I personally am glad that WotC listens to the community with feedback, even if it can screw things over. They mentioned that there's a very vocal part of the community that wants new mechanics for psionics and that they want to try to appease to them. Sure, community suggestions can ruin things, like the Alchemist, or cause Psionics to be all spellcasting because it's easier for the community's brains to understand. If they didn't listen, everyone would be angry. This way, they're only really angering those of us who have opinions on this stuff. 

Yurei, I see where you're coming from and agree with all accounts. Your posts are articulate, yet angry. I personally have commented on the UA surveys expressing exactly my opinion, that Psionics shouldn't be limited to subclasses or spells, that I disliked the Psi Dice mechanic not because it was new, but because I know as a DM it would fall on me to keep track of it and that there's no way most players will want to keep track of that anyway on their own. My opinion on the matter is that the subclasses for psionics in the 12 normal classes should be fairly simple, but a new class better have new mechanics or I'm giving them a piece of my mind in the next survey, no matter the topic. 

I get the other side as well. They just want to play a cool mind-blasting sorcerer without having to keep track of a new mechanic that they have to learn. I get it. 5e is based around simplicity. It's what makes this edition so popular. Is it overwhelmingly infuriating in certain circumstances, most commonly from a developmental standpoint? Yes, of course. Making something simple means that it has to be fairly easy to understand for new players, which are abundant nowadays. I was a new player just 3 years ago, and I was a stranger to all these mechanics as well. As a new player, I probably would've appreciated a simple psionic or magic system in 5e, as I was having a hard enough time figuring out the rules on my own. 

There are pros and cons to having D&D be simple. There are pros and cons to taking community feedback seriously. There are pros and cons to all of this, but what WotC wants to do is create psionics in 5e that will appeal to the most 5e players as possible. 

I think we are lucky they haven't put the new book devotion system in a UA, or I'm pretty much sure this would never be going out. At this point, I would be rather surprised if psionic was not resumed to a Talent in the Darksun book that allows you to use an extra action, a DC or something like this as an extra cost in your spellcasting in exchange for casting the spell psionically. Sincerely, the fact that psion or mystic or wilder, or whatever they decide to name a psionic class if they ever care to release one, is not one of the base classes, even considering that this is a thing in the game for all editions and always something that provokes really intense reactions, is enough for me to really had my doubts from the start that we would ever get something psionic in 5e besides the 'flavor'. I mean, eliminate the psionic word from the aberrant sorcerer and I'm pretty much sure that it would be loved by everyone, sincerely it's better to give up this thing now, because from here forward it's downhills.  

Argh.

I do get it, Levi.  It just boils my blood that 'The Majority' always, always, always shoots down anything with even the most basic overtones of mechanical complexity.  Nobody ever realizes, while they're screaming about how utterly awful any sort of new mechanical system is and how Wizards should just "KEEP IT SIMPLE, SLIMEBALLS!" that these new systems are expanding ways to play, not restricting it.  They give both the player and the DM more levers to pull, more ways to interact with the game and the world the game portrays, and more things to do.  Every time The Majority starts shrieking about how awful and negative and game-destroying complexity is, I just want to scream from the rooftops that complexity is the currency with which you buy depth, and if you refuse to spend the former then you get none of the latter.

Especially when I see shit like "we have a small but very vocal group of dedicated fans who're really keen on new mechanics, and we want to try to appease those folks too".  Note that the word is "appease", not "satisfy".  They're not looking to actually make us folks happy, because we're not The Majority.  They're just trying to not piss us off to the point where we stop buying books, because they know that core base of dedicated adherents is the engine driving this money train to all the stations where they can pick up those New Players coming off of whichever their favorite online streaming show is.  That without existing players who know the game back to front and can show those new folks how it all works, they'd get a lot less traction with 'The Majority'.

So they never quite manage to get to the point of just telling us all to sod off and go play GURPS or Pathfinder or whatever instead, because they want us here teaching newbies how to D&D.  Doesn't matter if we're happy while we're doing it, or satisfied with our own games and/or characters.  Just matters that we're not so dissatisfied we end up jumping ship to a game that respects our intelligence.  And I'm getting awfully sick of it, really.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Argh.

I do get it, Levi.  It just boils my blood that 'The Majority' always, always, always shoots down anything with even the most basic overtones of mechanical complexity.  Nobody ever realizes, while they're screaming about how utterly awful any sort of new mechanical system is and how Wizards should just "KEEP IT SIMPLE, SLIMEBALLS!" that these new systems are expanding ways to play, not restricting it.  They give both the player and the DM more levers to pull, more ways to interact with the game and the world the game portrays, and more things to do.  Every time The Majority starts shrieking about how awful and negative and game-destroying complexity is, I just want to scream from the rooftops that complexity is the currency with which you buy depth, and if you refuse to spend the former then you get none of the latter.

Especially when I see shit like "we have a small but very vocal group of dedicated fans who're really keen on new mechanics, and we want to try to appease those folks too".  Note that the word is "appease", not "satisfy".  They're not looking to actually make us folks happy, because we're not The Majority.  They're just trying to not piss us off to the point where we stop buying books, because they know that core base of dedicated adherents is the engine driving this money train to all the stations where they can pick up those New Players coming off of whichever their favorite online streaming show is.  That without existing players who know the game back to front and can show those new folks how it all works, they'd get a lot less traction with 'The Majority'.

So they never quite manage to get to the point of just telling us all to sod off and go play GURPS or Pathfinder or whatever instead, because they want us here teaching newbies how to D&D.  Doesn't matter if we're happy while we're doing it, or satisfied with our own games and/or characters.  Just matters that we're not so dissatisfied we end up jumping ship to a game that respects our intelligence.  And I'm getting awfully sick of it, really.

 So manymuch thisses. All of them. With a giant dollop of whippedthis, a sprinkle of chopped this, and a bright red, shiny this on top.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Argh.

I do get it, Levi.  It just boils my blood that 'The Majority' always, always, always shoots down anything with even the most basic overtones of mechanical complexity.  Nobody ever realizes, while they're screaming about how utterly awful any sort of new mechanical system is and how Wizards should just "KEEP IT SIMPLE, SLIMEBALLS!" that these new systems are expanding ways to play, not restricting it.  They give both the player and the DM more levers to pull, more ways to interact with the game and the world the game portrays, and more things to do.  Every time The Majority starts shrieking about how awful and negative and game-destroying complexity is, I just want to scream from the rooftops that complexity is the currency with which you buy depth, and if you refuse to spend the former then you get none of the latter.

Especially when I see shit like "we have a small but very vocal group of dedicated fans who're really keen on new mechanics, and we want to try to appease those folks too".  Note that the word is "appease", not "satisfy".  They're not looking to actually make us folks happy, because we're not The Majority.  They're just trying to not piss us off to the point where we stop buying books, because they know that core base of dedicated adherents is the engine driving this money train to all the stations where they can pick up those New Players coming off of whichever their favorite online streaming show is.  That without existing players who know the game back to front and can show those new folks how it all works, they'd get a lot less traction with 'The Majority'.

So they never quite manage to get to the point of just telling us all to sod off and go play GURPS or Pathfinder or whatever instead, because they want us here teaching newbies how to D&D.  Doesn't matter if we're happy while we're doing it, or satisfied with our own games and/or characters.  Just matters that we're not so dissatisfied we end up jumping ship to a game that respects our intelligence.  And I'm getting awfully sick of it, really.

I agree, I hate this too. D&D 5e is my first ever TTRPG, and I don't want to have to learn a new system and give my money to a different company. I hope that they actually care enough to make the Minority happy, but it's unlikely at this point. If they do want to make us happy, I think we'll see a new class system. If they just want to try to satisfy us, they will probably try something along the lines of Option 2 or 3 from my post above. 

5e was my first rules/dice system as well.  I'd been roleplaying for twenty years before that, but doing it freeform without any constraints.

Now I know GURPS 4e, Savage Worlds Adventure Edition, and I have the core sourcebooks for both Shadowrun 6e (as...questionable...as it is) and Overlight.  The real **** of it?  If someone asked me what the easiest RPG in that list was to teach to a new player?  I'd pick GURPS.  yes, GURPS.  The titantic thuggernaut wherein character creation takes many weeks of Character Calculus to ensure nobody missed a digit, forgot to carry the one, or crossed some wires somewhere.  Because you know what?  I can hand someone a pregenerated sheet I did all the Character Calculus for, three d6s, and get them playing that game in maybe ten minutes.  The actual play engine is quick and easy and the system is more consistent in its execution than 5e is.

Because the developers carefully spent their complexity in the RIGHT PLACES to make that happen.  With many of the rules, systems, and mechanics in the book called out as optional at GM's discretion.  Y'know, like 5e tried to do, except they built the game engine around those rules and then offered ways to do it more simply, instead of adding some barely-designed ad-hoc bupkis they shoved in at the last minute and flagged as 'optional' just to fill out bullet points on the back of the book.

I know it's off-topic as hell, but man, it just burns my ****in' cookies something fierce.  "The Majority" is too freaking stupid to let the game designers game design, Wizards is already a questionable designer of games at best, and now the 5e development team is backed into a corner where they're completely unable to spend any complexity and thereby gain any depth.  Psionics are going to end up as mangled and unusable as the Alchemist is because people who somehow call themselves gamers are unwilling to LEARN!

Which is just...graaah!

Many of the current crop of players are very new to this and likely don't call themselves gamers.  The ones who do call themselves gamers do what they want the system as presented.  So many levels of customization from those optional rules you poopooed to just making your own classes and content.

Yes that limits character creation options on dndbeyond itself but anywhere else it is as free-form as you will it to be.  To each their own, every group has a different viewpoint, wants, and needs.  Some dislike an option that others find crucial to their style.  Some love feats, I have chatted with a few that don't use them at all.  I think feats are great for more customization, but if another does not want to use them because it makes the game less enjoyable to them then GO FORTH AND ENJOY YOUR GAME.  Make it unique to your table.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Argh.

I do get it, Levi.  It just boils my blood that 'The Majority' always, always, always shoots down anything with even the most basic overtones of mechanical complexity.  Nobody ever realizes, while they're screaming about how utterly awful any sort of new mechanical system is and how Wizards should just "KEEP IT SIMPLE, SLIMEBALLS!" that these new systems are expanding ways to play, not restricting it.  They give both the player and the DM more levers to pull, more ways to interact with the game and the world the game portrays, and more things to do.  Every time The Majority starts shrieking about how awful and negative and game-destroying complexity is, I just want to scream from the rooftops that complexity is the currency with which you buy depth, and if you refuse to spend the former then you get none of the latter.

Especially when I see shit like "we have a small but very vocal group of dedicated fans who're really keen on new mechanics, and we want to try to appease those folks too".  Note that the word is "appease", not "satisfy".  They're not looking to actually make us folks happy, because we're not The Majority.  They're just trying to not piss us off to the point where we stop buying books, because they know that core base of dedicated adherents is the engine driving this money train to all the stations where they can pick up those New Players coming off of whichever their favorite online streaming show is.  That without existing players who know the game back to front and can show those new folks how it all works, they'd get a lot less traction with 'The Majority'.

So they never quite manage to get to the point of just telling us all to sod off and go play GURPS or Pathfinder or whatever instead, because they want us here teaching newbies how to D&D.  Doesn't matter if we're happy while we're doing it, or satisfied with our own games and/or characters.  Just matters that we're not so dissatisfied we end up jumping ship to a game that respects our intelligence.  And I'm getting awfully sick of it, really.

 This isn't necessarily true for most players though.  I think again, people are simplifying the majority of players.  Nobody is "screaming" at the designers to keep it simple.  They simply aren't enjoying unnecessary complications to the mechanics.  You can see it in Aberrant Mind (which was a highly regarded subclass in the surveys).  Players felt like they got increased options, narrative flair, and choices with this subclass.  You then introduce a new mechanic into the mix, and suddenly most players dislike the subclass because of the mechanic.  They find it "interesting" but like the Aberrant Mind more. 

This isn't because they are lazy or stupid, the majority of players are just voicing a preference.  They care about the story of the subclass, and the addition of a mechanic didn't add anything, or worse, distracted from the story of it.  To me, there are players that rely on the mechanics to entertain them (because they are playing a game), but many players just want the mechanics to serve their purpose as they weave a story (and adding game-like elements to features that could work without aren't necessary).  Occam's Razor is basically the guiding force here. 

Finally, people seem to suggest that you can keep "both sides happy" by designing alternative systems that achieve the same narrative, but again this is a company.  I don't think you are going to see them pursue something that won't appeal to most people.  Its not worth their time to purposely put their development team on something that won't attract most of their base.  You can't put out a Psionic subclass that is designed to be complicated, knowingly alienating a bunch of players who do want to have psychic powers, but the mechanics turn them away from trying it.  They also can't open the can of worms of putting out two versions of things all the time. 

That's true, but at the same time they don't want to alienate a sizeable minority of their playerbase either, otherwise they'll start drifting towards competitors in the same way that people dissatisfied with 3e D&D made their way towards Pathfinder instead.  As a company, that is NOT something you want to have happen.

Quote from Positron49 >>

Finally, people seem to suggest that you can keep "both sides happy" by designing alternative systems that achieve the same narrative, but again this is a company.  I don't think you are going to see them pursue something that won't appeal to most people.  Its not worth their time to purposely put their development team on something that won't attract most of their base.  You can't put out a Psionic subclass that is designed to be complicated, knowingly alienating a bunch of players who do want to have psychic powers, but the mechanics turn them away from trying it.  They also can't open the can of worms of putting out two versions of things all the time. 

I'm not recommending making 2 versions of the same thing. I'm recommending them make simple, easy subclass psionics for the people who just want to play psionics without the work of learning new mechanics or systems and a new class for those that want new mechanics. This wouldn't be making the same thing twice, it would be making 2 separate, similarly themed systems of play for psionics. This seems to be what most people want and would agree with having. I'm not going to be angry if they do this. There's no reason why the new players that want simplicity should be angry at this either. 

Additionally, they obviously would not do this for future game mechanics. Only psionics is this controversial. No other mechanic from a previous edition has so many varied opinions. This wouldn't be done all the time, as it has never been done before, and would very likely only happen once. 

Quote from LeviRocks >>

I agree, I hate this too. D&D 5e is my first ever TTRPG, and I don't want to have to learn a new system and give my money to a different company. I hope that they actually care enough to make the Minority happy, but it's unlikely at this point. If they do want to make us happy, I think we'll see a new class system. If they just want to try to satisfy us, they will probably try something along the lines of Option 2 or 3 from my post above. 

 I think they do want to see you happy, but a full class design isn't going to be dedicated to a minority of players.  That is just too large of a design space, especially when most players would be satisfied with Psionics in a simpler form.  Its easier for a player who wants a complicated Psion to play a simpler version than they prefer than a player who wants to play simple Psion to roll an overly complicated version.

Now, I don't want to be all doom and gloom.  I think its possible for a Psion class to exist, but it has to start from a different place than where many people try and start on the forums.  The Artificer is an example I will use.  It has a unifying theme throughout the class (magic items)... it captures the trope found throughout fiction of the tinkerer, the inventor, the mad scientist etc.  Then WHAT it does is explained through subclasses.  What the Psion, to this day, lacks to me is a major defining trope that can be translated into a 5e mechanical representation.  The Mystic, while I know many people disliked its name some of its themes, at least started in the right place.  It was the mysterious hooded figure who had less quantified powers.  Its Mother Aughra or Yoda.  The Psion, while generally understandable, lacks a unifying theme.  People describe it as "Telekinetic, not magic, Psychic" which is fine, but I really struggle to see its theme being as rich as Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Warlock etc.. Heck, I still don't quite understand if its Intelligent based (learned its abilities somehow?) or if it should be Charisma (born with the powers and uses its "will" to manipulate the world around it or the minds of others).  I struggle to see enough unity here to make something that doesn't just feel like an Intelligent Sorcerer or Warlock?

Quote from Mezzurah >>

That's true, but at the same time they don't want to alienate a sizeable minority of their playerbase either, otherwise they'll start drifting towards competitors in the same way that people dissatisfied with 3e D&D made their way towards Pathfinder instead.  As a company, that is NOT something you want to have happen.

 Of course not.  But official subclass and classes (the 14th official class in 5e) would require enough time and attention that it will likely need to be enjoyable to the majority not the minority.  I'm not saying the minority isn't important, just that its too many resources for too little return.  I seriously think it will end up something like previous editions where any character can be a Psionic, and just be on its own system.  Potentially squeeze it into feats or make it similar to the supernatural gifts in mythic odyssey.  I don't want to be a broken record, but its just want I'm guessing they will end up doing.  This allows the players that want to "add" complicated options to their game to have them, while all official subclasses and classes are options to everyone.  You aren't going to see a full class design that purposely isn't appealing to most people.

@Levi  Psionics certainly is the topic most applicable to having a two-pronged approach, but personally I feel that other mechanics also would benefit from having both simple and complicated options available for people to choose from *coughcoughrunemagiccough*.

Quote from Mezzurah >>

@Levi  Psionics certainly is the topic most applicable to having a two-pronged approach, but personally I feel that other mechanics also would benefit from having both simple and complicated options available for people to choose from *coughcoughrunemagiccough*.

I know. I agree, but I'm just refuting Positron's claim that if we do this once, we have to do it again.

@Positron49  I get what you're saying, and I'm not berating you for speculating, I'm just saying there is a tricky tightrope for them to navigate here, and that previous missteps have caused them lost opportunities in the past, a la Pathfinder.

Quote from Positron49 >>

Quote from LeviRocks >>

I agree, I hate this too. D&D 5e is my first ever TTRPG, and I don't want to have to learn a new system and give my money to a different company. I hope that they actually care enough to make the Minority happy, but it's unlikely at this point. If they do want to make us happy, I think we'll see a new class system. If they just want to try to satisfy us, they will probably try something along the lines of Option 2 or 3 from my post above. 

 I think they do want to see you happy, but a full class design isn't going to be dedicated to a minority of players.  That is just too large of a design space, especially when most players would be satisfied with Psionics in a simpler form.  Its easier for a player who wants a complicated Psion to play a simpler version than they prefer than a player who wants to play simple Psion to roll an overly complicated version.

Now, I don't want to be all doom and gloom.  I think its possible for a Psion class to exist, but it has to start from a different place than where many people try and start on the forums.  The Artificer is an example I will use.  It has a unifying theme throughout the class (magic items)... it captures the trope found throughout fiction of the tinkerer, the inventor, the mad scientist etc.  Then WHAT it does is explained through subclasses.  What the Psion, to this day, lacks to me is a major defining trope that can be translated into a 5e mechanical representation.  The Mystic, while I know many people disliked its name some of its themes, at least started in the right place.  It was the mysterious hooded figure who had less quantified powers.  Its Mother Aughra or Yoda.  The Psion, while generally understandable, lacks a unifying theme.  People describe it as "Telekinetic, not magic, Psychic" which is fine, but I really struggle to see its theme being as rich as Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Warlock etc.. Heck, I still don't quite understand if its Intelligent based (learned its abilities somehow?) or if it should be Charisma (born with the powers and uses its "will" to manipulate the world around it or the minds of others).  I struggle to see enough unity here to make something that doesn't just feel like an Intelligent Sorcerer or Warlock?

 Well, since we're on the subject, let's try and nail down what the theme of a psion might be.

For me, when I think of a psion (or some other potential psionic class) I don't think of a person whose powers come from rigorous study like a Wizard, or who taps into an innate magical source like a sorcerer, I think of someone whose powers stem from their ability to tap into their physical mind, a la Charles Xavier, which I think is best represented through their Intelligence, since it's the physical capabilities of their brain producing the results, rather than intuition (Wisdom) or force of personality (Charisma).  Likewise, since I see their power as coming from the physical mind rather than learned, borrowed, or innate magic, I see their powers as being more subtle and more limited in scope (which is one of the reasons why I am personally opposed to representing psionics frough the use of spells, because spells are not only not subtle, they're kind of all over the place...)

Quote from LeviRocks >>

Quote from Mezzurah >>

@Levi  Psionics certainly is the topic most applicable to having a two-pronged approach, but personally I feel that other mechanics also would benefit from having both simple and complicated options available for people to choose from *coughcoughrunemagiccough*.

I know. I agree, but I'm just refuting Positron's claim that if we do this once, we have to do it again.

 Oh, totally, there's no obligation to take this approach for everything that comes out in the future...

(…that said, I do think it would be beneficial if they took such an approach more than once!)

What I'm hearing from you, Positron, is basically "I get what you're saying, and I can empathize, but you're wrong so go away already."

Saying that no design space exists for deep mechanical systems applied to classes or subclasses because 5e is supposed to Just be Simple, Stupid is exactly the problem.  No, it is not easier for people who wanted to play the complex, mechanically rich approach to psionics to dumb themselves down to the dumbed-down version than it is the other way around.  There is exactly ONE character class in this game designed to appeal to people who want to be more than just a Champion fighter hitting things with a Whuppin' Stick, and as much as I love warlocks, not every character I play can be a warlock. 

No, wizards do not count.  Wizards aren't even a character class - they're the game's spellcasting engine attached to a mannequin designed to do nothing but carry spells.  if you understand spells, wizards are a very simple and easy class to run.

No, not even artificers count.  Artificer, the base class, is a straightforward design with few novel features.  The only complexity and strategy inherent in artificer gameplay is the fact that you can incorporate magical items into your core gameplan (and finding ways to gabnoozle the DM into letting you make custom items and equipment), but since every non-artificer player in 5e is expecting that artificer to give all their infusions away to other players in much the same way the cleric is expected to use all its spells and resources on party buffs and healing, artificers tend to end up with very simple gameplay as well.

I get it.  You don't want mechanics "getting in the way" of your story.  You don't want new systems or rules getting between you and saving the beautiful dragon from that marauding princess.  here's the thing, though - those things only get in the way if you let them.  Instead, use them as a springboard to reach new and interesting ideas, stories you wouldn't have thought to tell otherwise.

And in the interim, maybe admit that at some FREAKING POINT, it's the turn of the people who want that mechanical depth and richness, ne?  Because if the 'vocal minority' is consistently told they're not important, their desires don't matter, and it's bad business to do things they want to see done?

Well.  Cool digital tool or not, we'll be out.  And eventually, it'll be your turn to be the Vocal Minority who gets resoundingly ignored because the company is only ever supposed to blindly follow along with what the mindless, faceless, pointless Internet Blob Monster known as "The Majority" babbles and gurgles from its uncountable frothing maws.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

What I'm hearing from you, Positron, is basically "I get what you're saying, and I can empathize, but you're wrong so go away already."

Saying that no design space exists for deep mechanical systems applied to classes or subclasses because 5e is supposed to Just be Simple, Stupid is exactly the problem.  No, it is not easier for people who wanted to play the complex, mechanically rich approach to psionics to dumb themselves down to the dumbed-down version than it is the other way around.  There is exactly ONE character class in this game designed to appeal to people who want to be more than just a Champion fighter hitting things with a Whuppin' Stick, and as much as I love warlocks, not every character I play can be a warlock. 

No, wizards do not count.  Wizards aren't even a character class - they're the game's spellcasting engine attached to a mannequin designed to do nothing but carry spells.  if you understand spells, wizards are a very simple and easy class to run.

No, not even artificers count.  Artificer, the base class, is a straightforward design with few novel features.  The only complexity and strategy inherent in artificer gameplay is the fact that you can incorporate magical items into your core gameplan (and finding ways to gabnoozle the DM into letting you make custom items and equipment), but since every non-artificer player in 5e is expecting that artificer to give all their infusions away to other players in much the same way the cleric is expected to use all its spells and resources on party buffs and healing, artificers tend to end up with very simple gameplay as well.

I get it.  You don't want mechanics "getting in the way" of your story.  You don't want new systems or rules getting between you and saving the beautiful dragon from that marauding princess.  here's the thing, though - those things only get in the way if you let them.  Instead, use them as a springboard to reach new and interesting ideas, stories you wouldn't have thought to tell otherwise.

And in the interim, maybe admit that at some FREAKING POINT, it's the turn of the people who want that mechanical depth and richness, ne?  Because if the 'vocal minority' is consistently told they're not important, their desires don't matter, and it's bad business to do things they want to see done?

Well.  Cool digital tool or not, we'll be out.  And eventually, it'll be your turn to be the Vocal Minority who gets resoundingly ignored because the company is only ever supposed to blindly follow along with what the mindless, faceless, pointless Internet Blob Monster known as "The Majority" babbles and gurgles from its uncountable frothing maws.

This. I couldn't say it better.

It does absolutely nothing to you if there's a new class with complicated mechanics, especially if you get your dumbed down subclasses. It only helps the people that want it. I don't care if you think WotC wouldn't "waste" time making that, because to Yurei, Mezzurah, Sposta, and I it would not be a waste. I can guarantee that other people want this too. 

Quote from Positron49 >>

Quote from LeviRocks >>

I agree, I hate this too. D&D 5e is my first ever TTRPG, and I don't want to have to learn a new system and give my money to a different company. I hope that they actually care enough to make the Minority happy, but it's unlikely at this point. If they do want to make us happy, I think we'll see a new class system. If they just want to try to satisfy us, they will probably try something along the lines of Option 2 or 3 from my post above. 

 I think they do want to see you happy, but a full class design isn't going to be dedicated to a minority of players.  That is just too large of a design space, especially when most players would be satisfied with Psionics in a simpler form.  Its easier for a player who wants a complicated Psion to play a simpler version than they prefer than a player who wants to play simple Psion to roll an overly complicated version.

They said they want to do what we want to make us happy. Not only do you have no basis to this claim, but it is wrong. You said that players would be happier if we got no class, right? How is this possible? If they get the subclasses and the class, how does that negatively effect anything or anyone?!?! I don't want an unnecessarily overcomplicated Psion class or for all psionics to be complicated! I want your group to be happy as well as mine. You are essentially saying "Only my side matters" when you say that my point is unnecessary. 

Quote from Positron49 >>

Now, I don't want to be all doom and gloom.  I think its possible for a Psion class to exist, but it has to start from a different place than where many people try and start on the forums.  The Artificer is an example I will use.  It has a unifying theme throughout the class (magic items)... it captures the trope found throughout fiction of the tinkerer, the inventor, the mad scientist etc.  Then WHAT it does is explained through subclasses.  What the Psion, to this day, lacks to me is a major defining trope that can be translated into a 5e mechanical representation.  The Mystic, while I know many people disliked its name some of its themes, at least started in the right place.  It was the mysterious hooded figure who had less quantified powers.  Its Mother Aughra or Yoda.  The Psion, while generally understandable, lacks a unifying theme.  People describe it as "Telekinetic, not magic, Psychic" which is fine, but I really struggle to see its theme being as rich as Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Warlock etc.. Heck, I still don't quite understand if its Intelligent based (learned its abilities somehow?) or if it should be Charisma (born with the powers and uses its "will" to manipulate the world around it or the minds of others).  I struggle to see enough unity here to make something that doesn't just feel like an Intelligent Sorcerer or Warlock?

You don't understand psionics so that's why you don't want a psionic class? This again makes no sense. Spend the time to learn what Psionics is. When they announced the Eberron book, I didn't know what it was about, so I researched it. Same with Wildemount, Theros, Ravnica, and Forgotten Realms. If you don't understand the class, you can just ignore it, too. It doesn't take anything away from you for us to have what we want as well as what you want. 

Here's a dumbed down explanation of psionics: 

Mental powers, normally based on Intelligence, that let you shape and interact with the world around you completely with your mind. You don't cast spells to use these powers. You don't have to worship anything, study anything, invent anything, merge with anything. You become one with your mind and body. You can move things with your mind, but that's not all that it is. You can see things far away, telepathically speak with others, mind-blast others, create energy and objects with this mental power, control others, and much more. 

That's as simple as it gets.