Seriously. I could create the Wizard above and call it a Psion and you'd never know the difference.
Yeah, I would. Instantly. The abilities a Wizard in D&D has a hugely distinct from a Psionicist/Psion. Sorry this is just not a statement/claim that holds any water at all, and you've made no argument here, merely a baseless (and vaguely insulting "...you'd never...") claim. That's as much as I can engage with this. I will say even a Bard would be closer than a Wizard, under 5E rules. Considerably closer.
If the feedback was generally positive, Wizard's would have kept developing Mystic rules with updated UA to the community. Instead, they ditched it. The only logical conclusion here is that the negative outweighed the positive.
False logic. WotC have ditched stuff for which feedback was nearly universally positive before, and loads and loads of stuff which has had extremely positive feedback has come to absolutely nothing. That's not the only logical conclusion at all - in fact it's outright illogical - we know WotC don't operate on some simplistic "positive vs negative" system.
Do they? You told me not 100% of 1E fans like psionics as something all classes can access, but now you're speaking for all fans of 29 years worth of editions and saying they all 100% agree? I am asking you for clarification here - is that what you're saying or are you saying that's not really what all of them think?
Your post is full of what seems to me utter hypocrisy re: strawmen, and "polite"-ness, but here at least instead of attributing an opinion to me, or claiming motives for me (as you did several times earlier in the same post), you ask a question, which is more reasonable, so I'll respond to this point.
I'm specifically not saying that. I'm saying there's disagreement, but that's no larger than other disagreements.
You say it's ok to just throw out a psionic class altogether, because in the 29 years of Psionic classes, they haven't been sufficiently identical for your standards. I find this position completely untenable, because other classes have changed as much or more - two examples I would note were Bards and Fighters. Fighters have had a consistent theme, but the mechanics by which that is implemented are nearly unrecognisable from one edition to the next after 1E-2E. Bards have entirely different mechanics and sometimes signficantly different themes from edition to edition.
So what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if there's some disagreement - there's still a solid tradition, not a weak one as you claim (and personally for me, if there's any three-edition-in-a-row tradition of having a class, you shouldn't be chucking it, even if it's varied considerably).
There will even be some people from the 2E-4E era who don't want a Psionic class - albeit most of them will just not want Psionics period, or have a complex motivation (like they don't want any more classes in 5E, period, regardless of what they are). Hell, there are people from that era who want 1E-style. Just not many. And more to the point, plenty of people who started with 1E, don't want that style. It doesn't really matter when people started. It matters what style they want. And I don't buy that 23% of people want actual 1E-style Psionics. I don't buy that you even honestly believe that, either.
EDIT - Also your entire other post - you're the princess, and the name of the psionic class is the pea, frankly. You seem really upset with me that I don't think the pea is a big deal. The whole "expansion class" thing doesn't need to be addressed. It's a red herring.
dnd.wizards.com
