The psion shouldn’t be anything but a psion. If I could anted to play a spellcaster then I’d go play a spellcaster. Reinvent the psion with its own unique system and stop defaulting back to spellcasting.
— Lawnikky (@Lawnikky) December 10, 2019
I've seen this fascinating feedback before. When did we make a psion that uses spellcasting?
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 10, 2019
That was a rhetorical question (in case that wasn't obvious). We haven't made a spellcasting-based psion in 5E. I'm not against the idea of making one; I just find it fascinating when we get feedback on something that doesn't exist.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 11, 2019
Agree … none of the subclasses are psions but they are psionic-themed that mirrors the spellcasting system. Going down this line is enough information to show the direction psionics will go when (if) you do release a proper psion or psionic system? We’ve now done 4 subclasses that are explicitly psionic, and 2 of those 4 don’t rely on spellcasting for their key features.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 11, 2019
Two unfounded notions have been in play: that we’ve determined the fate of the mystic/psion (we haven’t) and that 1 of the 4 recent psionic subclasses (the wizard) replaces the psion (it doesn’t). Plus, why that subclass and not the other 3?
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 11, 2019
I’m sorry, the assumption people were making that the wizard subclass called psion replaces the not-really-very-supported in this edition and barely mentioned for years mystic/psion is hardly “unfounded.” It may have been an assumption, but it was a reasonable one.
I don’t care, when are we going to see a Greyhawk Setting release?