They kind of do say that, without explicitly saying that, you know?
In 2017, we experimented with an unofficial character class—the mystic—focused on psionic powers. Through its features and subclasses, the mystic allowed you to create a character who echoed the abilities of other classes in the game but with a psionic twist. As much as many playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the mystic, feedback was also clear that the class encroached on other classes’ territory and that it was often too complex, too powerful, or both. Following that feedback, we’ve decided to say farewell to the mystic and explore other ways of giving players psi-themed powers, as we did with the features of the Great Old One warlock in the Player’s Handbook.
They don't exactly say "people hated it" but they are saying "we got enough feedback to show it wasn't worth pursuing anymore." Which does essentially mean the feedback was too negative to consider the mystic worth saving.
I don't think the quote supports your thesis, indeed "
As much as many playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the mystic" rather strongly suggests that the feedback related to the actual idea of the Mystic was generally positive, and the negative comments are clearly mechanics-related (too powerful, too complex). The encroachment point is totally non-viable. Even if that's the feedback they got in 2017, it's not valid, given the Artificer does likewise, and many other D&D classes do exactly that. Whereas complex/powerful are potentially valid.
None of this supports the "too negative to be worth saving", which implies there was essentially nothing of worth, not even the concept.
Further, WotC have made a lot of comments on Psionic stuff over the years, before and after Mystic, that suggest some problems within their team on how Psionics are viewed, and how the Mystic was viewed.
This is what confuses me, as it's no established tradition to have a dedicated Psion class. That's not how it worked in first edition, which is what started psionics to begin with and which was the established tradition for a very long time and at the peak of the golden age of D&D. There, all the classes could also have psionics - same theme as this proposal for 5e.
And even the editions which had dedicated psionic classes didn't do those classes the same between editions, and didn't even call them by the same names. Is a 2e Psionicist really all that similar to a 4e Psion?
So it's not like this is some sacred cow being slain by not going with a dedicated Psion class. It's why I think all the claims of some consensus among those who want psionics is bunk. It's only a consensus for those who were hardcore 3e fans I think.
Sorry Mistwell but this definitely wrong, and seems very forced.
Three editions of D&D have had dedicated psionics classes. That's a huge tradition. Saying there's "no tradition" suggests placing zero value on editions after 1st. Two of those editions had MULTIPLE dedicated psionics classes. That's huge. All three had entire books on it.
Further, I dislike 3E, so claiming "only dedicated 3E fans" want a psionics class is absolutely bizarre and wrong just on that basis.
You ask if the classes are "really the same classes?" but that's disingenuous, because the Bard of 5E is definitely NOT the Bard of 4E, who was definitely not the Bard of 3E, who was definitely not the Bard of 2E, who scarcely be more different from the Bard of 1E! Classes change. Almost no class in 4E was particularly close to their 3E predecessor, and many 5E classes are very distant from previous editions, on many many points. Fighter is particularly spectacularly different one in every edition, and that's one of the most simple classes.
The only class which has remained more or less solid, with the exception of 4E, has been Wizard. So that's a very weak argument.
dnd.wizards.com
