrain from name-calling on the forum, it's rude and unbecoming of any mature adult. You were labelling something as abandoned without any reason why, that's not typically how useful discussion goes. Your opinion is that it was abandoned, meanwhile Jeremy Crawford would disagree. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1095369855442644992?lang=en) Here's a more recent quote from November: "We haven’t closed the door on a class like mystic/psion. But right now, we’re focused on exploring subclass options. Just as the wizard doesn’t own arcane magic and the cleric doesn’t own divine magic, a potential psionic class doesn’t own psionics."


I mean, in a game that is built around bringing diversely talented characters together in a party to solve problems in the course of adventure, yes being too versatile is a problem. Yes, individual classes can replicate or exceed the Mystic in one sphere. The issue is that the Mystic can perform in all spheres.

Warlocks and Clerics are the first to come to mind as similarly versatile, with the Sorcerer not that far behind them just lacking in martial ability. The Mystic was a versatile class that sacrificed the power of specialising for the power of versatility, why is that a bad thing?


A mystic could burn psi points to use abilities at their highest level without being limited by encounter spell slots, like a warlock. They can alternatively spend all of their points on low priced, efficient abilities without having to convert higher level slots at a loss, like a sorcerer. It is hardly balanced when it surpasses the power curve for two comparable base classes in two different ways.

Your comparison is false, I don't understand why you'd compare the short rest class Warlock with a long rest class novaing and see it as a fair comparison. ANY long rest class will out nova a Warlock, then subsequently struggle to get by for the rest of the day whilst the Warlock is fresh after every short rest. You're comparing a Socerer's flexible casting to a Mystic's psi points... why? The Sorcerer can spend their dedicated low level slots and use their FOUR cantrips for low power abilities. All the psi points really give you is the added difficulty of pacing yourself vs a slot based caster, you CAN go heavy first chance you get, but unless you are playing a one encounter day you're going to regret it, and in that scenario EVERY long rest character will shine.


I'll give you that it is different. I won't give you that it is well designed, balanced, or destined for actual publication. Again, it surpasses the power curve of a similar ability on a base class. The class was a sum and total approach to psionics (again, apparently abandoned), so yes it is the fault of the class to introduce mechanics that are poorly supported. I don't fault it for being a UA -- the very purpose of which is to sling stuff at the wall and see what sticks -- I fault it for being so far outside the balancing ethos of the rest of WotCs released material. Hence my original advice to ignore it instead of trying to fix it.

What ability are you talking about? Flexibile casting on a Sorcerer is a side ability that plays second fiddle to Metamagic and ignores the fact that Sorcerers have all of their own normal slots. You keep saying it's so powerful or versatile, what "sphere" does it best another class at? How is it better at hitting multiple "spheres" than a Cleric, Warlock or even Divine Soul?

The designers are on record as saying they lean into UA as more powerful because it's easier to scale back before publication than ramp up, if that is a problem to you then I imagine you dislike most UA.


I played a Soul Knife in tiers 1 and 2. I also DMed for a Wu Jen. While fun, I found myself deliberately holding back both in terms of allowing other players to shine and on not selecting the more powerful abilities.

What you are describing is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that borders on preponderance. Perhaps this is because the community at large agrees that the Mystic is broken through both theorycrafting and playtesting (again, the goal of UA). I can't provide you with an aggregate study analyzing every player's experience, but the proof is in the pudding. If the Mystic had any viability, we would have seen a design schedule approximating that of the Artificer (UA, Revision, WGtE, and finally publication), instead we saw a stall out over a longer period (UA, Revision, silence). And that's with fans of psionics tending to outnumber those of artifice/Eberron.

If you like the Mystic, do you. Your game is your game. But for discussion purposes, my view remains unchanged: the Mystic is broken and it offers so little in the way of compelling or balanced design that I find it difficult to believe anyone who says they want to play it for any other reason than said brokenness. Almost any character concept can be built on the better designed and balanced existing classes.

And your party was playing..? Were the players experienced and optimised? I played an Immortal from 3 to 8 (in a party of a Phoenix Sorcadin, HOrc Battle Master and Halfling Arcane Trickster) and at no point outshined my party in anything but resilience (and that was because I specifically built my character to be hard to kill). I played alongside an Immortal as a Sorcerer with an Eldritch Knight dip and out nova'd the Mystic (a power gamer) easily and never felt outshined outside of combat either. I DM'd a party that included I think an Avatar, it was a few years ago now) and the character never stood out amongst the party and I never had to take them into consideration more than anyone else.

I've already quoted Jeremy Crawford a couple times, to say that it would have seen a release schedule like the Artificer is hardly reliable, they plan their books years ahead and something like Psionics won't just pop up in any old book, it took the Artificer 3 UAs a paid playtest and a specific setting book to be released. Psionic fans outnumbering Eberron fans sounds just iffy unless you have a poll to back it up.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you choose to share your opinion on a forum you should be prepared to offer reasoning for it. Your reasoning amounts to "it's too versatile" and "psi points are more flexible than Flexible casting" when the versatility is matched by a few caster classes and the comparison to flexible casting rather... well moot, one is a core aspect of a class the other is a side ability, unless you're going for a coffeelock I doubt many people play a Sorcerer for Flexibile Casting.

You think that just using spells and labelling them Psionics (either in fluff or like the more recent UA subclasses) is satisfactory, I disagree, you're just playing an offbrand caster instead of something different and (in my opinion) more interesting. This type of Psionics also risks taking away from existing classes, we already have a publicised race that gets access to an invisible, componentless Mage Hand, I doubt that feels good to AT players.

[furby076]

Although, as to when a Mystic would ever come out? Never. The issue the team discovered is that it was impossible to develop anything when their audience couldn't decide on what it is they wanted. Nobody can agree on how Psionics fit with the current world of magic, so how do you work on anything that has no direction?

Do you have evidence to never?

QUOTE=Man_Over_Game;24402571

I'm of the opinion that they already introduced Psionics with the Monk and its Ki system. Adding Ki points to Sorcerer, Wizard or Barbarian would fit well in the existing system while also appeasing pretty much everyone. Subclasses are only as relevant as long as a player is using them, and who can define a Barbarian using Ki points more than the player?[/QUOTE]

So take a sorcerer and have it use sorcerer points and call it a psion? that's a very unimaginative and poorly contrived way to make a psion.

I think you have little faith in the abilities of WOTC. With tweaks to some of the powers and abilities, the v3 mystic can work well. Thematically, its a skill monkey. It can do anything others can but it lacks in high end raw power (current state). It's a completely new class (which will require everything, including rules on spells vs powers, magic items, monsters, etc). So, this won't fit in half a page like adding a subclass into Xanders guide. This would blow up a game setting like spelljammer or dark sun, but probably fits in one of those two bests.

[furby076]

Wish there was. I have yet to see a balanced Mystic class come out in any edition of D&D which is unfortunate because I love the concept.

2e psion was mystic. The fatal flaw was the psionic combat between two psions. At the time, my DM just killed personal psionic battles

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you have evidence to never?

...

So take a sorcerer and have it use sorcerer points and call it a psion? that's a very unimaginative and poorly contrived way to make a psion.

I think you have little faith in the abilities of WOTC. With tweaks to some of the powers and abilities, the v3 mystic can work well. Thematically, its a skill monkey. It can do anything others can but it lacks in high end raw power (current state). It's a completely new class (which will require everything, including rules on spells vs powers, magic items, monsters, etc). So, this won't fit in half a page like adding a subclass into Xanders guide. This would blow up a game setting like spelljammer or dark sun, but probably fits in one of those two bests.

No evidence, just a hunch.

There'd be more to it than just sticking Ki points on the Sorcerer. The Monk uses Ki points, yet that's not you think of when you think of it. You imagine a fast-punching blur of movement and fists...mostly due to good implentation of Ki points.

You could do a Psionic Sorcerer by making Sorcery Points to also be considered as Ki points, which you refresh on a Short Rest. Add some kind of cost to compensate for the faster recharge Sorcery Points by saying that you can't convert them into spell slots, or that casting a spell that targets another creatures costs spell points equal to your level.

Mostly, the Ki point thing is just to make sure Monks are included. Otherwise, it'd be very confusing to consider how Monks would fit into a Psionic setting.

But I think that a suite of subclasses would be better to implement than a single class. Otherwise, what you run into is a problem where the Psionic class only has a single particular trope, and so it fails the 90% of players that it misses. Or, you make something that does everything and it has no personality (like Mystic v2).

Rather than make a single thing with a lot of different expectations, chop it up into 12 different things with different expectations.

You already know what a Barbarian is supposed to feel like, so a "Psionic Barbarian" has a pretty clear image that you can recognize, right? That would (and should) be different than someone else's image of a Psionic that lifts things with their mind (like a Wizard Psionic).

Use Ki points to allow different Psionic classes to work together, while also making Monks basically the original "Mystic" class.

[Dork_Forge]

No evidence, just a hunch.

There'd be more to it than just sticking Ki points on the Sorcerer. The Monk uses Ki points, yet that's not you think of when you think of it. You imagine a fast-punching blur of movement and fists...mostly due to good implentation of Ki points.


No, that's because the core thing the Monk does is unarmed attacks and so they get the Martial Arts feature. They have Ki points to spend on abilities, but they don't need to do that to still hit their niche of being an unarmed fighter that attacks more than average.

Ripping a mechanic out of one class and using it as a mechanic for a completely different ability set for subclasses across all other classes... to be honest sounds a bit weird and smacks more of homebrew than 5e design. At that point Ki might as well be called Psi points and the Monk gets to use them for other things. And why would the Monk be the original Psion class? The fluff of Ki in 5e links it directly to the body and physical acts, not the mind.

If you're going to give points to subclasses why wouldn't you just retain the core Mystic class and then give the subclasses a smaller pool of Psi points to use alas full casters and their 3rd caster subclass counter parts? A core Psion class is important because how many people would want to play a Psion, then get stuck with a bunch of stuff they don't want because in order to get psionics they need an irrelevant to concept main class? If I wanted to play a Psionicist and got stuck with a bunch of full caster slots and spells it would lead to 1)power balancing issues and 2) a disjointed sense of character identity. Why can I cast spells better than I can use Psionics? And no, refluffing spells as psionics isn't adequate to make that go away.

[Man_Over_Game]

No, that's because the core thing the Monk does is unarmed attacks and so they get the Martial Arts feature. They have Ki points to spend on abilities, but they don't need to do that to still hit their niche of being an unarmed fighter that attacks more than average.

Ripping a mechanic out of one class and using it as a mechanic for a completely different ability set for subclasses across all other classes... to be honest sounds a bit weird and smacks more of homebrew than 5e design. At that point Ki might as well be called Psi points and the Monk gets to use them for other things. And why would the Monk be the original Psion class? The fluff of Ki in 5e links it directly to the body and physical acts, not the mind.

If you're going to give points to subclasses why wouldn't you just retain the core Mystic class and then give the subclasses a smaller pool of Psi points to use alas full casters and their 3rd caster subclass counter parts? A core Psion class is important because how many people would want to play a Psion, then get stuck with a bunch of stuff they don't want because in order to get psionics they need an irrelevant to concept main class? If I wanted to play a Psionicist and got stuck with a bunch of full caster slots and spells it would lead to 1)power balancing issues and 2) a disjointed sense of character identity. Why can I cast spells better than I can use Psionics? And no, refluffing spells as psionics isn't adequate to make that go away.

I'd say that the Monk's unique identity comes more from his mobility and versatility. Bonus Action attacking is something everyone can find a way to do it. The fists themselves don't really change much in terms of playstyle, decision or niche.

We've copied mechanics from one class to put on anothe, even more than once. Eldritch Knight, Martial Adept, Bladesinging is basically Barbarian Rage, tons of subclasses explicitly mention a spell when they otherwise wouldn't cast spells.

The idea is to give everyone the means of making the Psion the way they envisioned it. They tried the method of having one class do everything. I'd think it makes sense to have each class have an option of doing their thing...psionically.

If a Psionic Wizard had a feature that said his spellbook was his mind, his Psychic, Thunder and Bludgeoning damage was increased, and he no longer needed nonexpended components, would he be all that different, thematically, from anyone that wanted "Psion that uses mind-powers"?

[Dork_Forge]

I'd say that the Monk's unique identity comes more from his mobility and versatility. Bonus Action attacking is something everyone can find a way to do it. The fists themselves don't really change much in terms of playstyle, decision or niche.

We've copied mechanics from one class to put on anothe, even more than once. Eldritch Knight, Martial Adept, Bladesinging is basically Barbarian Rage, tons of subclasses explicitly mention a spell when they otherwise wouldn't cast spells.

The idea is to give everyone the means of making the Psion the way they envisioned it. They tried the method of having one class do everything. I'd think it makes sense to have each class have an option of doing their thing...psionically.

If a Psionic Wizard had a feature that said his spellbook was his mind, his Psychic, Thunder and Bludgeoning damage was increased, and he no longer needed nonexpended components, would he be all that different, thematically, from anyone that wanted "Psion that uses mind-powers"?

Their speed boost is not connected to ki at all and versatility is vague. Monks don't wear armor and have the best unarmed attack in the game, whether you think that changes playstyle or whatever else doesn't change that it is what gives the Monk their Unique identity.

I have no idea what aspect of the Eldritch Knight you're referring to, but Bladesinging resemble rage in literally no way other than they both take a bonus action to activate.

Why wouldn't it make sense to have both a class and subclasses for others?

Yes, he would. He would be casting spells and doing everything just like any other Wizard with a small tacked on Psionic feel. it feels cheap and shallow instead of giving new mechanics that enrich the game.

[Drascin]

I agree with you on this one. The Mystic as written suffered from trying to cover too many bases-- it was trying to replace all ~7 of the psionic classes in 3.5 (Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Lurk, Ardent, Divine Mind, Psychic Warrior) and offer support for all possible archetypes, so you wound up being able to pick and choose the best options from everything. Like if you had a single "Mage" class who could learn every spell in the game. When you combine that with the fact that a bunch of the Disciplines and-- especially-- Psionic Focus abilities were overtuned... yeah, you get someone who can be the best at everything.

(And to be honest, I think (some of) that was known. The Mystic already read like something that was going to get chopped up after playtesting. The developers wanted to get feedback on everything, so they front-loaded the class and left in a ton of options so that every part would get tested. You see the front-loading a lot in experimental UA like the early Ranger revisions.)


...so, the Wizard?

Because the Wizard is significantly more versatile than the Mystic. Because, sure, the Mystic can choose between a big list of disciplines, but the Wizard can choose between every good non-divine spell in the goddamn game. But since the Wizard has been a terrible, broken design since like second edition, apparently nobody notices anymore.

As for me, I'm of the opinion that some disciplines were noticeably overtuned, while others were significantly undertuned, and this total lack of strength coherence is the primary problem of the class (as is the weird decision of not restricting the number of off-subclass disciplines you can pick). But the basic idea with disciplines is actually probably the best way of making a caster with options without being an Everything List Caster or strangling it in the cradle, and I've been poking at trying to turn Sorcerer into basically Mystic to counteract the fact that I have never met a player who played a Sorcerer and ended up satisfied with his options.

EDIT: To elaborate, I feel like the package design helps a caster like the Sorcerer with one of its biggest problems: opportunity cost. Basically, a Sorcerer gets 10 spells in his whole career (because games that go over like level 10 are fairly unusual). The spell list is full of a bunch of minor spells that you will never in a million years pick, while a lot of sorcerers have traditionally ended up with roughly 50 or 60% identical spell lists of "these spells are the ones that are always useful" -you are not going to pick Comprehend Languages as one of your 10 spell picks ever, when your entire class is based on your spells and you have nothing else going for you. It's not like the wizard, who can load up on niche spells because hey, he can always change them up tomorrow. And building a theme is hard, because even if you're a red dragon sorcerer you're not really going to pick more than one fire spell, because they're redundant.

But you add packages and suddenly stuff changes a bit. A package can let you have minor effects bundled up with major ones, and suddenly you're evaluating whole packages instead of deciding on every individual spell competing with each other. And yes, you will end up with more spells known. Instead of having 10 spells that were the absolute best available, you will have like 15 or 20, but a lot of them will be way narrower. And Psychic focus is one of the best places to hang ribbons from in the game. Feather fall isn't all that exciting if you have to spend learned slots for it, but Mastery of Air's ability to just be immune to falls because the wind itself has your back? That's cool and it says something about your character. It breaks nothing, but it tells you something. And that is a thing I want more of, not less of. (Screw plain numerical focuses, though. +1AC is boring and says nothing)

[furby076]

No evidence, just a hunch.

There'd be more to it than just sticking Ki points on the Sorcerer. The Monk uses Ki points, yet that's not you think of when you think of it. You imagine a fast-punching blur of movement and fists...mostly due to good implentation of Ki points.

You could do a Psionic Sorcerer by making Sorcery Points to also be considered as Ki points, which you refresh on a Short Rest. Add some kind of cost to compensate for the faster recharge Sorcery Points by saying that you can't convert them into spell slots, or that casting a spell that targets another creatures costs spell points equal to your level.

Mostly, the Ki point thing is just to make sure Monks are included. Otherwise, it'd be very confusing to consider how Monks would fit into a Psionic setting.

But I think that a suite of subclasses would be better to implement than a single class. Otherwise, what you run into is a problem where the Psionic class only has a single particular trope, and so it fails the 90% of players that it misses. Or, you make something that does everything and it has no personality (like Mystic v2).

Rather than make a single thing with a lot of different expectations, chop it up into 12 different things with different expectations.

You already know what a Barbarian is supposed to feel like, so a "Psionic Barbarian" has a pretty clear image that you can recognize, right? That would (and should) be different than someone else's image of a Psionic that lifts things with their mind (like a Wizard Psionic).

Use Ki points to allow different Psionic classes to work together, while also making Monks basically the original "Mystic" class.

Since Psion is a full class, which will need a full set of powers, magic items, feats, skills, rules changes, etc....I imagine they will also build subclasses for other main classes.

I think you meant v3, and as others have said, they probably threw the whole kitchen sink in there, with no restrictions, so everything could be play tested. In 3.5 (maybe 2e, i forget now) when you picked your psion flavor of your first 3 disciplines 2 had to be of the flavor. I imagine that will happen again.

Ki points absolutely does not make it feel like psi points. Monks perfect the body. Psions perfect the mind. They are polar opposites. Ki points is just a way to regulate how much boost a player can inact in a day...like psi points...like spell slots... etc.


I get it, you don't like the mystic, and you don't have to play or allow it in your game. But don't yuck my yum, ok? :D

[Millstone85]

Ki points absolutely does not make it feel like psi points. Monks perfect the body. Psions perfect the mind. They are polar opposites.Monks are also big on meditation and putting one's body, mind and spirit in harmony. It is not far fetched to interpret the psion as using the same inner energy, only with greater focus on the mental than on the physical.

[Dork_Forge]

Monks are also big on meditation and putting one's body, mind and spirit in harmony. It is not far fetched to interpret the psion as using the same inner energy, only with greater focus on the mental than on the physical.

In 5e (I can't speak for other editions) Ki is magic that flows through living bodies, which puts it on a more physical than mental level. It also avoids any weirdness in multiclassing.

[Man_Over_Game]

Monks are also big on meditation and putting one's body, mind and spirit in harmony. It is not far fetched to interpret the psion as using the same inner energy, only with greater focus on the mental than on the physical.

That's the way I interpret it.

Even if you made the Barbarian have Ki points, would you confuse it for a Monk?

Are Clerics easily confused for Wizards, since they both use spell slots?

We keep cycling back to the same strategy of trying to make the Mystic/Psion something that fits our vision of psionics, rather than trying to develop something that encompasses everyone's.

Saying "Monk's have little to do with it" has to be just as valid as "Monk's have everything to do with it". Anything less than that is the only wrong direction, since it only accounts for a single point of view.

[Millstone85]

In 5e (I can't speak for other editions) Ki is magic that flows through living bodies, which puts it on a more physical than mental level. It also avoids any weirdness in multiclassing.That makes it flow through the brain as well. And synergy in monk/psion multiclassing would be welcome.

4e sets a precedent for the monk being considered a psionic class. I leave to you whether that speaks for or against the idea.

[Dork_Forge]

That's the way I interpret it.

Even if you made the Barbarian have Ki points, would you confuse it for a Monk?

Are Clerics easily confused for Wizards, since they both use spell slots?

We keep cycling back to the same strategy of trying to make the Mystic/Psion something that fits our vision of psionics, rather than trying to develop something that encompasses everyone's.

Saying "Monk's have little to do with it" has to be just as valid as "Monk's have everything to do with it". Anything less than that is the only wrong direction, since it only accounts for a single point of view.

It's sounds like you're mostly talking about fluff, which doesn't address why you would use Ki points of all things for a Psion. The 5e description of Ki doesn't fit, by using Ki points you're opening up weird interactions between classes that don't need to be there and not giving Psionics it's own unique mechanic.

You seem to be okay with using a point based system, so why are you against it being Psi points and instead want to attach it to an unrelated class? Spellcasters use spell slots because they all cast spells, there's no common mechanical denominator between Monk and Psionics.

[Dork_Forge]

That makes it flow through the brain as well. And synergy in monk/psion multiclassing would be welcome.

4e sets a precedent for the monk being considered a psionic class. I leave to you whether that speaks for or against the idea.

But why would it? One is Dex and Wis based and the other is Int based, why should one whom primarily focuses on their mental prowess and ability excel at channeling energy in their body just like the dedicated Monk does just because they took a 2 level dip in Monk?

That doesn't even speak to the discrepency in points needed, the Four Elements Monk already showed us that casting style gameplay burns a lot of Ki very quickly since instead of using Ki to augment your abilities you're using it for it's own thing. From that example and the Mystic UA we can see a bigger pool of points would be needed, if you follow that then why would a Monk get a faster Ki progression dipping into Psion?

I have no idea what implications it being labeled a Psionic class in 4e has, I never played it, does it have any effect or is it just a tag?

[furby076]

Monks are also big on meditation and putting one's body, mind and spirit in harmony. It is not far fetched to interpret the psion as using the same inner energy, only with greater focus on the mental than on the physical.

Elves also meditate, but they don't get ki or psi points. Heck, per phb, elves "meditate deeply" - so maybe they are mind flayers :)

Monks "harness the energy that flows in their bodies"...."This energy is an elemnt of the magic that suffuses the multiverse --- specifically, the element that flows through living bodies."

In fact, if you have a PDF version of PHB do a search for "MIND". that word, as far as monks are concerned, only appear in a couple of abilities (e.g., stillness of mind) and none of the fluff text. So this whole "putting one's body, mind and spirit in harmony" are not in the fluff or rules for monk. I think folks confuse Monk and Psions for other reasons: both wear robes, in past editions both hail from the far east, both might study in monastic orders or in solitary, both meditate...these are all similar traits, but fighters, and paladins have similar traits and we wouldn't say they are the same.

So, yea, I think it's very far fetched to say it's the same inner energy. It's also Ki vs Psi, so different names to. Speaking of, people get all crazy that mystics have Psi powers - which is different from SPELLS (not magic), but nobody bats an eye about Ki magic.

Some love psions, some hate them. There are plenty who love it. I don't like Spelljammer, or mystara (i think that's the old setting), but i wouldn't want it to be ignored, because i know many others like it. I just wouldn't run either of those settings. Now give me Dragonlance, a kender who is a psion and I'm happy like it's xmas morning and i just turned Christian

[furby076]

That makes it flow through the brain as well. And synergy in monk/psion multiclassing would be welcome.

4e sets a precedent for the monk being considered a psionic class. I leave to you whether that speaks for or against the idea.

Anything 4e speaks against the idea, lol :)

I see no reason to synergize them. Other than some similarities, monks and psions are totally unrelated. Martial class vs Power Using class

[Man_Over_Game]

It's sounds like you're mostly talking about fluff, which doesn't address why you would use Ki points of all things for a Psion. The 5e description of Ki doesn't fit, by using Ki points you're opening up weird interactions between classes that don't need to be there and not giving Psionics it's own unique mechanic.

You seem to be okay with using a point based system, so why are you against it being Psi points and instead want to attach it to an unrelated class?

Simply because it opens the door for the players who do want that connection.

Opening that door solves a lot of problems regarding the "physical" pillar of the Mystic, and those who don't care about psionics can ignore it and play the Monks the same they've always have. Who's the loser?

If you just want to be a Monk with Ki points and no psionic powers, you can still do that."Ki means Psionic" isn't something that is ever relevant to you.

Similarly, I don't demand my DM to explain why my Paladin can multiclass easier with Sorcerer or Warlock levels instead of Cleric. I don't need to understand why Druids are considered Divine Casters while Bards and Warlocks aren't. What another class does or can do doesn't have any impact on my narrative.

However, mechanics DO play a part into what your options are. We know that "Everything But The Kitchen Sink" concepts are often too strong and too generic. Try to please everyone and you'll please no-one. But Psionics just have too many damn possibilities to nail it down to a singular concept.

Contrast this against the Artificer, which everyone has preconceived notions towards. Even trying to expand the Artificer past 3 subclasses seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Consider it like this: You want to please everyone and to give everyone a Psionic option. The people ask for:

The Fortune Teller
The Super Warrior
The Mind Melter
The Telekinetic Mage

So you find ways of making those.

The Mind Melter and the Telekinesis Mage are unique enough to stand on their own against most other preexisting options, but there's probably concern for the other two after considering the Divination Wizard or the Monk.

The Divination Wizard is easy to work around, since it's only a single subclass that's fairly open-ended as to what thematic or mechanical niche it fills. However, how do you avoid overwriting an entire class? A class with its own subclasses that each have their own additions to the Monk concept? What's a solution that makes a Monk player not say "Hey, why can't I do that?"

However, if you exclude the "Super Warrior" mystic concept, that's a huge pillar of the "Mystic" that can't be duplicated with the other options. Now players can only choose from "mage" mystics, which is..well, basically half of what people imagine when they think of a "mystic".

Instead of trying to work around the problem of a "physical mystic" without overwriting the mechanics or thematics of things we already have, just...recycle what's already there. Include it into the fold, and it won't be replaced.

Using Ki points as a universal currency also opens up the idea that mystic energy is connected. It's no longer "Here's 4 different subclasses that are all unrelated to one another, but we said they're psychic, so just trust us when we say they're related", but instead it's "here's a new supernatural energy mechanic that parallels Spell Slots, without actually using Spell Slots, and how these classes have changed to use it".

Bladesingers don't have to be Elves, Warforged don't have to come from Artificers, and Monks don't have to be psionic. Those things are only true when the DM, or player, say they are, even if a book might say otherwise.

[Dork_Forge]

Simply because it opens the door for the players who do want that connection, and those who don't lose nothing.

If you just want to be a Monk with Ki points and no psionic powers, you can still do that."Ki means Psionic" isn't something that is ever relevant to you.

Similarly, I don't demand my DM to explain why my Paladin can multiclass easier with Sorcerer or Warlock levels instead of Cleric. I don't need to understand why Druids are considered Divine Casters while Bards and Warlocks aren't. What another class does or can do doesn't have any impact on my narrative.

However, mechanics DO play a part into what your options are. We know that "Everything But The Kitchen Sink" concepts are often too strong and too generic. Try to please everyone and you'll please no-one. But Psionics just have too many damn possibilities to nail it down to a singular concept.

Contrast this against the Artificer, which everyone has preconceived notions towards. Even trying to expand the Artificer past 3 subclasses seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Consider it like this: You want to please everyone and to give everyone a Psionic option. The people ask for:

The Fortune Teller
The Super Warrior
The Mind Melter
The Telekinetic Mage

So you find ways of making those.

The Mind Melter and the Telekinesis Mage are unique enough to stand on their own against most other preexisting options, but there's probably concern for the other two after considering the Divination Wizard or the Monk.

The Divination Wizard is easy to work around, since it's only a single subclass that's fairly open-ended as to what thematic or mechanical niche it fills. However, how do you avoid overwriting an entire class? A class with its own subclasses that each have their own additions to the Monk concept? What's a solution that makes a Monk player not say "Hey, why can't I do that?"

However, if you exclude the "Super Warrior" mystic concept, that's a huge pillar of the "Mystic" that can't be duplicated with the other options. Now players can only choose from "mage" mystics, which is..well, basically half of what people imagine when they think of a "mystic".

Instead of trying to work around the problem of a "physical mystic" without overwriting the mechanics or thematics of things we already have, just...recycle what's already there. Include it into the fold, and it won't be replaced.

Using Ki points as a universal currency also opens up the idea that mystic energy is connected. It's no longer "Here's 4 different subclasses that are all unrelated to one another, but we said they're psychic, so just trust us when we say they're related", but instead it's "here's a new supernatural energy mechanic that parallels Spell Slots, without actually using Spell Slots, and how these classes have changed to use it".

Bladesingers don't have to be Elves, Warforged don't have to come from Artificers, and Monks don't have to be psionic. Those things are only true when the DM, or player, say they are, even if a book might say otherwise.

This whole versatility thing has always bugged me, if that bothers people the same complaints should ring true about the Wizard, except they also have Ritual Casting and Arcane Recovery to ensure they can use what they have more in a day than anyone else.

I don't see what's wrong with treating it like this: You want to be a character that's all about Psionics? Great here is the Mystic, no you can narrow that down into what type of Psionicist you'd like to be *choose subclass at 1st level*. If there was a tighter restriction in what disciplines you could choose from, where is the kitchen sink issue in this?

If a Monk player ever says why can't I do that? The answer is always because they aren't playing whatever they're looking at unless somehow what they're looking at is literally the Monk 2.0 which let's be frank, it won't ever be. The Shadow Monk has an ability to turn invisible in shadows, so does the Warlock and the Gloom Stalker, nothing is over written and they can all coexist in a themed party.

Psionic subclasses can and should exist alongside this model, as should feats that grant a touch of Psionic power to characters so that people can customise what they'd like to be. But you should never have to take on an entire class chassis you may not necessarily want just because you want to have Psionics as your main schtick, and when you have to take a caster subclass that becomes more prenounced an issue. In the case you're talking about, a player may not want to be a Monk (and regardless how much you tell them to refluff it, they will be a Monk), they may not want to be a Wis based character for what so far in 5e has been mostly an Int thing.

Using Ki as a currency doesn't open that up, it labels them as the same thing when they aren't, there is no Psionic implications in the 5e Monk, just like you don't need to multiclass to be a Bard (I think that's how it used to work) this edition differs from those before it. We have fluff in the PHB for what Ki is, that won't and shouldn't change, nor should the Psionic implication be thrust upon the masses (just because you can choose to ignore it, doesn't mean you should have to).

Having another martial option doesn't overwrite a Monk anymore than an Unarmed Fighting Style would. Physical Mystic doesn't really seem like a problem at all to be honest, give them a martial subclass, give the Fighter and Rogue psionic subclasses, nothing is overwritten.

And none of this addresses the mechanical question of: if a Mystic uses Ki, what size and growth rate should their pool have? Should it be short rest dependent? It should be larger than a Monks, but if it isn't SR then the Monk becomes a weird Warlockish equivalent dip for a Mystic. There's no need or real reason for these things to interact at all and it doesn't hurt the game to have a discreet "currency" for a Mystic class, where as there is implications for using Ki, which undoubtedly would be odd and open for potential abuse.

[Man_Over_Game]

...there is no Psionic implications in the 5e Monk...

I dispute that.


The Monk's Unarmored Defense is one of two means of using a mental stat for defense. The only other mention is Bladesinging, which uses and enhances magic. Psionics, and Unarmored Defense, are generally considered "not magic".
Ki is first stated with "...your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of Ki...You must spend at least 30 minutes of [a Short Rest] meditating to regain your ki points."
Stunning Strike: "You can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent's body", implying that ki is present in all creatures and not just the Monk.
Stillness of Mind: "You can...end one effect on yourself that is causing you to be charmed or frightened". This is different than the Fighter's version of a similar ability, as this requires your Action, and so implies intent instead of accident.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon: "You learn to touch the ki of other minds so that you understand all spoken languages. Moreover, any creature that can understand a language can understand what you say". On that second bit, compare that to something akin to the Great Old One's Awakened Mind feature.
Empty Body: "You can [...] become invisible for 1 minute.... Additionally, you can [...] cast the astral projection spell.... When you do so, you can't take any other creatures with you."


And those are just the core features. You have to look for things that don't imply anything psionic.

Or, for a different perspective, it'd take virtually no work to convert these into psionic versions of similar abilities. Psionics and Ki might not be the same, but they certainly look and act like they are.

[Segev]

Were I to try to make a psionic subsystem for fifth edition, I think I’d try to hybridize an Incarnum-like system with the power point system of 3.PF psionics.

Stealing from the psionic feats of 3.0 where you invested power points into them for effects, I’d use that in a similar fashion with psionic powers. And then a means of spending the invested points for instantaneous effects.

Maybe make it like the Occultist and their implements in Pathfinder‘s Occult Adventures. But no implements, just devotion to various Disciplines and passive powers trading out for bigger, more psychically draining ones.

[Arkhios]

Were I to try to make a psionic subsystem for fifth edition, I think I’d try to hybridize an Incarnum-like system with the power point system of 3.PF psionics.

Stealing from the psionic feats of 3.0 where you invested power points into them for effects, I’d use that in a similar fashion with psionic powers. And then a means of spending the invested points for instantaneous effects.

Maybe make it like the Occultist and their implements in Pathfinder‘s Occult Adventures. But no implements, just devotion to various Disciplines and passive powers trading out for bigger, more psychically draining ones.

That's actually not a bad idea. Occultist (https://pathfinder.d20srd.org/occultAdventures/classes/occultist.html) is one of the best designed psychic classes from pathfinder (to be honest, pathfinder's psychic system is amazing (as I already mentioned upthread) even though pathfinder's overall "quality" is questionable. It had a noble goal and accomplished it to certain extent with the Core Rulebook, but almost everything afterwards was a load of crap #HonestOpinionYMMV).

[Millstone85]

I have no idea what implications it being labeled a Psionic class in 4e has, I never played it, does it have any effect or is it just a tag?When 4e's first PHB came out, the difference between arcane spells, divine prayers and martial exploits was entirely one of flavor. All classes had at-will/encounter/daily powers that functioned just about the same. The second PHB introduced primal evocations for druids and the like, but they weren't any different.

With the third PHB, psionic disciplines broke the mold a bit. They were at-will at class levels where you would normally get encounter powers, and all at-will discisciplines could be "augmented" by spending points. And that, in my opinion, was really neat.

It is the way I would go with the 5e psion: upcastable cantrips (or something mechanically equivalent that doesn't count as a spell, if that's what you want). And while I would do this regardless of the class using ki or psi points, or even spell slots, I believe that the psion wouldn't need so many ki points anymore and that it would make monk/psion multiclassing more balanced.


So this whole "putting one's body, mind and spirit in harmony" are not in the fluff or rules for monk.Granted, I am influenced by Rasaad yn Bashir from the enhanced edition of the Baldur's Gate video games. He often mentions body, mind and spirit when he explains the teachings of his monastic order. That was also part of the 4e fluff for the class.

[Zuras]

For those who have actually playtested the UA Mystic—how unbalanced did it feel in play?

My first thought in evaluating any claims that the class is too versatile is that informal playtesting can be rather biased. Not intentionally, but in a regular play group the players clamoring for UA content are usually the ones with the most system mastery, so it’s harder to evaluate.

Balance wise, it seems like the biggest problems are the massive versatility from the wide open discipline list plus the ability to nova in combat. Normally we expect to do one of these, but not both. Additionally, since most play is levels 5-10, the lack of effects above 5th level is not a major balancing factor.

I haven’t tried this in one of my campaigns, but it seems like the mystic is entirely workable if the DM and Mystic player agree to some ground rules like:

Thematically restrict your disciplines to a reasonable set, and clear any broken combos with the DM before using them.

Don’t nova at the beginning of the day and then whine like a baby for a long rest like a 12 year old Paladin.

[Christew]

Please refrain from name-calling on the forum, it's rude and unbecoming of any mature adult. You were labelling something as abandoned without any reason why, that's not typically how useful discussion goes. Your opinion is that it was abandoned, meanwhile Jeremy Crawford would disagree. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1095369855442644992?lang=en) Here's a more recent quote from November: "We haven’t closed the door on a class like mystic/psion. But right now, we’re focused on exploring subclass options. Just as the wizard doesn’t own arcane magic and the cleric doesn’t own divine magic, a potential psionic class doesn’t own psionics."
A behavioral comparison is hardly name-calling. Please refrain from being overly sensitive on the forum. Your linked quote is from over a year ago. Your posted quote defends my position as much as yours. "We haven't closed the door on a class LIKE the mystic/psion" can easily be read as we have closed the door on the mystic, but not a completely different full psionics class.

We are both entitled to our opinions and I have reached the limit on my willingness to further argue mine. In 3-9 years when/if they finally get around to publishing a full Psionics class and it bears more than a passing resemblance to the Mystic, I will happily return to eat my hat.

In reading the homebrewed design it is a much better version than anything thus far published. It does seem to be more of a new class design inspired by the Mystic instead of a fix of what I still find a broken base. Excellent work though, some balanced and nuanced homebrew.

[Segev]

That's actually not a bad idea. Occultist (https://pathfinder.d20srd.org/occultAdventures/classes/occultist.html) is one of the best designed psychic classes from pathfinder (to be honest, pathfinder's psychic system is amazing (as I already mentioned upthread) even though pathfinder's overall "quality" is questionable. It had a noble goal and accomplished it to certain extent with the Core Rulebook, but almost everything afterwards was a load of crap #HonestOpinionYMMV).

In all honesty, I hate the design of "psychic magic" being just the same spell slot system. I even find the "emotional" and "thought" component rules a clumsy attempt to match the "verbal" and "somatic" component rules (particularly so that psychic versions of non-psychic spells could be "translated" 1:1 for the components). I do think that, if you ditch all other casters, and want to run a pulpy game set somewhere between Victorian (or Edwardian) England and 19teens America, you can use those rules very well to do so. But as a subsystem meant to represent psychic/psionics alongside existing magic, it feels very...half-baked. It doesn't help that "full casters" in the subsystem are barely keeping up with half-casters elsewhere in the system.

The other thing it did well were the non-spell powers they gave classes. They were flavorful and, in many cases, interesting. Even if spiritualist is just summoner with a reskin who tripped over some nerf bats on her way down the stairs. The psychic is actually nifty with its variations, even though the spellcasting is fairly lame.

That said! The rules for mental focus and how to invest and expend it that the Occultist introduces are very close to the old idea I had of combining Incarnum and 3.5-style psionics that was inspired by 3.0 psionic feats. Occultist reveals that it's probably necessary to tone back power points to something closer to mental focus, ki, or at least sorcery point levels, rather tahn 3.5-stype psionics power point pools (which were essentially broken-down spell slot allotments).

The obvious thing, to me, would be to let psions pick up Disciplines that gave them resonant powers that they can invest power points into and selectable psionic powers they could spend power points on. This may not be ideal as development continued, of course. But that'd be my starting point to see what I could do with it.

[Drascin]

For those who have actually playtested the UA Mystic—how unbalanced did it feel in play?

My first thought in evaluating any claims that the class is too versatile is that informal playtesting can be rather biased. Not intentionally, but in a regular play group the players clamoring for UA content are usually the ones with the most system mastery, so it’s harder to evaluate.

Balance wise, it seems like the biggest problems are the massive versatility from the wide open discipline list plus the ability to nova in combat. Normally we expect to do one of these, but not both. Additionally, since most play is levels 5-10, the lack of effects above 5th level is not a major balancing factor.

I haven’t tried this in one of my campaigns, but it seems like the mystic is entirely workable if the DM and Mystic player agree to some ground rules like:

Thematically restrict your disciplines to a reasonable set, and clear any broken combos with the DM before using them.

Don’t nova at the beginning of the day and then whine like a baby for a long rest like a 12 year old Paladin.

I have played a Mystic. Still doing so, in fact, we started at 1 and are about to hit level 6. Playing a Wu-Jen, basically my idea was to play a sort of Dao-style "one with the world" kind of thing, which initially started life as a concept for a Four Elements monk but when I read the Wu-Jen I realized it was a lot better for it. Running only Wu-Jen disciplines, except I traded Light and Shadow (which is very weird and doesn't fit the theme) for Psionic Restoration. Which, admittedly, I have yet to actually use, but it's the principle of the thing

My general feeling is that if you keep yourself to your subclass disciplines instead of picking All The Best disciplines, it's fairly reasonable? I have more options to choose from in a given round than the Wizard, but the Wizard can change her options easier and has a much broader range of options to choose from (as a Wu-Jen, I do a lot of blasting and walls, but my utility casting is not great, let us say), as well as more stamina. But in exchange I have a lot of little cool passives, like being immune to falls, or telepathy (which has actually come up a bunch, since it lets you communicate past language barriers, and we are a fairly diplomatic group that generally prefers to talk it out rather than immediately pulll out the swords).

Honestly though, our "big gun" is neither my Mystic nor the Wizard, it's really Karl, our paladin. "Throw the paladin at it" is an apt summation of our boss strategy :smalltongue:.

[Kane0]

Mechanically, someone linked some brewed ones above that should work well. If made in good faith the UA one should be usable too but check with your DM first.

Thematically, i prefer my psionics in subclass form rather than in its own class. Wilder sorcerer, psion wizard, psychic warrior fighter, soulknife rogue, contemplative monk. Those sound more intriguing to me than one class that tries to cram all the same concepts into the same space.

[Telwar]

For those who have actually playtested the UA Mystic—how unbalanced did it feel in play?

My first thought in evaluating any claims that the class is too versatile is that informal playtesting can be rather biased. Not intentionally, but in a regular play group the players clamoring for UA content are usually the ones with the most system mastery, so it’s harder to evaluate.

Balance wise, it seems like the biggest problems are the massive versatility from the wide open discipline list plus the ability to nova in combat. Normally we expect to do one of these, but not both. Additionally, since most play is levels 5-10, the lack of effects above 5th level is not a major balancing factor.

I haven’t tried this in one of my campaigns, but it seems like the mystic is entirely workable if the DM and Mystic player agree to some ground rules like:

Thematically restrict your disciplines to a reasonable set, and clear any broken combos with the DM before using them.

Don’t nova at the beginning of the day and then whine like a baby for a long rest like a 12 year old Paladin.

I played a mystic in one game, going up to 15 or so, using a wu jen with elemental/intangible disciplines. It was annoying to not have magical item support that, say, the cleric and sorcerer and warlock did, but that's the breaks of a playtest class. I dominated a few fights, but I always had to conserve power points for possible future use, so I wasn't going to nova. I figure that should be fairly self-correcting anyway.

My other thought is that they should probably spread the Int-heavy save targets out a little more. Of course, if they'd, say, used F/R/W saves instead of having all stats being saves, they wouldn't've had to worry about not giving monsters Int save proficiency.

[Jerrykhor]

For those who have actually playtested the UA Mystic—how unbalanced did it feel in play?

My first thought in evaluating any claims that the class is too versatile is that informal playtesting can be rather biased. Not intentionally, but in a regular play group the players clamoring for UA content are usually the ones with the most system mastery, so it’s harder to evaluate.

Balance wise, it seems like the biggest problems are the massive versatility from the wide open discipline list plus the ability to nova in combat. Normally we expect to do one of these, but not both. Additionally, since most play is levels 5-10, the lack of effects above 5th level is not a major balancing factor.

I haven’t tried this in one of my campaigns, but it seems like the mystic is entirely workable if the DM and Mystic player agree to some ground rules like:

Thematically restrict your disciplines to a reasonable set, and clear any broken combos with the DM before using them.

Don’t nova at the beginning of the day and then whine like a baby for a long rest like a 12 year old Paladin.

I played the Soulknife up to Level 14.

Nomadic Mind's focus is still the most broken ability for me. It is the main reason the Mystics feel so versatile. When the closest thing in the core books is the Knowledge Domain Cleric's channel divinity which they only can choose one skill/tool to be proficient with for 10 minutes, its nuts.

Augmented Weapon is also nuts, its basically Magic Weapon pumped up to 11. I know that Magic Weapon deserves a buff, but this is ridiculous.

Psychic Assault is generally rated as a powerhouse discipline overall, but none standout more than Psychic Blast. It is a Cone of Cold with more damage, less resisted damage type and better save.

Their combat nova is not that great actually, unless you specifically build for it, which would sacrifice some versatility because you need specific Disciplines. Plus, i use a homebrew mechanic for all the 'smite spell' effect, which means i could never crit on it.

At some point in the campaign, most of the players rolled new characters which use rolled stats, while i was the only one sticking with my Mystic from the start of the campaign with point buy stats. They are also decked out in very powerful magic items and homebrew abilities, so that levels the playing field. Also, the monsters and challenges we face are ridiculously powerful, so I never feel overpowered at that point.

[furby076]

I dispute that.


The Monk's Unarmored Defense is one of two means of using a mental stat for defense. The only other mention is Bladesinging, which uses and enhances magic. Psionics, and Unarmored Defense, are generally considered "not magic".

Actually, Psionics is considered magic. It's not considered spells.





Ki is first stated with "...your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of Ki...You must spend at least 30 minutes of [a Short Rest] meditating to regain your ki points."

Elves meditate too, so what? They are using the word 'mystic' as an adjective here. That's stretching with a quarterstaff and polearm master feat.





Stunning Strike: "You can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent's body", implying that ki is present in all creatures and not just the Monk.

So does hit poits.





Stillness of Mind: "You can...end one effect on yourself that is causing you to be charmed or frightened". This is different than the Fighter's version of a similar ability, as this requires your Action, and so implies intent instead of accident.



Having an ability to end charm on you does not make you a mentalist.





Tongue of the Sun and Moon: "You learn to touch the ki of other minds so that you understand all spoken languages. Moreover, any creature that can understand a language can understand what you say". On that second bit, compare that to something akin to the Great Old One's Awakened Mind feature.


Again, how does this imply it's a psion class? Lots of classes have similar abilities. Wizards and clerics have to spend time regaining spells.





Empty Body: "You can [...] become invisible for 1 minute.... Additionally, you can [...] cast the astral projection spell.... When you do so, you can't take any other creatures with you."


The above literally states it mimics the astral projection SPELL. So now are we to say Monk = Wizard?



And those are just the core features. You have to look for things that don't imply anything psionic.

Or, for a different perspective, it'd take virtually no work to convert these into psionic versions of similar abilities. Psionics and Ki might not be the same, but they certainly look and act like they are.

You are cherry picking words to suit your needs. Literally bolding a singular word does not make your assumptions true. Otherwise, I am bolding the word "class" and saying every class is overstepping

If it would take virtually no work making a Monk into a psion...do so. Share it.

[furby076]

For those who have actually playtested the UA Mystic—how unbalanced did it feel in play?

My first thought in evaluating any claims that the class is too versatile is that informal playtesting can be rather biased. Not intentionally, but in a regular play group the players clamoring for UA content are usually the ones with the most system mastery, so it’s harder to evaluate.

Balance wise, it seems like the biggest problems are the massive versatility from the wide open discipline list plus the ability to nova in combat. Normally we expect to do one of these, but not both. Additionally, since most play is levels 5-10, the lack of effects above 5th level is not a major balancing factor.

I haven’t tried this in one of my campaigns, but it seems like the mystic is entirely workable if the DM and Mystic player agree to some ground rules like:

Thematically restrict your disciplines to a reasonable set, and clear any broken combos with the DM before using them.

Don’t nova at the beginning of the day and then whine like a baby for a long rest like a 12 year old Paladin.

It is immensely versatile, but starting 10th level it peters out in power. So you are a skill monkey who will be outshone by the wizard casting wish, meteor, etc. I imagine, when it comes out, they will spread the disciplines a bit more and make it somewhat more restrictive. Maybe X # of disciplines must be of your subclass. Some of the powers look OP, but compare them to similar powers before going "OMG". Some of the other powers are just garbage. Honestly, Wizard does mind control better than mystic - go figure - within dominate and the like. So, if you plan to play, read the rules 3-5 times and just walk into things gently. Don't overwhlm the table and let it grow on you and others. I've been playing my mystic for about 6 sessions. She is a skill monkey, for sure, but doesn't outdamage. Just very handy. Most recently, DM picked up on of thte PCs with a flying creature. Player was down to 2 failed death saves, 40 feet up in the air and about to die. i did Transposition, and then turned to mist to escape said creature. The player was relieved, and the DM was "tickled pink" with my creativity. Is that OP, maybe, but nobody complained

[Christew]

Hopefully the new UA puts a nail in the coffin of whether we will ever see an official mystic.

"In 2017, we experimented with an unofficial
character class—the mystic—focused on psionic
powers. Through its features and subclasses, the
mystic allowed you to create a character who
echoed the abilities of other classes in the game
but with a psionic twist. As much as many
playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the
mystic, feedback was also clear that the class
encroached on other classes’ territory and that it
was often too complex, too powerful, or both.
Following that feedback, we’ve decided to say
farewell to the mystic and explore other ways of
giving players psi-themed powers, as we did
with the features of the Great Old One warlock in
the Player’s Handbook."

[Throne12]

Where never going to get mystic class they are just going to make psionic subclasses. I glade they are making subclasses instead of a class. The reason why is because the mystic as a class is trying to do everything and it's just broken. People have been trying to make a balanced mystic sense 5e came out.

[furby076]

Where never going to get mystic class they are just going to make psionic subclasses. I glade they are making subclasses instead of a class. The reason why is because the mystic as a class is trying to do everything and it's just broken. People have been trying to make a balanced mystic sense 5e came out.

I disagree a bit here
1) Mystic is a skill monkey, but limited by high end (level 7+) power
2) A mystic can't take every discipline, but a wizard/cleric can get every spell
3) Mystic (psion) have been class staples since 2nd edition. There is tons of lore out there and game settings that heavily benefit from psionics
4) Yea UA mystic wasn't perfectly made. They needed to spend more time to finalize it. I'm sure, at one point or another, every class was "broken" in some capacity

[Segev]

I disagree a bit here
1) Mystic is a skill monkey, but limited by high end (level 7+) power
2) A mystic can't take every discipline, but a wizard/cleric can get every spell
3) Mystic (psion) have been class staples since 2nd edition. There is tons of lore out there and game settings that heavily benefit from psionics
4) Yea UA mystic wasn't perfectly made. They needed to spend more time to finalize it. I'm sure, at one point or another, every class was "broken" in some capacity

I actually think the Mystic was never meant to be a finalized class. It was a playtest class designed to gather data on how players used its psionic mechanics in various games. The class was designed to fit any role you wanted; in fact, its subclasses were almost - but not quite - full classes in and of themselves.

It got a lot of backlash over how overpowered it was, because it could out perform a number of classes at their own things, especially if you combined a couple role-enabling tools together in ways the designers hadn't yet hammered out. And they didn't want to, because the mystic was never designed to be a complete, balanced class. It was a showcase and testbed for a mechanic.

Since it got the backlash it did, and what support it got wanted them to put work into making their experimental testbed into a full-on prototype rather than making the actual multiple prototypes they wanted, when they scrapped the Mystic's core mechanic in favor of a new unifying one for psionics (the dΨ), they wanted to avoid the problem of people focusing on the "do anything" nature of the testbed platform. So they made subclasses that fill specific roles tied to their classes.

[Kane0]

An interesting and plausible theory, but WotC could have just said that in the UA.