Mystic Questions

Yeah, I’m a bit ‘meh’ on the name too… it hardly implies the kind of warrior badassery that they can pull off. Followers of the Way or Transcendent Warrior, or something. Maybe?

I like ‘mystic’ - it implies much more than just combat, and the class seems to be about much more than that.

I don’t like mystic either, honestly. I didn’t use monk because it suggests either medieval monasteries or Shao-Lin kung fu. Mystic, at least, was fresher, and had the D&D Rules Compendium legacy to support it.
That said, some other names might be:
Adept
Brother
Disciple
Hierophant
Seeker

Now, Adept is cool.
Disciple is too narrow, just meaning a religious follower - too much like a Cleric. Adept could be following a philosophy - more like Anasûrimbor Kellhus.

Disciple and adept are pretty nice.

I’m gonna cast my vote for “Adept” too.

prototype, there’s no reason I can’t add an “unarmed fighting” proficiency in. I’ll write something up and include it in the next draft. That will give Judges/players who want the AD&D-style monk a way to do it, while keeping it outside of the core class.
Thanks for the suggestion!

Luftmensch, thanks for the kind words on the class. The two sources of inspiration were Dune’s Bene Gesserit and The Prince of Nothing’s Anasurimbor Kelhus.
In fact, if you took an ACKS Mystic and layered on mage spellcasting, I think you’d be very close to Kelhus. (The schools of sorcery in the Prince of Nothing were also inspirational for free-casting, spell signatures, and proficiencies like Black Lore of Zahar).

Looking at the level titles, I think ‘Hierophant’ is too tied to religion, how about Ascendent, like in Erikson’s Malazan saga - individuals who have transcended death (but still can be killed).

Tuppence for the pot…
Re: Class name, I have no problem with Mystic. I would ask - what is the ‘fit’ of the class in your campaign? Because imo that’s sort of the guiding factor as to what the class name is.
Class name is a place holder and should be as generic as possible. Mystic fits the bill for me because it covers a number of possibilities. If you want an organised group with a structure, go with Disciple for your own game, if they’re more the Shaolin Monk, go Adept (or… monk :)). If you want Bene Gesseritt witches then I want in on your game :smiley:

Re: prototype, there’s no reason I can’t add an “unarmed fighting” proficiency in. I’ll write something up and include it in the next draft. That will give Judges/players who want the AD&D-style monk a way to do it, while keeping it outside of the core class.
Thanks for the suggestion!
No, thank you Alex! I am psyched that a suggestion of mine might make it into the book. So, can I take this as a go ahead to suggest interesting proficiencies/or other things for addition to the book? I was wondering if at this stage it was too late to add anything new and that we were currently testing for game balance.
prototype00

Things like proficiencies are easy to add in. I do want to keep them to a limited amount simply to avoid “splatbookism” but a small handful is great.
I just saw you suggested a great new proficiency for the Dwarven Machinist, and I’m going to add that in as well.
(The only suggestions I can’t really accommodate are changes to the custom class building rules, and changes to the classes that don’t work with the custom class building rules. Since all of the ACKS Core classes are compatible with the custom class rules, fiddling with them creates chains of inconsistency.)

((Re: Class name, I have no problem with Mystic. I would ask - what is the ‘fit’ of the class in your campaign? Because imo that’s sort of the guiding factor as to what the class name is.))
I guess mystic suggests “Magic” to me while “Adept” has more connotations of skill and training.
But mostly, though, it’s just that “Mystic” sounds kind of plain and boring. It’s got no zazz!
I’ll be the first to admit that it’s weird that I DON’T have the same issue with “Fighter.”

here are some more:
anchorite, ascetic, cenobite, devout, eremite, friar, hermit.
i probably would go with devout, disciple or mystic

RE: Unarmed fighting: Would the proficiency just escalate damage? Would it allow non-subdual damage? Would it allow punches/kicks against armored opponents? I ask in part because the ocean supplement I’m working on has two proficiencies related to unarmed fighting (in a nod to Sailor Costigan), and I’d have to reconsider the “ecosystem” of brawling if there’s a proficiency answering those questions in the affirmative.
I might be hesitant to play a martial arts fighter under a ruleset that codifies sundering attacks- ouch!

Charlatan, I haven’t written anything yet, so if you’d like, send me your current proficiencies.

Alex- done.

I actually don’t have a big problem with the name “mystic”, though it does have a certain occult connotation to it that might be a bit inapplicable. “Adept” is probably a better descriptor of the class. I like “'seeker” a lot, as well, but there might be a bit of 4E baggage there, as one of the less popular classes in that edition shares the name.
Names like Transcendent Warrior or Follower of the Way bug me, partly because they sound so campaign-specific, and partly because I just have an irrational dislike for the idea of classes having multiple-word names. If your class’ name is longer than one word, chances are that it’s difficult to explain, and thus is not particularly archetypal or iconic.

UPDATE:
Unarmed Fighting: The character is an expert in striking with fist and feet. When brawling (see ACKS p.109), he may deal lethal damage. He can punch or kick characters in metal armor without himself taking damage.

Re: Unarmed fighting
Well, it certainly works as a holdout/emergency “weapon” but is mechanically inferior to anything with actual heft. I was hoping for something more chop sockey, but on reflection for this manner of game, it’s probably perfect.
prototype00