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