New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: Mystic fixes?

  1. - Top - End - #1
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Mystic fixes?

    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?
    Current Character(s):
    Vincent Longshadow - College of Whispers Half Elf Bard/Blackguard
    Umbero Falone - Swashbuckler Half-Elf Rogue

    Retired Characters:
    The Third - Awakened Human Mystic
    Wade Way - College of Lore Tiefling Bard
    Dag Cannith - Armorer High Elf Artificer

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    A few popular ones on the Homebrew forum:
    https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-Hybrid)-PEACH
    https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...omebrew-system
    https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...MPLETE-(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?
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-03-16 at 01:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Subang Jaya, Malaysia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    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/UnearthedAr...ntinuation_of/
    Last edited by Jerrykhor; 2020-03-16 at 11:15 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    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.
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    FinnS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Great White North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    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.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    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 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.
    Last edited by Arkhios; 2020-03-17 at 06:38 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    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.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by werescythe View Post
    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?

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by DarknessEternal View Post
    What psychic sorcerer?
    https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/d...errantLurk.pdf
    Please be mindful of what you say in public; sadly not all can handle sarcasm or The Internet Credibility.
    My Homebrew:
    Base Class: Warlord | Roguish Archetype: Inquisitor | Roguish Archetype: Thug | Primal Path: Rage Mage


    Quote Originally Posted by Anon von Zilch View Post
    Words actually mean things, people!


    Ongoing game & character:
    Sajan Uttam, human Monk 6/Fist of Irori 3 (Legacy of Fire)


    D&D/Pathfinder CV of sorts
    3.0 since 2002
    3.5 since 2003
    4e since 2008
    Pathfinder 1e since 2008
    5e since 2014

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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)

    ...and I see you already linked said rewrite
    Last edited by Grod_The_Giant; 2020-03-19 at 01:46 PM.
    Hill Giant Games
    I make indie gaming books for you!
    Spoiler
    Show

    STaRS: A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system.
    Grod's Guide to Greatness, 2e: A big book of player options for 5e.
    Grod's Grimoire of the Grotesque: An even bigger book of variant and expanded rules for 5e.
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    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.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christew View Post
    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?
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Orc in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    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.
    Currently worldbuilding Port Demesne: A Safe Harbor in a Shattered World! If you have a moment, I would love your feedback!

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    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.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christew View Post
    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.
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    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.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christew View Post
    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.
    Hill Giant Games
    I make indie gaming books for you!
    Spoiler
    Show

    STaRS: A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system.
    Grod's Guide to Greatness, 2e: A big book of player options for 5e.
    Grod's Grimoire of the Grotesque: An even bigger book of variant and expanded rules for 5e.
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    *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!
    Current Character(s):
    Vincent Longshadow - College of Whispers Half Elf Bard/Blackguard
    Umbero Falone - Swashbuckler Half-Elf Rogue

    Retired Characters:
    The Third - Awakened Human Mystic
    Wade Way - College of Lore Tiefling Bard
    Dag Cannith - Armorer High Elf Artificer

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    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.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christew View Post
    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. 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.
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    90 feet under
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post

    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.
    Rule 0: The most IMPORTANT rule of D&D. There is no more important rule than this rule. This is a game, and as such, you do everything you can to ensure everyone has fun. /TheEnd

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    90 feet under
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by FinnS View Post
    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
    Rule 0: The most IMPORTANT rule of D&D. There is no more important rule than this rule. This is a game, and as such, you do everything you can to ensure everyone has fun. /TheEnd

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by furby076 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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.
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dork_Forge View Post
    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"?
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-03-22 at 01:51 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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.
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Under Mt. Ebott
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    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)
    Last edited by Drascin; 2020-03-22 at 04:57 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    90 feet under
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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
    Rule 0: The most IMPORTANT rule of D&D. There is no more important rule than this rule. This is a game, and as such, you do everything you can to ensure everyone has fun. /TheEnd

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by furby076 View Post
    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.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Mystic fixes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Millstone85 View Post
    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.
    For D&D 5e Builds, Tips, News and more see our Youtube Channel Dork Forge

    Feel free to message for any build requests or challenges

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •