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.
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!
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.
Yes, concentration is the one thing that keeps casters mostly balanced. (I say mostly, because occasionally a broken spell comes around like Healing Spirit that breaks the game)
The thing is, Psionicists should be a bit different. Their whole thing is that they get all their power from their mind. This should, IMO, let them "concentrate" on two abilities at once. There should be limitations on this, obviously, but it just makes sense. It's like a scene from Stranger Things or X-Men where the psychic character "grabs" two objects at the same time in the air, and they have to fight mentally to hold onto those two things. Something like that would be cool for a Psion class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The biggest mistake WotC ever made was catering to MMO fans and trying to make D&D more like WoW. This involves the concept of Balance. It is something that should NEVER have been brought into D&D.
Balancing the game is what ruined 4e. Every class was basically the same (much like SW:TOR). powers had different visuals and sfx but were basically the same. Like a real individual with an automatic rifle versus an individuals armed with a knife, a wizard should NOT be equal to a warrior except with the situation gives the warrior the edge. If the warrior gets into range to use that knife, then the wizard made a mistake. An Elminster cannot exist in 5e, and had to be completely depowered (madness) to be himself in 4e.
The biggest issue with the UA Mystic class was it existed in a void. Unless a DM introduced appropriate psionics and defences to the creatures of his campaign, they were way overpowered. In mine, I brought back truly psionic mindflayers and demons. I re-introduced the concept of Psi Class VI where creatures are Immune to Psionics and psionic effects, but cannot use Psionics.
WotC is being lazy in trying to introduce Psionics without re-introduce a psionic support structure. To create a Dark Sun product this is something they need to do. If they do so, they will created a superior product to the UA materials they have tried to introduce so far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
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.
Those are a bit powerful. Concentration is really the only thing that keeps casters from totally overshadowing non-casters.
That only becomes a problem with multiclassing, something I would probably solve by saying that these extra psion concentration 'slots' can only be used for psion abilities. Otherwise why do you think these are powerful?
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!
There are some indications out there that the reason for the dropping of the Mystic archetype is because it was a project of Mike Mearls who has been removed from the D&D team and been replaced by Ray Winninger. It seems that everything related to Mike is being wiped clean where possible.
This would explain WotC's decision to drop the Mystic completely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Jeremy Crawford already said the Mystic got dropped because of the class overlapping too much with existing classes in the last Dragon+ podcast. Balance and complexity issues can always be fixed but without a clear theme the class wasn't going anywhere as written.
I don't think Mike had exclusive ownership of anything except maybe the stuff he designed on the fly during his Happy Fun Hour streams, presumably in his spare time. None of that content was ever officially available even in UA form as far as I know. His day-to-day responsibilities had less to do with writing game mechanics (that's Jeremy Crawford's job) and more to do with steering the D&D brand as a whole. That's not to say he didn't have a hand in the rules too, and I'm sure he contributed a lot idea-wise, but anything that would've gone to print would've been handed over to Jeremy in the end anyways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
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!
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!
Yes, concentration is the one thing that keeps casters mostly balanced. (I say mostly, because occasionally a broken spell comes around like Healing Spirit that breaks the game)
The thing is, Psionicists should be a bit different. Their whole thing is that they get all their power from their mind. This should, IMO, let them "concentrate" on two abilities at once. There should be limitations on this, obviously, but it just makes sense. It's like a scene from Stranger Things or X-Men where the psychic character "grabs" two objects at the same time in the air, and they have to fight mentally to hold onto those two things. Something like that would be cool for a Psion class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The biggest mistake WotC ever made was catering to MMO fans and trying to make D&D more like WoW. This involves the concept of Balance. It is something that should NEVER have been brought into D&D.
Balancing the game is what ruined 4e. Every class was basically the same (much like SW:TOR). powers had different visuals and sfx but were basically the same. Like a real individual with an automatic rifle versus an individuals armed with a knife, a wizard should NOT be equal to a warrior except with the situation gives the warrior the edge. If the warrior gets into range to use that knife, then the wizard made a mistake. An Elminster cannot exist in 5e, and had to be completely depowered (madness) to be himself in 4e.
The biggest issue with the UA Mystic class was it existed in a void. Unless a DM introduced appropriate psionics and defences to the creatures of his campaign, they were way overpowered. In mine, I brought back truly psionic mindflayers and demons. I re-introduced the concept of Psi Class VI where creatures are Immune to Psionics and psionic effects, but cannot use Psionics.
WotC is being lazy in trying to introduce Psionics without re-introduce a psionic support structure. To create a Dark Sun product this is something they need to do. If they do so, they will created a superior product to the UA materials they have tried to introduce so far.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
That only becomes a problem with multiclassing, something I would probably solve by saying that these extra psion concentration 'slots' can only be used for psion abilities. Otherwise why do you think these are powerful?
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!
There are some indications out there that the reason for the dropping of the Mystic archetype is because it was a project of Mike Mearls who has been removed from the D&D team and been replaced by Ray Winninger. It seems that everything related to Mike is being wiped clean where possible.
This would explain WotC's decision to drop the Mystic completely.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Jeremy Crawford already said the Mystic got dropped because of the class overlapping too much with existing classes in the last Dragon+ podcast. Balance and complexity issues can always be fixed but without a clear theme the class wasn't going anywhere as written.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I don't think Mike had exclusive ownership of anything except maybe the stuff he designed on the fly during his Happy Fun Hour streams, presumably in his spare time. None of that content was ever officially available even in UA form as far as I know. His day-to-day responsibilities had less to do with writing game mechanics (that's Jeremy Crawford's job) and more to do with steering the D&D brand as a whole. That's not to say he didn't have a hand in the rules too, and I'm sure he contributed a lot idea-wise, but anything that would've gone to print would've been handed over to Jeremy in the end anyways.
The Forum Infestation (TM)