Mystic fixes?

[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?

Spoiler: Expanding on that, mostly rambling

Show

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.

Spoiler: Expanding on that, mostly rambling

Show

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 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. 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 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 .

[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.