Surprise
Ok, I always hated the old Surprise rolls… different dice for different character types and all that…and what happens when a creature gets a bonus vs someone with a different die type, etc, etc.
So, the mystic gets a bonus of +1 at level 1, meaning he’s surprised on a 1 on a d6.
At 3rd he gets another +1 meaning… he can’t be surprised? Or can he? If he’s immune, wouldn’t it be easier to say that? Or is there some other wrinkle I’m missing?
Perceive Intentions-
How does this interact with monsters who lack statistics?
So, the mystic gets a bonus of +1 at level 1, meaning he’s surprised on a 1 on a d6. At 3rd he gets another +1 meaning… he can’t be surprised? Or can he? If he’s immune, wouldn’t it be easier to say that? Or is there some other wrinkle I’m missing
APM: Some monsters impose a penalty on surprise rolls. For example, characters encountering bugbears suffer a -1 penalty on surprise rolls. In other cases, the Judge may apply a penalty on surprise rolls due to circumstances. Let’s imagine those same bugbears have spent the last hour camouflaging themselves carefully, which the Judge determines to be worth an additional -1 penalty on the surprise roll. The total penalty would be -2. Three PCs encounter the bugbears: A 3rd level mystic, a 1st level mystic, and a 1st level fighter.
The fighter is surprised on a 1-4 (1-2 -2).
The 1st level mystic is surprised on a 1-3 (1-2 +1 -2).
The 3rd level mystic is surprised on a 1-2 (1-2 +2 -2).
Perceive Intentions- How does this interact with monsters who lack statistics?
APM: It’s left to the Judge’s discretion. I normally treat monsters as having Ability Scores of 10 unless I have some reason to rule otherwise. If you’d prefer to better define these, you could certainly crib from 3.5 or work them up otherwise.
I know this might have not been your intent at all, but would it be possible to have some manner of proficiency covering unarmed fighting styles for the mystic? Something like:
Proficiency (Fists of Iron):
Your unarmed fists hit as hard as steel weapons!
This proficiency, which you can take three times grants you a one handed weapon (that can be either wielded in each hand or wielded with two hands depending on fighting style) that can never be disarmed. With each pick of this proficiency, the damage increases from 1d4 to 1d6 to 1d10.
prototype00
I really like how you’ve moved the mystics away from Shaolin monks to kind of creepy pseudo-Bene Gesserit bad-asses. They fit a bit better into the standard western fantasy setting.
Also… I know that it’s what they used in Rules Cyclopedia, and it’s better than “Monk,” but I’m not a big fan of the class name “Mystic.” It’s just kind of blah/boring sounding. Not that I can think of anything better.
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 
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!