D&D General There are no "Editions" of D&D

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If you start making significant changes to how classes in the PH work, you have crossed that line IMO. This is why Essentials wasn't an edition change, but rather a big supplement or a new corebook to play from, depending on your perspective.

Because they were called different names in essentials IIRC?

I mean they could do the same thing here, not that I think we will.

I can see that, it doesn’t personally bother me, but that makes some sense. If I can’t use them at the same table I can see that being an issue. However, from what I have seen o think I will be fine in that regard, similar to how essentials worked with 4e

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Excellent comparison. 3.5e was a partial new edition, in that it rewrote a couple of classes in constrained ways, and certain spells and such, but otherwise kept a lot of the game perfectly identical. Essentials was not at all a new edition, because it was just...more options. You could choose to use only the new options, or only the old options, or mix and match to your heart's content (within the already-existing "you can't multiclass with your own class" rules.) It didn't really make any difference on the whole.

One D&D is absolutely showing up as a rewrite of most classes in a pretty substantial way, which is intended to genuinely replace those old classes, even though you can still play them if you really want to. Hence, it looks like it will fall somewhere between a "half-edition" like 3.5e and a thin but meaningful full edition change, depending on whether it is relatively modest with its rewrites, or quite substantial.

IIRC, the playtest Rogue we've seen is a pretty hefty rewrite. If it's emblematic of the coming changes, I would absolutely say the One D&D stuff is explicitly showing that 5e-as-originally-published wasn't evergreen.

Edit: For example, the fact that the One D&D Ranger now gets Expertise and, I quote, "elements from other classes," is a pretty major change. So is the unification of spell lists into just three (arcane, divine, primal) that all classes of a particular type will share. The whole idea of class-specific spells is getting chucked out the window, unless they're specially-granted features. That's huge. In principle, that means eldritch blast is either gone, a special bonus Warlock feature, or something any Arcane spellcasting class can learn. Likewise for things like find steed, find familiar, etc. That's at least as big a change as the kinds of changes 3.5e made to the 3e spell list.

Thanks for the reply. I can see what you and @Micah Sweet are talking about. I guess ultimately I don’t care if it doesn’t change the game I’m playing and from what I can see so far, it will not.

However, if this ends up being like the Next playtest, most of what they are showing now will never happen!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First, we don’t know what the final rewrites will be.

Nor do you.

2nd, says who? Who determines what amount of rewriting is needed to make it a new edition?

We each make our own evaluation. And mine is that these are pretty major changes.

Everything I’ve seen so far still feels I the realm of 5th edition to me.

Very little in early 3e was dramatically different from early 2e. Sure, there were some things. But very late-2e Skills & Powers etc. had clearly moved in a 3e-like direction. Very late-3e had clearly moved in a 4e-like direction with Tome of Battle, reserve feats, and categorizing classes into overall functions in the party (check out the "Paladins with Class" and other "...with Class" articles to see what I mean.)

Edition changes are rarely quite as revolutionary as many think they are. But they're also never merely evolutionary either.

That doesn’t bother me. What if they simply gave them new class names? Would that change your opinion? So they would technically be new classes, not rewritten classes.

New names alone are obviously not enough. We're getting a lot more than new names. Completely rewritten spell lists, feature shuffling/deletion/addition/rewriting (Magical Secrets works in a completely different way and doesn't kick in until very high level, Font of Bardic Inspiration is now a 7th level feature, Rangers now get Expertise, etc.) Backgrounds provide a guaranteed feat at 1st level when previously feats were absolutely 100% optional and you'd better believe half the DMs from here to Australia (the long way!) would pop out of the woodwork to remind you of it.

Both of those feel evolutionary to me, not revolutionary. I.e. the same edition. If that was the only thing that changed, would you consider it a new edition?

It might; it might not. I am inclined toward saying it would be, but I can grant that it might be finagled into just one prominent piece of errata. But it isn't the only thing, as mentioned above--it's the tip of the iceberg, the one universal bit we've seen thus far.

That is the one that get me. If there was major math changes that would IMO

Sure. That's the smoking gun. But there are other ways to prove someone committed murder than literally observing them holding a smoking gun while the victim falls to the floor.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

However, if this ends up being like the Next playtest, most of what they are showing now will never happen!

If it ends up being like the Next playtest, then they will have manifestly failed at making the original 5e evergreen, because the rewrites would need to be massive and affect nearly every part of the math and gameplay structure. Remember Specialties? Proficiency dice? The playtest Sorcerer and Warlock?

To be anything like the Next playtest would, IMNSHO, be an absolute and unmitigated design disaster. The D&D Next playtest wasted over two years of public playtesting time accomplishing almost nothing, and faffing about with rules that ended up jettisoned in favor of untested, slapdash efforts so they could have something to meet their publishing deadline. You can see it in the weaknesses of the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Ranger classes; you can see it the poor quality of the Champion and Berserker subclasses; you can see it in the utter lack of class features or flavor-identity of the Wizard class; etc. 5e had literal years to get its act together, and it wasted more than half that time dithering.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If it ends up being like the Next playtest, then they will have manifestly failed at making the original 5e evergreen, because the rewrites would need to be massive and affect nearly every part of the math and gameplay structure. Remember Specialties? Proficiency dice? The playtest Sorcerer and Warlock?

To be anything like the Next playtest would, IMNSHO, be an absolute and unmitigated design disaster. The D&D Next playtest wasted over two years of public playtesting time accomplishing almost nothing, and faffing about with rules that ended up jettisoned in favor of untested, slapdash efforts so they could have something to meet their publishing deadline. You can see it in the weaknesses of the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Ranger classes; you can see it the poor quality of the Champion and Berserker subclasses; you can see it in the utter lack of class features or flavor-identity of the Wizard class; etc. 5e had literal years to get its act together, and it wasted more than half that time dithering.

That is not what I mean. What I am referring to is simply that a lot of what is on the playtest doesn’t make it into the product.

All of these proposed changes could end up being vaporware. I hope not, but they could be

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, we're already there with making Feats real again and everyone being a prepared caster.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Nor do you.

I said “we,” and therefor already included myself.

Very little in early 3e was dramatically different from early 2e. Sure, there were some things. But very late-2e Skills & Powers etc. had clearly moved in a 3e-like direction. Very late-3e had clearly moved in a 4e-like direction with Tome of Battle, reserve feats, and categorizing classes into overall functions in the party (check out the "Paladins with Class" and other "...with Class" articles to see what I mean.)

Edition changes are rarely quite as revolutionary as many think they are. But they're also never merely evolutionary either

I didn’t play 2e or 3e so those examples don’t help. My editions changes were 1e - 4e - 5e. This doesn’t feel like either of those.

New names alone are obviously not enough.

Ok, good to clarify.

We're getting a lot more than new names. Completely rewritten spell lists, feature shuffling/deletion/addition/rewriting (Magical Secrets works in a completely different way and doesn't kick in until very high level, Font of Bardic Inspiration is now a 7th level feature, Rangers now get Expertise, etc.) Backgrounds provide a guaranteed feat at 1st level when previously feats were absolutely 100% optional and you'd better believe half the DMs from here to Australia (the long way!) would pop out of the woodwork to remind you of it.

We will see how much of that comes to pass. However, again I can still see all of those changes being compatible and feeling like the same game to me.

Sure. That's the smoking gun. But there are other ways to prove someone committed murder than literally observing them holding a smoking gun while the victim falls to the floor.

Even a smoking gun can be a red herring

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I didn’t play 2e or 3e so those examples don’t help. My editions changes were 1e - 4e - 5e. This doesn’t feel like either of those.

Ah, I can see how that colors your expectations. 4e is the most dramatically divergent D&D edition so far, to the point where many say it isn't D&D but a different game altogether.

Suffice to say that 4e is not exactly typical of edition changes in the RPG industry, either for D&D or other games.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Ah, I can see how that colors your expectations. 4e is the most dramatically divergent D&D edition so far, to the point where many say it isn't D&D but a different game altogether.

Suffice to say that 4e is not exactly typical of edition changes in the RPG industry, either for D&D or other games.

Yes, it was a big change, but still felt like D&D to me

 

[Mannahnin]

That is weird, we ran essentials and base 4e at the same table and never used a conversion guide. I didn’t even know there was one. What could you possibly need to convert?

I tend to concur that Essentials was not a new edition, because it was completely compatible with the existing 4E books and worked perfectly played directly alongside and with pre-Essentials 4E material.

There were a few optional/updated rules, like for magic item rarity, and some errata incorporated into the Rules Compendium, but virtually everything in Essentials books was functionally just supplemental and expansion material for 4th.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Essentials was just a hard design pivot, like late 3.5 except they tried to encourage using it as core instead of the good stuff. Which as far as I saw in my area worked, as 'Essentials Only' was a huge, annoying thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But if we apply that more rationstandard, then it's also not 6E, it becomes like 15th or 17th Edition, possibly. At the very least, these will be the 9th typical editions of books using the titles PHB and DMG.

Agreed.

Basically, the term "Edition" has been screwed up by D&D pretty bad, so doesn't convey useful information anymore.

Absolutely.

OneD&D looks to allow the continued usage of my 5E collection, which is what matters to me.

Yep. It is a new (normal publishing, or NP) edition of 5e DnD, with a rebranding to a designation that doesn't reference the old (TTRPG specific, or TS) editions model.

OP is correct that in the context of D&D, the word edition has come to mean new versions of the game, incompatible with previous versions to the extent that players are required to buy new books. OP is manifestly incorrect to draw the conclusion that therefore OneD&D will also be a new version of the game, since OneD&D has not happened yet, so OP cannot prove that assertion. Furthermore, WotC has both recognized OP's first point and emphatically rejected the second, arguing that the old "editions" model is a terrible model.

I find it fascinating how unwilling folks are to even consider the possibility of a new paradigm. I shouldn't, because Thomas Kuhn showed that this is typical of paradigm shifts: most folks simply will not accept the new paradigm until it is a fait accompli (he was discussing scientific revolutions, but the pattern is similar in the arts). This isn't to say that WotC will succeed with their stated design goal of doing away with the old "editions" paradigm, but surely it is at least possible that they will.

WotC wants to keep the 5e chassis and continue to use it as the basis of D&D so that the game just keeps evolving slowly over time. They emphatically want to get rid of the old "editions" paradigm of essentially rebooting the game (and to a significant degree the player base) every 5-10 years. And they have excellent motivation to want to get rid of that paradigm: it creates a perennial boom/bust cycle of the sort that businesses hate. So why is it so hard to believe that they are serious and might succeed?

Yep. And since you can use the new subclasses with 2014 edition (NP) PHB base classes, or new base classes with 2014 edition (NP) subclasses, they're the same game.

Now, just like in text books or anything else I can think of that uses editions, it will be recomemended to always use the newest version of anything that has been revised in a newer version, but that is also entirely in sync with NP edition, and out of sync with TS edition.

Yeah, I believe that as much as 2E was just a "clean up" of 1E, and how 3.0 and 3.5 were compatible. The "change" document to convert your 3.0 material to 3.5 was pretty much a book in itself. Similar with the 4E release and essentials.

Of course, what happened before will always be what happens. Nothing ever changes. It definitely isn't a fallacy to take past performance as a reliable predictor of future behavior.

Also what are you talking about with essentials? They were 100% the same game. Objectively and unequivocally. A slayer fighter could gain PHB1 fighter powers. I played an Assassin that was a Shadar-Kai Executioner with some options swapped out to take normal assassin Shrouds instead of the executioner damage feature, a mix of old and new encounter powers, MC Avenger (phb2?) with the Covenent Agent paragon path, and magic items and feats from the full breadth of the game.

I also played a Halfling Hexblade of the White Well alongside a Gnome Artificer, a Human Pyromancer Mage (essentials wizard), Dragonborn Warlord/Bard, and a Warforged Knight Fighter.

Clarifying statement: I was primarily trying to say that the different "editions" of D&D are in fact each different games. This includes 3.5. You can't have different people at the table simultaneously and seamlessly using different edition PHBs. This will be the real test for OneD&D, as to whether it qualifies as a different "edition" than 5E.

Actually, even only using NP edition, that isn't quite right. In normal publishing, when you have two editions of a book side by side, and a conflict occurs, you use the most recent publication available.

So, if you have a 2014 (NP) Edition PHB Rogue and a new Rogue at the same table, they'll be different, but you'll also be ignoring the standard usage of revised publications, ie normal publishing editions.

And yet, in spite of that, we can see that every attempt is being made to ensure that you can do so, as long as you use the most recent version of any revised general rules.

Because the 5e we already have was supposed to be that, and then it didn't happen.

It's happening right now. That's what OneDND is. It's revising the core rules so that they better serve the goal of an evergreen version of the game.

It wasn't supposed to need rewrites this heavy. Just new published options.

Based on what? This is exactly what I knew would eventually happen since 2014. this is an "evergreen" version of the game. A revision to better accomodate the next decade of support and evolution isn't a breaking of anything anyone at wotc said was happening. At most, it's a break from what people read into official statements, but that weren't actually there.

PHB classes that are never rewritten at a fundamental level--new subclasses are fine, but altering the core of the subclass, no.

Making Backgrounds provide a feat. And, from what I remember, having Backgrounds that give stat bonuses.

That isn't reasonable, IMO. That's like saying a text book isn't just a new edition (NP) because they added a few sidebars clarifying a thorny issue in the subject matter, fixed a few mistakes, and cleaned up the formatting in some areas that were harder than necessary to find things in. d

 

[Maxperson]

I guess what, in your opinion, is allowed to be changed without if being a new edition? What is the trigger point?

For me it, "Have they made enough changes that they have to reprint the core material?" We've already past that point. Not only did Tasha's reprint core material with new changes, but Mordenkainen's Monster's of the Multiverse reprinted a large chunk of the MM and the PHB races with new rules and mechanics.

Once you have to look in new books to see how core material is used, you really need to just reprint the core books with that new material to make it easy on people to track and use the changes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I tend to concur that Essentials was not a new edition, because it was completely compatible with the existing 4E books and worked perfectly played directly alongside and with pre-Essentials 4E material.

There were a few optional/updated rules, like for magic item rarity, and some errata incorporated into the Rules Compendium, but virtually everything in Essentials books was functionally just supplemental and expansion material for 4th.

Absolutely. And the errata and updated rules were no greater than the errata they put out regularly.

The big update to warlocks that dramatically simplified playing a Starlock and increased the entire class' damage output was a bigger change than the general rules updates in the Rules Compendium, and the classes weren't replaced or significantly revised, we just got simpler versions that felt a bit more classic and existed as supplementary options alongside the older classes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For me it, "Have they made enough changes that they have to reprint the core material?" We've already past that point. Not only did Tasha's reprint core material with new changes, but Mordenkainen's Monster's of the Multiverse reprinted a large chunk of the MM and the PHB races with new rules and mechanics.

Once you have to look in new books to see how core material is used, you really need to just reprint the core books with that new material to make it easy on people to track and use the changes.

this is why I don't get the 'it's not a new edition' argument. As of right now we have seen 3 classes and 1 is mostly the same with some minor changes (rogue) but the other two are nothing like what they were before (ranger and bard)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It occurred to me after responding to another thread that it is actually sort of silly for us -- the D&D fan community, or at least a subset of it -- to talk about editions of D&D because really there aren't any.

In publishing, "edition" designates a particular editorial view an layout of a book. Between editions, the substantive content can be amended and expanded upon, even corrected, but otherwise remains largely the same.

Some RPG editions follow that rule. Call of Cthulhu is the best known example. But it's relatively rare, mostly because of D&D.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (aka 1E) was not a "new edition" of Dungeons and Dragons. It was a whole new game. There was a huge lawsuit about it, even. 2E was similarly a new game, obviously owing much to its predecessor, and so on down the line.

That is, every so-called "edition" of D&D has in fact been a distinct game of its own, regardless of how much or how little it borrowed from previous versions. As such it doesn't matterwhether people want to call "OneD&D" 5.5E or 6E. Like the rest, it's going to be a new game with some degree of influence from and compatibility with previous games called Dungeons and Dragons.

That isn't actually quite true, if you look at long running legacy textbooks changes can be aggressive, especially over multiple iterations-- the third edition of the Broadview Anthology of English Literature for example:

For the third edition of this volume a number of changes have been made. The Old English material has been substantially revised and expanded, including new translations by Roy Liuzza of “Deor,” “Wulf and Eadwacer,” and “The Battle of Brunanburh.” A selection from Adrienne Williams Boyarin’s new translation of “The Miracles of the Virgin” will be included, along with Sian Echard’s translation of selections from Y Gododdin. Matthieu Boyd’s translation of the first two branches of the Mabinogi is also new to this edition, together with several Early Irish lyrics.

The “Love and Marriage” Contexts section has been expanded to include additional material by Christine de Pizan and excerpts from Holy Maidenhood, and the “Religious and Spiritual Life” Contexts section now includes excerpts from Wycliffite writings. The selection of material by Sir Thomas Malory has also been substantially revised and expanded. In addition, the online component of the anthology includes several new selections, including “The Gifts of Men,” “The Fortunes of Men,” “The Feast of Bricriu,” material by Robert Henryson, and a broader selection of medieval drama.

Meanwhile the second edition says

The second edition of volume one of The Broadview Anthology of British Literature includes considerably more of Langland's Pier’s Plowman than appears in the first edition, and includes for the first time the work of John Gower. Also new to the bound book component of the anthology is the York Crucifixion Play, and additional work by Chaucer. With this volume as with the others, material continues to be added on an ongoing basis to the website component of the anthology.

If similar changes will be made like this on an ongoing basis, the actual text of the first edition and the actual text of say, the fifth or sixth edition will be radically different, and this is fairly typical of this sort of work, especially as they balloon and sensibility concerning the canon changes to necessitate the inclusion of more diverse voices from the period that take the place of some of the less key writers originally included-- many academic works like this treat the name of their work as a reputation, and a role in their lineup of offerings, more than a designation of specific content.

It isn't difficult to see Dungeons and Dragons in the same way, particularly when you parse the many 'editions' of early Dungeons and Dragons and see how the game is iterated on in ways that bridge the gap between the original, AD&D and so forth, and the sensibility of later editions of the game. Indeed, in most ways you can actually interpret the game as consisting of 'elements' (classes, races, etc.) that are revised, curated, and updated with new text on an ongoing basis-- the changes to the rules procedures are just revisions of how those elements interact, and revisions to the elements themselves to make them compatible with the new structures.

This is part of the sensibility of why people are so passionate about returning elements and their implementation, and the things that consistently reappear can be interpreted to be part of our 'canon' (like the Assassin or the Thief which appeared immediately in the 5e handbook, and were at least somewhat represented in every edition of the game) and we lobby and dicker over whether other elements should be part of the canon (see, discussions around the Warlord) each edition of the game is curated to provide an experience, and when material returns it is revised and/or expanded to fit the new set of standards, represented by each edition's procedures.

This also fits in well with someone like Collville's commentary on maps and territories, you use the games to tell similar stories (although there's a wide breadth of stories people have used them to tell) so while the rules are different, the 'game' is the same because all the changes are meant to iterate on a core experience, in the same way the "Mad Queen's Chess" was ultimately recognized as chess; the updates to the experience can be quite significant-- this sensibility towards games is even more common in the digital space, where a given video game can radically change over time via patches, but still be the 'same game' there's an interesting philosophical discussion to be hard about the ship of theseus, but there's ultimately a certain identity that all iterations of the ship of theseus share from their purpose in being the ship owned by Theseus-- sometimes that purpose can even evolve from being the ship of a man, to a symbol for the people that look up to the man, or simply a lineage and sense of continuity.

Anyway, thanks for the thread, as a Librarian I love geeking out about the evolution of reference material over time, and the push and pull of what it means for different editions of the same work to change-- many librarians actually have strong feelings about changes to given works that have made them more or less useful to our patrons, so its a very engaging topic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Excellent comparison. 3.5e was a partial new edition, in that it rewrote a couple of classes in constrained ways, and certain spells and such, but otherwise kept a lot of the game perfectly identical. Essentials was not at all a new edition, because it was just...more options. You could choose to use only the new options, or only the old options, or mix and match to your heart's content (within the already-existing "you can't multiclass with your own class" rules.) It didn't really make any difference on the whole.

One D&D is absolutely showing up as a rewrite of most classes in a pretty substantial way, which is intended to genuinely replace those old classes, even though you can still play them if you really want to. Hence, it looks like it will fall somewhere between a "half-edition" like 3.5e and a thin but meaningful full edition change, depending on whether it is relatively modest with its rewrites, or quite substantial.

IIRC, the playtest Rogue we've seen is a pretty hefty rewrite. If it's emblematic of the coming changes, I would absolutely say the One D&D stuff is explicitly showing that 5e-as-originally-published wasn't evergreen.

Edit: For example, the fact that the One D&D Ranger now gets Expertise and, I quote, "elements from other classes," is a pretty major change. So is the unification of spell lists into just three (arcane, divine, primal) that all classes of a particular type will share. The whole idea of class-specific spells is getting chucked out the window, unless they're specially-granted features. That's huge. In principle, that means eldritch blast is either gone, a special bonus Warlock feature, or something any Arcane spellcasting class can learn. Likewise for things like find steed, find familiar, etc. That's at least as big a change as the kinds of changes 3.5e made to the 3e spell list.

The fact you see any of that as major rewrites that constitute a new edition if emblematic of the whole package genuinely amazes me.

I guess I knew from day one that some folks would consider it a new edition no matter what.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That isn't reasonable, IMO. That's like saying a text book isn't just a new edition (NP) because they added a few sidebars clarifying a thorny issue in the subject matter, fixed a few mistakes, and cleaned up the formatting in some areas that were harder than necessary to find things in.

And I see this as "so, we completely eliminated the section on astrology, rewrote the section on numerology from the ground up, and made massive alterations to several other core sections. The book is now 20% longer, contains none of the charts and figures it contained previously because all data therein was found to be manifestly in error, and more than half of the glossary has been rewritten by a new coauthor."

It's not necessarily a completely new game. But it's a hell of a lot more than the allegedly evergreen edition offered.

People will be expected to replace their PHB, DMG, and possibly their MM. Conversion documents may exist, but they'll be just that, conversion documents. You'll need to make various tweaks in order to get "5e classic" characters working alongside One D&D (God I hope it doesn't go by that name) characters. You won't be able to play One D&D characters in a "5e classic" game at all, or at least not without major difficulty.

By comparison, 4e Essentials did literally nothing to the rules of 4e. No options were deprecated. You didn't need to convert anything, because nothing had changed. You could play a Cavalier alongside an "original Paladin" and there would be zero problems (other than possibly being outshone on the net because Essentials classes were a little on the weak side.) You could drop an "original Paladin" into a group with a Skald, a Slayer, a Hexblade, and a Hunter and there would never be an issue in their mechanics. Likewise, a Cavalier could drop into a group comprised of a Warlord, a Dragon Magic Sorcerer, a Warlock, and an Invoker and have no difficulties either, needing zero conversion or adaptation.

That's a pretty clear distinction to draw here. Hence why I say that One D&D (again, hate the buzzwordy name) is already starting off at roughly a 3.5e level of change. Rewriting spells and several core classes, making previously optional content non-optional, and inventing new terminology and mechanics that employ that terminology (the "d20 test" terms, for instance, or the changes to crit rules.) Eliminating entire race options completely, explicitly deprecating half-elf and half-orc, and inventing unprecedented new things (the Egyptian deity style animal-headed people.) Yet most monsters and adventures will be usable pretty much exactly as written (hence why I'm not certain that replacing the MM will be expected), and some existing content (mostly spells) will remain usable in general, though figuring out exactly which spell list they should belong to will be a fraught exercise unless, as I said, one uses a conversion guide.

I was absolutely not someone who expected this to be a major rewrite. I expected this to be a very conservative, minor and purely incremental change. I wouldn't say I've been blown away by the changes they've proposed thus far, but I was certainly pretty surprised to see them alter so many things so heavily just from what they've shown.

 

[glass]

An edition of a gameline is not the same things as an edition of an individual book. So "edition" as applied to D&D and other RPGs is effectively a new sense of the word edition, but even that "new" sense is around forty years old so it is a bit late to complain about it now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And I see this as "so, we completely eliminated the section on astrology, rewrote the section on numerology from the ground up, and made massive alterations to several other core sections. The book is now 20% longer, contains none of the charts and figures it contained previously because all data therein was found to be manifestly in error, and more than half of the glossary has been rewritten by a new coauthor."

It's not necessarily a completely new game. But it's a hell of a lot more than the allegedly evergreen edition offered.

The biggest proposed change has been crits, and they’ve floated two ideas thus far for that. The second biggest is subclass levels, which presents only the issue of some subclasses getting more features in the proposed model, which can literally be fixed with a single line in the beginning of the class section.

You’ve wildly overstated the case, IMO.

People will be expected to replace their PHB, DMG, and possibly their MM. Conversion documents may exist, but they'll be just that, conversion documents.

Nope. I see absolutely nothing that makes me think this is true. Maybe I’ll change my mind with the next UA or some future one, but so far big nope.

You'll need to make various tweaks in order to get "5e classic" characters working alongside One D&D (God I hope it doesn't go by that name) characters. You won't be able to play One D&D characters in a "5e classic" game at all, or at least not without major difficulty.

Literally nothing in the 2 UAs thus far remotely suggest this. The words of the dev team directly contradict this.

By comparison, 4e Essentials did literally nothing to the rules of 4e.

Not true. The RC contained new rules updates. Essentials changed the Rogue’s sneak attack to 1/turn IIRC, and some other little things. Nothing major, perhaps, but not “literally nothing”.

No options were deprecated.

Magic Missile, and arguably the entire PHB Wizard.

You didn't need to convert anything, because nothing had changed. You could play a Cavalier alongside an "original Paladin" and there would be zero problems (other than possibly being outshone on the net because Essentials classes were a little on the weak side.)

And right now you can do so with the UA Rogue or Ranger, and even the Bard just has a thing to keep in mind when reading your class level chart.

You could drop an "original Paladin" into a group with a Skald, a Slayer, a Hexblade, and a Hunter and there would never be an issue in their mechanics. Likewise, a Cavalier could drop into a group comprised of a Warlord, a Dragon Magic Sorcerer, a Warlock, and an Invoker and have no difficulties either, needing zero conversion or adaptation.

That's a pretty clear distinction to draw here. Hence why I say that One D&D (again, hate the buzzwordy name) is already starting off at roughly a 3.5e level of change. Rewriting spells and several core classes, making previously optional content non-optional, and inventing new terminology and mechanics that employ that terminology (the "d20 test" terms, for instance, or the changes to crit rules.) Eliminating entire race options completely, explicitly deprecating half-elf and half-orc, and inventing unprecedented new things (the Egyptian deity style animal-headed people.) Yet most monsters and adventures will be usable pretty much exactly as written (hence why I'm not certain that replacing the MM will be expected), and some existing content (mostly spells) will remain usable in general, though figuring out exactly which spell list they should belong to will be a fraught exercise unless, as I said, one uses a conversion guide.

Except not. You keep saying conversion guides will be needed, I’ve challenged the claim, and you refuse to support it, instead just repeating it.

I was absolutely not someone who expected this to be a major rewrite. I expected this to be a very conservative, minor and purely incremental change. I wouldn't say I've been blown away by the changes they've proposed thus far, but I was certainly pretty surprised to see them alter so many things so heavily just from what they've shown.

Perhaps that surprise is clouding your perspective on the significance of those changes, because they aren’t what you make them out to be.

You can literally play an MC OneRogue with the PHB Arcane Trickster subclass / PHB Ranger with the OneRanger Hunter subclass. You can do so as a Wood Elf of either variety. If you use the PHB wood elf, you just have to choose whether to use its ASI setup, or substitute the new UA setup.