Psionics have been spells since 5e came out. That's how psionic monsters were created. Innate spellcasting (psionics) has been here since the beginning of the edition. Players aren't requesting to add a system for psionics. Players are requesting to change the existing system for psionics in order to add a class that doesn't line up with how the game already treats the ability. WotC using spells for classes is using the existing system and they are trying to change it enough to make it stand out.
I am not going to argue for or against adding psionics. I don't think the game needs a psionicist class and I also don't think a psionicist class would be detrimental. I'm ambivalent because neither option negatively affects my ability to enjoy the game. ;)
And tbh I could homebrew a psion that worked for my game if a player really wanted one. It's not a common enough request that I really worry about a published version on top of different players having different ideas of what that should be. The only issue is wanting to play one in AL.
I do like the sorcerer subclass from the recent UA, however. It generally gives a lot of psion vibe even if it doesn't have it's own class and is still mainly a spell caster. I will also say I don't think a monk subclass for a main psionicist works well -- there are too many monk abilities baked into the level progression table for that, imo.
For those who want a straight up class, I wish you luck. I might not care about the class, but I do understand how it feels to want your class when it's been omitted.
Psionics should NEVER be spells in any way, shape or form. Otherwise why have them in the 1st place. Psionics is meant to be different from magic entirely. That is one of the biggest mistakes the WotC have done since they took over the D&D franchise; trying to make psionics just another form of magic. It never was and should never be that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Psionics should NEVER be spells in any way, shape or form. Otherwise why have them in the 1st place. Psionics is meant to be different from magic entirely. That is one of the biggest mistakes the WotC have done since they took over the D&D franchise; trying to make psionics just another form of magic. It never was and should never be that.
So I'm still not sure I understand this objection. What is the difference between a spell effect and a psionic effect, in your opinion? Is it thematic? Is it mechanical? Is it components? Is it the Weave and antimagic fields?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
1) First and foremost, Psionics are not magic. This like wild magic zones, dead magic zones, and anti-magic effects have no affect on psionics. This is not to say some magics can't affect psionics.
2) Magic is drawn form outside one self though the source that allows this can come from many sources (blood lines, pacts, magic items, etc.). Psionics on the other hand come from within; the mind and/or body of the possessor of such power. Though psionic effects can be powerful and varied, they should never compare to spells like Wish or Meteor Swarm.
3) Most psionics require know Verbal or Somatic components. A very few might call upon a material component in the form of some sort of Focus that helps the psionic enhance his/her powers.
The Complete Book of Psionics from 2rd ED was great. Even better, from 1st Ed, in Dragon Magazine #78 the Deryni and Psionicist class were introduced. Until the introduction of this class, I always though Psionics were far too over powered to be allowed. This class made them playable;e, still overpowered, but playable.
I love using and playing psionics as the nemesis to magic users personally.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
1) First and foremost, Psionics are not magic. This like wild magic zones, dead magic zones, and anti-magic effects have no affect on psionics. This is not to say some magics can't affect psionics.
Ok, so when we're discussing definitions it's not particularly helpful to just say A is not B. I think this point refers to the in character concept of the Weave as well as the mechanical aspect of being affected by Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and detected by Detect Magic? So to be psionic, it has to be a completely distinct power source and also not be affected by any sort of foils to traditional "magic."
2) Magic is drawn form outside one self though the source that allows this can come from many sources (blood lines, pacts, magic items, etc.). Psionics on the other hand come from within; the mind and/or body of the possessor of such power. Though psionic effects can be powerful and varied, they should never compare to spells like Wish or Meteor Swarm.
So the power source of psionics is internal. That kind of sounds like ki. In what respects should they not compare to Wish or Meteor Swarm? Less damage? Less ... variability? Less range or area?
3) Most psionics require know Verbal or Somatic components. A very few might call upon a material component in the form of some sort of Focus that helps the psionic enhance his/her powers.
No verbal or somatic components. This is easily understandable. So like, if I take the Telekinesis spell, remove the S and V components, and make it not affected by Counterspell, Dispel Magic, or detected by Detect Magic would that work as a psionic effect for you?
The Complete Book of Psionics from 2rd ED was great. Even better, from 1st Ed, in Dragon Magazine #78 the Deryni and Psionicist class were introduced. Until the introduction of this class, I always though Psionics were far too over powered to be allowed. This class made them playable;e, still overpowered, but playable.
I love using and playing psionics as the nemesis to magic users personally.
Okay so I took a look at that issue of Dragon. So I've been roleplaying for decades, but I 5E is the first edition of D&D I've played seriously so I'm not sure about my knowledge of previous editions. I do feel that it fits oddly into the 5E paradigm, but there's a lot there and I want to keep looking it over and digesting it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You know that I am on the same page with you (about 95% agreement) on the entire issue of Psionics. But I would like to point a few things out, please bear with me.
When Psionics came out in the way back when, there were no such things as “spellcasters,” there were “Arcane Magic Users” and “Divine Magic Users” so the only way to make Psionics distinct was to specify that Psionics was not “Magic” and Psionicist were not “Magic Users.”
It has been made abundantly clear that WotC would rather not have to touch Psionics with a 10-foot pole. They have come to the comunity and offered us a compromise by saying that they will give us Psionics if we accept it being a form of Spellcasting. The majority of the comunity that rememberers Psionics fondly, (you and me included) are obviously not too keen on that idea.
Now, why would WotC not want to come anywhere near Psionics? Because, considering the diversity of opinions within the comunity, they have the same feeling I get when interacting with my father most of the time (and my wife some of the time too), that no matter what they do, they will be wrong. I can totally appreciate that sentiment.
Now, in 5e, a distinction has been clearly made between “Magic” and “Spellcasting.” I implore the comunity to please come to a small consensus of opinion about this point. WotC has shown they are willing to work with us in the spirit of compromise. Why can we as a comunity not do the same? A good compromise is one where all parties are equally satisfied. The metric by which that is traditionally measured is to make sure all parties are equally dissatisfied.
Why not, as a comunity, agree to accept that Psionics can be a form of “Magic” similar to countless other things that exist in 5e that are not “Spellcasting” such as Bardic Inspiration, Breath Weapons, and Chanel Divinity to name a few? We would get to have our distinction between “psionic class(es)” and “caster classes” that we want, and WotC gets to have a measure of streamlining that they strive for. The added benefit is that, if we can agree on something about Psionics as a comunity, then maybe WotC might not be quite so hesitant to actually go all-in on a full Psion class.
What do you think? Is it possible that we can all start to get our oars lined up in a roughly similar direction so that WotC might be more willing to put theirs in the water?
I am perfectly fine with Psionics being magic. It is an easy solution that doesn't require rewriting everything that has come before to accommodate a new class or set of subclasses. My only requirement is for there to be a Psion class instead of it just being another Wizard or Sorcerer subclass.
I am perfectly fine with Psionics being magic. It is an easy solution that doesn't require rewriting everything that has come before to accommodate a new class or set of subclasses. My only requirement is for there to be a Psion class instead of it just being another Wizard or Sorcerer subclass.
Are we at least on the Magic but not Spellcasting page together?
I am perfectly fine with Psionics being magic. It is an easy solution that doesn't require rewriting everything that has come before to accommodate a new class or set of subclasses. My only requirement is for there to be a Psion class instead of it just being another Wizard or Sorcerer subclass.
Are we at least on the Magic but not Spellcasting page together?
I would prefer it to be something other than the Spellcasting. I am not sure how the Talent Die would work for abilities similar to Mind Blast and the like, but I am not a game designer.
Just checking. I’ve been working with rowers one at a time for a while now about those oars. I remember you were rowing with us, I just wanted to make sure nothing had changed since then.
1) First and foremost, Psionics are not magic. This like wild magic zones, dead magic zones, and anti-magic effects have no affect on psionics. This is not to say some magics can't affect psionics.
2) Magic is drawn form outside one self though the source that allows this can come from many sources (blood lines, pacts, magic items, etc.). Psionics on the other hand come from within; the mind and/or body of the possessor of such power. Though psionic effects can be powerful and varied, they should never compare to spells like Wish or Meteor Swarm.
3) Most psionics require know Verbal or Somatic components. A very few might call upon a material component in the form of some sort of Focus that helps the psionic enhance his/her powers.
The Complete Book of Psionics from 2rd ED was great. Even better, from 1st Ed, in Dragon Magazine #78 the Deryni and Psionicist class were introduced. Until the introduction of this class, I always though Psionics were far too over powered to be allowed. This class made them playable;e, still overpowered, but playable.
I love using and playing psionics as the nemesis to magic users personally.
1) As we've discussed before, there is (long) precedent for psionics and magic to interact normally. And if this were not the case, you'd have some serious balance issues.
2) The spells as we have listed are agnostic as to the source of their power. Warlocks, Clerics, and Druids can all cast spells though their sources are different. The source is wholly irrelevant for how magic is portrayed mechanically. If you don't think psions should have access to wish or meteor swarm, then one could simply not include such spells on a hypothetical psion spell list.
3) Again, you risk tampering with balance. Why would any player want to be a Wizard if you can play as a psion that A) can't be countered with counterspell,dispel magic, or antimagic field, and B) doesn't risk incapacitation from being silenced or without free hands?
Psionics should NEVER be spells in any way, shape or form. Otherwise why have them in the 1st place. Psionics is meant to be different from magic entirely. That is one of the biggest mistakes the WotC have done since they took over the D&D franchise; trying to make psionics just another form of magic. It never was and should never be that.
I think that Psionics is a weird problem to tackle. People obviously want the class in many instances, but at the same time its execution makes it a weird archetype to me. The problem is that the Psionic seems to cover so much ground to people in terms of play style, from a squishy caster with a d6 hit die to something more melee focused with a larger pool of health. I hear about how it can summon things, play stealthy, do tons of damage etc. I think this is why it comes off as better fit as subclasses. Because a Psion playing like a Barbarian probably is best implemented as a Barbarian subclass, not within its own class next to a Rogue-like Psion and a Sorcerer-like Psion. It doesn't have a clear mechanical identity, just a narrative one to me.
Now... if it WERE to be its own class, I think that you would need to look to the Cleric as the other major caster that implements the variety well. Identify the bare minimum you would need to make a Psion base class, and then let the subclass (domain) really flesh out what kind of Psion you are.
I think that Psionics is a weird problem to tackle. People obviously want the class in many instances, but at the same time its execution makes it a weird archetype to me. The problem is that the Psionic seems to cover so much ground to people in terms of play style, from a squishy caster with a d6 hit die to something more melee focused with a larger pool of health. I hear about how it can summon things, play stealthy, do tons of damage etc. I think this is why it comes off as better fit as subclasses. Because a Psion playing like a Barbarian probably is best implemented as a Barbarian subclass, not within its own class next to a Rogue-like Psion and a Sorcerer-like Psion. It doesn't have a clear mechanical identity, just a narrative one to me.
Now... if it WERE to be its own class, I think that you would need to look to the Cleric as the other major caster that implements the variety well. Identify the bare minimum you would need to make a Psion base class, and then let the subclass (domain) really flesh out what kind of Psion you are.
This is the same thing I have been feeling for a while now. People want the Psion class to do too much. I think they need to step back and think about how to make a 5e Psion and worry less about what it was in "x" edition.
I think that Psionics is a weird problem to tackle. People obviously want the class in many instances, but at the same time its execution makes it a weird archetype to me. The problem is that the Psionic seems to cover so much ground to people in terms of play style, from a squishy caster with a d6 hit die to something more melee focused with a larger pool of health. I hear about how it can summon things, play stealthy, do tons of damage etc. I think this is why it comes off as better fit as subclasses. Because a Psion playing like a Barbarian probably is best implemented as a Barbarian subclass, not within its own class next to a Rogue-like Psion and a Sorcerer-like Psion. It doesn't have a clear mechanical identity, just a narrative one to me.
Now... if it WERE to be its own class, I think that you would need to look to the Cleric as the other major caster that implements the variety well. Identify the bare minimum you would need to make a Psion base class, and then let the subclass (domain) really flesh out what kind of Psion you are.
Yeah that would be my philosophy of a psion class. For me the bare minimum would be some telekinesis (Mage Hand and a slow flight speed because it just isn't a psion to me without the eerie levitating float, could just be me), a bit of telepathy, a preponderance toward meditation (concentration) effects, and maybe a danger sense like ESP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think that Psionics is a weird problem to tackle. People obviously want the class in many instances, but at the same time its execution makes it a weird archetype to me. The problem is that the Psionic seems to cover so much ground to people in terms of play style, from a squishy caster with a d6 hit die to something more melee focused with a larger pool of health. I hear about how it can summon things, play stealthy, do tons of damage etc. I think this is why it comes off as better fit as subclasses. Because a Psion playing like a Barbarian probably is best implemented as a Barbarian subclass, not within its own class next to a Rogue-like Psion and a Sorcerer-like Psion. It doesn't have a clear mechanical identity, just a narrative one to me.
Now... if it WERE to be its own class, I think that you would need to look to the Cleric as the other major caster that implements the variety well. Identify the bare minimum you would need to make a Psion base class, and then let the subclass (domain) really flesh out what kind of Psion you are.
Yeah that would be my philosophy of a psion class. For me the bare minimum would be some telekinesis (Mage Hand and a slow flight speed because it just isn't a psion to me without the eerie levitating float, could just be me), a bit of telepathy, a preponderance toward meditation (concentration) effects, and maybe a danger sense like ESP.
That last bit occurred to me as well. I think what could distinguish a psion would be the psionic focus concept that the original Mystic had. Reminds me of "Reserve feats" from 3.5e. Basically, they enabled minor effects when a caster has a spell of a given type available. Doesn't quite work in 5e because spells aren't directly mapped into spell slots (spell slots aren't specialized when you prepare them). Perhaps psions get an added benefit when they concentrate on certain spells?
It has been made abundantly clear that WotC would rather not have to touch Psionics with a 10-foot pole. They have come to the comunity and offered us a compromise by saying that they will give us Psionics if we accept it being a form of Spellcasting.
Eh? I must've missed a memo because I'm pretty sure WotC's said no such thing. They nixed the Mystic because it didn't have a niche; it just did the same things other classes did with a psi flavor. There's already psionic abilities of all kinds - spells, non-spell magic, and nonmagical effects - in 5e and there's no reason for the designers to pigeonhole player psionic options into just one of those categories.
A psionic-centric class isn't off the table, but considering they'd be starting from scratch it'll be a while before anything like that shows up in a book. The Artificer went through what -- three major revisions? -- before it started meeting the required satisfaction rating and that class had the benefit of an obvious mechanical niche to build around (creating magic items).
That last bit occurred to me as well. I think what could distinguish a psion would be the psionic focus concept that the original Mystic had. Reminds me of "Reserve feats" from 3.5e. Basically, they enabled minor effects when a caster has a spell of a given type available. Doesn't quite work in 5e because spells aren't directly mapped into spell slots (spell slots aren't specialized when you prepare them). Perhaps psions get an added benefit when they concentrate on certain spells?
My personal idea is to have some very useful abilities that require concentration and the base class will eventually get the ability to concentrate on two things at once, while the "caster" subclass gets (at a high level) the ability to concentrate on three things at once. The aforementioned levitate ability for example: Bonus action to gain a flight speed of 15ft, requires concentration. I was going to give the warrior subclass the ability to wield their weapons with their mind, using their Int bonus instead of Str or Dex, as long as they can retain concentration on that ability, so they can't float and do that at the same time until they hit level 6 or so when they gain the ability to concentrate on two things.
That looks cool, and is designed around the same philosophy I would like the Psion to be created around, but it isn't quite there for me.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Psionics have been spells since 5e came out. That's how psionic monsters were created. Innate spellcasting (psionics) has been here since the beginning of the edition. Players aren't requesting to add a system for psionics. Players are requesting to change the existing system for psionics in order to add a class that doesn't line up with how the game already treats the ability. WotC using spells for classes is using the existing system and they are trying to change it enough to make it stand out.
I am not going to argue for or against adding psionics. I don't think the game needs a psionicist class and I also don't think a psionicist class would be detrimental. I'm ambivalent because neither option negatively affects my ability to enjoy the game. ;)
And tbh I could homebrew a psion that worked for my game if a player really wanted one. It's not a common enough request that I really worry about a published version on top of different players having different ideas of what that should be. The only issue is wanting to play one in AL.
I do like the sorcerer subclass from the recent UA, however. It generally gives a lot of psion vibe even if it doesn't have it's own class and is still mainly a spell caster. I will also say I don't think a monk subclass for a main psionicist works well -- there are too many monk abilities baked into the level progression table for that, imo.
For those who want a straight up class, I wish you luck. I might not care about the class, but I do understand how it feels to want your class when it's been omitted.
Psionics should NEVER be spells in any way, shape or form. Otherwise why have them in the 1st place. Psionics is meant to be different from magic entirely. That is one of the biggest mistakes the WotC have done since they took over the D&D franchise; trying to make psionics just another form of magic. It never was and should never be that.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
So I'm still not sure I understand this objection. What is the difference between a spell effect and a psionic effect, in your opinion? Is it thematic? Is it mechanical? Is it components? Is it the Weave and antimagic fields?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
All of the above and more.
1) First and foremost, Psionics are not magic. This like wild magic zones, dead magic zones, and anti-magic effects have no affect on psionics. This is not to say some magics can't affect psionics.
2) Magic is drawn form outside one self though the source that allows this can come from many sources (blood lines, pacts, magic items, etc.). Psionics on the other hand come from within; the mind and/or body of the possessor of such power. Though psionic effects can be powerful and varied, they should never compare to spells like Wish or Meteor Swarm.
3) Most psionics require know Verbal or Somatic components. A very few might call upon a material component in the form of some sort of Focus that helps the psionic enhance his/her powers.
The Complete Book of Psionics from 2rd ED was great. Even better, from 1st Ed, in Dragon Magazine #78 the Deryni and Psionicist class were introduced. Until the introduction of this class, I always though Psionics were far too over powered to be allowed. This class made them playable;e, still overpowered, but playable.
I love using and playing psionics as the nemesis to magic users personally.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Ok, so when we're discussing definitions it's not particularly helpful to just say A is not B. I think this point refers to the in character concept of the Weave as well as the mechanical aspect of being affected by Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and detected by Detect Magic? So to be psionic, it has to be a completely distinct power source and also not be affected by any sort of foils to traditional "magic."
So the power source of psionics is internal. That kind of sounds like ki. In what respects should they not compare to Wish or Meteor Swarm? Less damage? Less ... variability? Less range or area?
No verbal or somatic components. This is easily understandable. So like, if I take the Telekinesis spell, remove the S and V components, and make it not affected by Counterspell, Dispel Magic, or detected by Detect Magic would that work as a psionic effect for you?
Edit: Or Antimagic Field for that matter.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Okay so I took a look at that issue of Dragon. So I've been roleplaying for decades, but I 5E is the first edition of D&D I've played seriously so I'm not sure about my knowledge of previous editions. I do feel that it fits oddly into the 5E paradigm, but there's a lot there and I want to keep looking it over and digesting it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Mergon,
You know that I am on the same page with you (about 95% agreement) on the entire issue of Psionics. But I would like to point a few things out, please bear with me.
When Psionics came out in the way back when, there were no such things as “spellcasters,” there were “Arcane Magic Users” and “Divine Magic Users” so the only way to make Psionics distinct was to specify that Psionics was not “Magic” and Psionicist were not “Magic Users.”
It has been made abundantly clear that WotC would rather not have to touch Psionics with a 10-foot pole. They have come to the comunity and offered us a compromise by saying that they will give us Psionics if we accept it being a form of Spellcasting. The majority of the comunity that rememberers Psionics fondly, (you and me included) are obviously not too keen on that idea.
Now, why would WotC not want to come anywhere near Psionics? Because, considering the diversity of opinions within the comunity, they have the same feeling I get when interacting with my father most of the time (and my wife some of the time too), that no matter what they do, they will be wrong. I can totally appreciate that sentiment.
Now, in 5e, a distinction has been clearly made between “Magic” and “Spellcasting.” I implore the comunity to please come to a small consensus of opinion about this point. WotC has shown they are willing to work with us in the spirit of compromise. Why can we as a comunity not do the same? A good compromise is one where all parties are equally satisfied. The metric by which that is traditionally measured is to make sure all parties are equally dissatisfied.
Why not, as a comunity, agree to accept that Psionics can be a form of “Magic” similar to countless other things that exist in 5e that are not “Spellcasting” such as Bardic Inspiration, Breath Weapons, and Chanel Divinity to name a few? We would get to have our distinction between “psionic class(es)” and “caster classes” that we want, and WotC gets to have a measure of streamlining that they strive for. The added benefit is that, if we can agree on something about Psionics as a comunity, then maybe WotC might not be quite so hesitant to actually go all-in on a full Psion class.
What do you think? Is it possible that we can all start to get our oars lined up in a roughly similar direction so that WotC might be more willing to put theirs in the water?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am perfectly fine with Psionics being magic. It is an easy solution that doesn't require rewriting everything that has come before to accommodate a new class or set of subclasses. My only requirement is for there to be a Psion class instead of it just being another Wizard or Sorcerer subclass.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Are we at least on the Magic but not Spellcasting page together?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I would prefer it to be something other than the Spellcasting. I am not sure how the Talent Die would work for abilities similar to Mind Blast and the like, but I am not a game designer.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Just checking. I’ve been working with rowers one at a time for a while now about those oars. I remember you were rowing with us, I just wanted to make sure nothing had changed since then.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
1) As we've discussed before, there is (long) precedent for psionics and magic to interact normally. And if this were not the case, you'd have some serious balance issues.
2) The spells as we have listed are agnostic as to the source of their power. Warlocks, Clerics, and Druids can all cast spells though their sources are different. The source is wholly irrelevant for how magic is portrayed mechanically. If you don't think psions should have access to wish or meteor swarm, then one could simply not include such spells on a hypothetical psion spell list.
3) Again, you risk tampering with balance. Why would any player want to be a Wizard if you can play as a psion that A) can't be countered with counterspell,dispel magic, or antimagic field, and B) doesn't risk incapacitation from being silenced or without free hands?
By "never" you mean before the last 20 years? :P
I think that Psionics is a weird problem to tackle. People obviously want the class in many instances, but at the same time its execution makes it a weird archetype to me. The problem is that the Psionic seems to cover so much ground to people in terms of play style, from a squishy caster with a d6 hit die to something more melee focused with a larger pool of health. I hear about how it can summon things, play stealthy, do tons of damage etc. I think this is why it comes off as better fit as subclasses. Because a Psion playing like a Barbarian probably is best implemented as a Barbarian subclass, not within its own class next to a Rogue-like Psion and a Sorcerer-like Psion. It doesn't have a clear mechanical identity, just a narrative one to me.
Now... if it WERE to be its own class, I think that you would need to look to the Cleric as the other major caster that implements the variety well. Identify the bare minimum you would need to make a Psion base class, and then let the subclass (domain) really flesh out what kind of Psion you are.
This is the same thing I have been feeling for a while now. People want the Psion class to do too much. I think they need to step back and think about how to make a 5e Psion and worry less about what it was in "x" edition.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah that would be my philosophy of a psion class. For me the bare minimum would be some telekinesis (Mage Hand and a slow flight speed because it just isn't a psion to me without the eerie levitating float, could just be me), a bit of telepathy, a preponderance toward meditation (concentration) effects, and maybe a danger sense like ESP.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That last bit occurred to me as well. I think what could distinguish a psion would be the psionic focus concept that the original Mystic had. Reminds me of "Reserve feats" from 3.5e. Basically, they enabled minor effects when a caster has a spell of a given type available. Doesn't quite work in 5e because spells aren't directly mapped into spell slots (spell slots aren't specialized when you prepare them). Perhaps psions get an added benefit when they concentrate on certain spells?
Eh? I must've missed a memo because I'm pretty sure WotC's said no such thing. They nixed the Mystic because it didn't have a niche; it just did the same things other classes did with a psi flavor. There's already psionic abilities of all kinds - spells, non-spell magic, and nonmagical effects - in 5e and there's no reason for the designers to pigeonhole player psionic options into just one of those categories.
A psionic-centric class isn't off the table, but considering they'd be starting from scratch it'll be a while before anything like that shows up in a book. The Artificer went through what -- three major revisions? -- before it started meeting the required satisfaction rating and that class had the benefit of an obvious mechanical niche to build around (creating magic items).
The Forum Infestation (TM)
My personal idea is to have some very useful abilities that require concentration and the base class will eventually get the ability to concentrate on two things at once, while the "caster" subclass gets (at a high level) the ability to concentrate on three things at once. The aforementioned levitate ability for example: Bonus action to gain a flight speed of 15ft, requires concentration. I was going to give the warrior subclass the ability to wield their weapons with their mind, using their Int bonus instead of Str or Dex, as long as they can retain concentration on that ability, so they can't float and do that at the same time until they hit level 6 or so when they gain the ability to concentrate on two things.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!