Tony Vargas
Legend
It would be nice to see some sort of MC or feat or background for a 'wild talent,' so you could have the concept of the random, untrained psionic, as well as mystics, but, no, there's no absolute need to ape questionable mechanics to evoke an option available in a past edition (not that 5e hasn't resorted to doing so, a lot, just that I don't see why it'd need to in every case, to deliver the option).You will never see the 1e style psionics system in 5e. I hope not, anyway.
No, they have arcane telepathy granted by a patron. Nothing like psionics, at all. It'd be like cutting the wizard out of the game and saying it's OK because archers can have 'magic missiles.'GOO warlocks have psionic powers.
You could play a psionic character in 1e. Just like you could play a Paladin or Bard, you just had to have a DM who was OK with it, and get lucky. You couldn't play a psionic character using the 5e PH.But even then, we've been talking about the breadth of choices to make at character creation. 1e psionics had nothing to do with any of that.
A 1e fighter could be literally as strong as an ogre, thanks to % STR. A 5e fighter can be as stronger than an ogre. The former was lucky at 1st level, the latter inevitable, if you want it. But a really strong fighter is available in both editions.So I'm not sure why you even keep trying to insert it into the discussion. You might as well be complaining that percentile strength is missing, because that's on the same level as 1e psionics. It was a die roll made to see if you tacked something on to the end of your character.
Maybe you could hold the fact that /any/ 5e character not just fighters (and paladins and rangers and barbarians) can be that strong without magic, while in 1e, they'd've needed an item, itself class-restricted from use by magic-users, against the 1e fighter, but that is, indeed, getting to the point of a minor mechanical quibble.