I've seen a bit on the UA Mystic class. Since we have a UA artificer in place, when will be be getting the UA Mystic Class? That's something I would really like to see and be able to playtest.
I assume what you are asking is that you are asking for a new version of the Mystic much like how there is a new version of the Artificer in UA. I am currently under the impression that the odds are that a new version of the Mystic are slim to none. As the Mystic has shown itself to be somewhat unpopular due to how versatile it is and how it can take the role of just about any class. "Who needs a Cleric when you have a Mystic?" "Who needs a Sorcerer when you have a Mystic?" "Who needs a Barbarian when you have a Mystic?" Another point to make is that, through my experience of home brew, it is often more difficult to take away and "reel it in" than it is to add. Which is why often times you may come across home brew which can be taken as far too powerful, I've certainly been guilty of it. I do believe that a new Mystic can be possible, but it would take a lot of time, and while yes the Mystic was released in 2017, you wouldn't just be changing the features, but the whole class. The rules for the psi points may need to be changed, the rules for the disciplines would need to be changed, and the biggest change would be "What role is it supposed to be?". After all, we already have the offense classes: Monk, Rogue, Fighter, and Ranger and some archetypes. The supports: Bard, Cleric, and Druid. The Defense classes: Barbarian, Paladin, and plenty of archetypes such as Abjuration Wizard and Moon Druid. And the "Faces": Bard, Sorcerer and Warlock. What does the Mystic do? Well with the Avatar disciplines it can be a face or someone who can buff and debuff like a Bard, the Wu Jen Discipines is just a better Sorcerer/ 4 Element Monk, though out doing the latter isn't exactly hard, Soul Knife is just a better Fighter/Rogue, Nomad Disciplines are just meant for mobility, which is fine but since all Mystics can get them a Soul Knife can really be a better Rogue. The list goes on and I am sounding more like a teacher giving a lecture but the point is the Mystic just does so much more than any other class and that is why, in my opinion at least, there will not be a new Mystic UA.
TL;DR
The Mystic is too good at everything and it is too hard to take back what is done, it requires tons of reworking to become something more balanced which may prove to not be worth the effort.
A Mystic class will only be added to D&D Beyond if Wizards of the Coast decides to release an updated version of it. The currently released one is too old, which is why it's not included here.
Is there a way to be able to create something like the Mystic and have it work with the Psi Points? I've been trying to figure something out for a Mystic in a game I'm running, but can't figure out how to make the Psi Points work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dungeon Master- Balar's Tales from the Yawning Portal
Asmodai | Feral Tiefling - Rogue 2| AC 15 HP 15| Passive Perception: 10; Passive Investigation: 12; Passive Insight: 10| Equipped: Studded Leather Armor, Rapier, Short Bow, 2 Daggers, Backpack, Quiver and Boots of Elvenkind | Wielding: Rapier and Dagger sheathed, Shortbow slung over back
Not sure if you would be able to do this using the homebrew subclass system. However, one potential option is to create a custom item with charges equal to the total number of Psi points that the character has. This way when the player consumes the points, they would just subtract the charges from the item. It's not a great solution but it does provide a way to track points.
I have no problem with having a jack of all trades or generalist character in the party. In fact 1E AD&D Bard, although it was a pain to get was just that. You had to go through fighter and thief levels before you ever actually started the bard, but once you had it you had a character that had the abilities of a fighter, thief and druid spellcasting plus the bardic abilities. If played well, a 1e bard made the party nearly unstoppable. (Which is why my DM at that time was constantly targeting my bard in fights.)
In small parties, a generalist character is what keeps the party alive. This is why multiclassing got started in the first place. If in a party of four, one character archetype (especially the healer) going down could spell the doom of the entire party. Having characters that could cross class abilities was and is essential. A perfect four person party in 1e was a fighter, a paladin (very hard to get because of stat requirements), a cleric and a magic-user/thief. Larger parties allowed for more specialized character classes because there was a smaller chance of losing the base archetype skill base. A generalist does a little of everything so that the specialists have the space and time to let their abilities shine.
With all specialists in the party, the party becomes overly dependent on each other to the point that they have to abandon the use of special abilities to make sure to cover the weaknesses of each archetype. Most small parties I ever belonged to fought on the defensive: Fighters protected the cleric and mu, Clerics healed and sometimes turned undead, MUs did massive damage over wide areas and kept the foe's attention away from the thief, Thieves protected everyone from traps and found hidden items and did big damage to the BBEG (Hopefully).
The development of classes through the advancing editions was to both individualize characters but also to slightly overlap the classes. 2E had its basic classes but then expanded them through the use of kits. 3 and especially 3.5 e took this gradual specialized diversification to the extreme with its prestige classes. One of the biggest failures in 4e was that it forced everybody back into basic roles again.
Even in RL, any successful business is made up of specialists and generalists. And it is usually the generalist that end up in the leadership positions because it is their ability to know a little of each job that allows them to allow the specialists to shine.
A head chef knows every position in the kitchen but can not outshine the pastry chef in cakes, the butcher in charcuterie, the sommelier in knowledge of wines and spirits or even a saucier in soups and sauces. But it is the head chef that guides them all together to create the exquisite meal. And yes, it is the head chef that gets most of the accolades, but every true chef knows that it is every other person in the kitchen all the way down to the dishwasher that truly makes a restaurant great.
So if a mystic shines too brightly for being able to possibly fight like a fighter, heal like a cleric, belt out magical damage like a wizard, and/or be as elusive as a rogue, it is only because the mystic frees up everyone else to do what they do best.
Its all in how you develop the character. Drizzt Do'Urden is the warrior that he is because he is a fighter/barbarian/ranger. This allowed Wulfgar to become the ultimate barbarian and supported Bruenor's straight forward fighter style and gave Cattie-Brie the room to become the master archer that she was. Drizzt never saw himself as the leader of the Companions of the Hall, but rather saw himself as their backup and hated that he drew most attention as well as drawing danger to the others.
So the flaw is not so much in the class as it is in how people use the class. The mystic class's greatest weakness is that it lends itself to min/max development too easily. So it is the players who want to develop powerhouses rather than characters and the DMs that allow them to get away with it that imbalance the class.
I once (once!) played in a group where every fighter had gotten together and hired a weaponsmith and a wizard to make a collection of +3 silver mercurial nodachis, each one doing damage in one of the elemental types. So one party had four of the most damaging type of two-handed sword available in that universe but there was literally nothing that they could not do max damage with those blades with every hit because they all took the same feats. They once killed a demilich in one round. And the DM allowed them to do this. When I saw that group in action, I just walked away because all they wanted was to be able to destroy anything and everything that they came across. They were asking the DM to make the next adventure one where they took on the gods themselves.
The question is - is the class the character or is it part of what defines the character. I am a gamer, an artist, a chef, a husband and a father, but these are just facets of who I actually am. Players and DMs need to view the classes that way too; classes are what the characters are, not who they are. Do we as a society tend to look down upon those people who define themselves by what they do rather than who they are.
I've seen a bit on the UA Mystic class. Since we have a UA artificer in place, when will be be getting the UA Mystic Class? That's something I would really like to see and be able to playtest.
I assume what you are asking is that you are asking for a new version of the Mystic much like how there is a new version of the Artificer in UA. I am currently under the impression that the odds are that a new version of the Mystic are slim to none. As the Mystic has shown itself to be somewhat unpopular due to how versatile it is and how it can take the role of just about any class. "Who needs a Cleric when you have a Mystic?" "Who needs a Sorcerer when you have a Mystic?" "Who needs a Barbarian when you have a Mystic?" Another point to make is that, through my experience of home brew, it is often more difficult to take away and "reel it in" than it is to add. Which is why often times you may come across home brew which can be taken as far too powerful, I've certainly been guilty of it. I do believe that a new Mystic can be possible, but it would take a lot of time, and while yes the Mystic was released in 2017, you wouldn't just be changing the features, but the whole class. The rules for the psi points may need to be changed, the rules for the disciplines would need to be changed, and the biggest change would be "What role is it supposed to be?". After all, we already have the offense classes: Monk, Rogue, Fighter, and Ranger and some archetypes. The supports: Bard, Cleric, and Druid. The Defense classes: Barbarian, Paladin, and plenty of archetypes such as Abjuration Wizard and Moon Druid. And the "Faces": Bard, Sorcerer and Warlock. What does the Mystic do? Well with the Avatar disciplines it can be a face or someone who can buff and debuff like a Bard, the Wu Jen Discipines is just a better Sorcerer/ 4 Element Monk, though out doing the latter isn't exactly hard, Soul Knife is just a better Fighter/Rogue, Nomad Disciplines are just meant for mobility, which is fine but since all Mystics can get them a Soul Knife can really be a better Rogue. The list goes on and I am sounding more like a teacher giving a lecture but the point is the Mystic just does so much more than any other class and that is why, in my opinion at least, there will not be a new Mystic UA.
TL;DR
The Mystic is too good at everything and it is too hard to take back what is done, it requires tons of reworking to become something more balanced which may prove to not be worth the effort.
A Mystic class will only be added to D&D Beyond if Wizards of the Coast decides to release an updated version of it. The currently released one is too old, which is why it's not included here.
Is there a way to be able to create something like the Mystic and have it work with the Psi Points? I've been trying to figure something out for a Mystic in a game I'm running, but can't figure out how to make the Psi Points work.
Dungeon Master - Balar's Tales from the Yawning Portal
Asmodai | Feral Tiefling - Rogue 2| AC 15 HP 15| Passive Perception: 10; Passive Investigation: 12; Passive Insight: 10| Equipped: Studded Leather Armor, Rapier, Short Bow, 2 Daggers, Backpack, Quiver and Boots of Elvenkind | Wielding: Rapier and Dagger sheathed, Shortbow slung over back
Not sure if you would be able to do this using the homebrew subclass system. However, one potential option is to create a custom item with charges equal to the total number of Psi points that the character has. This way when the player consumes the points, they would just subtract the charges from the item. It's not a great solution but it does provide a way to track points.
Thanks, I'll try that out.
Dungeon Master - Balar's Tales from the Yawning Portal
Asmodai | Feral Tiefling - Rogue 2| AC 15 HP 15| Passive Perception: 10; Passive Investigation: 12; Passive Insight: 10| Equipped: Studded Leather Armor, Rapier, Short Bow, 2 Daggers, Backpack, Quiver and Boots of Elvenkind | Wielding: Rapier and Dagger sheathed, Shortbow slung over back
I have no problem with having a jack of all trades or generalist character in the party. In fact 1E AD&D Bard, although it was a pain to get was just that. You had to go through fighter and thief levels before you ever actually started the bard, but once you had it you had a character that had the abilities of a fighter, thief and druid spellcasting plus the bardic abilities. If played well, a 1e bard made the party nearly unstoppable. (Which is why my DM at that time was constantly targeting my bard in fights.)
In small parties, a generalist character is what keeps the party alive. This is why multiclassing got started in the first place. If in a party of four, one character archetype (especially the healer) going down could spell the doom of the entire party. Having characters that could cross class abilities was and is essential. A perfect four person party in 1e was a fighter, a paladin (very hard to get because of stat requirements), a cleric and a magic-user/thief. Larger parties allowed for more specialized character classes because there was a smaller chance of losing the base archetype skill base. A generalist does a little of everything so that the specialists have the space and time to let their abilities shine.
With all specialists in the party, the party becomes overly dependent on each other to the point that they have to abandon the use of special abilities to make sure to cover the weaknesses of each archetype. Most small parties I ever belonged to fought on the defensive: Fighters protected the cleric and mu, Clerics healed and sometimes turned undead, MUs did massive damage over wide areas and kept the foe's attention away from the thief, Thieves protected everyone from traps and found hidden items and did big damage to the BBEG (Hopefully).
The development of classes through the advancing editions was to both individualize characters but also to slightly overlap the classes. 2E had its basic classes but then expanded them through the use of kits. 3 and especially 3.5 e took this gradual specialized diversification to the extreme with its prestige classes. One of the biggest failures in 4e was that it forced everybody back into basic roles again.
Even in RL, any successful business is made up of specialists and generalists. And it is usually the generalist that end up in the leadership positions because it is their ability to know a little of each job that allows them to allow the specialists to shine.
A head chef knows every position in the kitchen but can not outshine the pastry chef in cakes, the butcher in charcuterie, the sommelier in knowledge of wines and spirits or even a saucier in soups and sauces. But it is the head chef that guides them all together to create the exquisite meal. And yes, it is the head chef that gets most of the accolades, but every true chef knows that it is every other person in the kitchen all the way down to the dishwasher that truly makes a restaurant great.
So if a mystic shines too brightly for being able to possibly fight like a fighter, heal like a cleric, belt out magical damage like a wizard, and/or be as elusive as a rogue, it is only because the mystic frees up everyone else to do what they do best.
Its all in how you develop the character. Drizzt Do'Urden is the warrior that he is because he is a fighter/barbarian/ranger. This allowed Wulfgar to become the ultimate barbarian and supported Bruenor's straight forward fighter style and gave Cattie-Brie the room to become the master archer that she was. Drizzt never saw himself as the leader of the Companions of the Hall, but rather saw himself as their backup and hated that he drew most attention as well as drawing danger to the others.
So the flaw is not so much in the class as it is in how people use the class. The mystic class's greatest weakness is that it lends itself to min/max development too easily. So it is the players who want to develop powerhouses rather than characters and the DMs that allow them to get away with it that imbalance the class.
I once (once!) played in a group where every fighter had gotten together and hired a weaponsmith and a wizard to make a collection of +3 silver mercurial nodachis, each one doing damage in one of the elemental types. So one party had four of the most damaging type of two-handed sword available in that universe but there was literally nothing that they could not do max damage with those blades with every hit because they all took the same feats. They once killed a demilich in one round. And the DM allowed them to do this. When I saw that group in action, I just walked away because all they wanted was to be able to destroy anything and everything that they came across. They were asking the DM to make the next adventure one where they took on the gods themselves.
The question is - is the class the character or is it part of what defines the character. I am a gamer, an artist, a chef, a husband and a father, but these are just facets of who I actually am. Players and DMs need to view the classes that way too; classes are what the characters are, not who they are. Do we as a society tend to look down upon those people who define themselves by what they do rather than who they are.