Think about it from a player's perspective, not a "could make sense in a way" one: who wants to play psionic characters? Exactly someone who wants the character to rely on the mind and not on material things.
So, I am a player as well as a DM. I actually got more excited about psionics involving a material focus and thinking about how that could be tied into a wizard style of casting (thinking about Jean Grey having her powers suppressed by Prof. X, do something similiar with a character who is using arcane castings as a buffer between them and their power, so they don't just fireball anything that makes them angry) than I ever did with it being "pure" psionics.
Making blanket statements about what all psionics players are going to want to play is going to leave you in a precarious position, because every player who likes the idea of a crystal focus or a childhood memento focus is going to chip away at your position.
"Psionic focus" was always considered a state of mind and not an object first of all due to freaking linguistics (this thing of calling an object a "focus" is an aberration of the game), and then due to the above: a psionic character is meant to be enjoyed by people who don't enjoy being dependent on objects, formulas, gestures, or anything related to magic.
And yet if you trace the linguistics back, the first usage of "focus" referred to a hearth, the gathering point for a family.
Yes, the word focus is most commonly used to refer to the mental point of focus or something being "in focus" instead of "blurry". But, the idea of an object being a focus, the central point of gathering power or light or attention or anything else, is not solely an abberation of the game but has strong roots in literature and media. Honestly, the closest we get to real-life psionic practice are the various types of meditative practices world-wide, and many of them include using objects like prayer beads to focus the mind.
I understand the concept of a character that does not rely on
anything to use their power, but you are very unlikely to see that in an official context. Even the sorcerer had to have a special rule to allow them to forgo gestures and words, and they still need material components. The closest we have to a class that uses nothing is the Monk, and I doubt WoTC will give that to someone meant to be equivalent to a full caster.
This is why it's so insulting to me that first of all they try to do a Psionicist Wizard, and then they also make an object its main source of power, other than making the character do what a psionic one should do by default only by transforming into an incorporeal form at sixth level, and rigourously again showing this trinket as being central to this power. It's pathetically nonsensical.
You are angry and insulted, fine. But no one here insulted you by writing that idea. Honestly, like I said, I kind of like the imagery. It has a good theme to me, and for a wizard subclass it is decent. But, if you just don't like the theme, then say so. You don't need to start hurling insults around. We can talk about themes and tropes without devolving into screaming matches about whose ideas are good or not.
dnd.wizards.com
