That's a hopeless stance to take. So you honestly mean "let's commit to never making changes ever because that's the only thing keeping us from shoveling out crapware"?
That's an extreme way to put it.
But in both 4e and Pathfinder, because updates were possible and became the norm, there was a slow decline in quality that ended in a terrible book and a sudden re-commitment to better testing and editing.
Human nature?
I'm not familiar with Paizo route?
Each time Paizo does a new print run, they do an errata pass. Which has slowly expanded to include small rule fixes and rebalancing.
Who said anything about an update?
By my scheme, the first printing's classes would be as valid and welcome to the gaming table as printing #20.
Nothing would get "updated". You would have new content just like WotC plans, only that new content would be carefully selected to shore up existing choices and not only add completely new choices.
But you said the pagination would stay the same.How can you have a new ranger option, new spells, new feats, etc and keep the same number of pages?
Either the content gets replaced or the books is expanded. If content is replaced, it's an update.
I give you that a DM with an older PHB could want to check your newer PHB if for some reason she doesn't trust you when you say your Ranger can invoke Ranger's Mark (say) as a class feature instead of having to cast Hunter's Mark as a concentration spell. So bring it.
And if another player at that table also wants the new Ranger feature (despite also having the old PHB), why, let him!
This still gets into the issue of a player bringing a new and different book to the table and expecting it to be automatically accepted. I can imagine some DMs not reacting well to a player springing a book with different content they're unfamiliar with.
To say nothing of the Adventurer's League, with one player with the "fixed" class that is doing much better than the other player.
Any time new content is added - and this is new content - it needs to be approved by the DM. And some DMs only want the "core" game. When you introduce a revision, it's causing a conflict, since the assumption is it's "the core rules" but it's still a change and new content and needs to be vetted by the DM. That's problematic. And introducing a revision means work for the DM since they need to go through the updates and see what's been changed and what's the same, which is very different than just reading brand new content.
In practice, the changes wouldn't be so many. Most players and DMs would snap them up easy.
"In practice" the changes were 3.5e, as that was the only time WotC has done something like this. (If you don't count Essentials.)
"In theory" the changes might not be many, but that hasn't worked well in the past. And people are still sore about it.
The important part is to stay away from "updating" the game. No new rules, only options to fix what doesn't get used much.
Which is telling game designers not to design games.
The catch is where to draw the line. Only underpowered options? What about overpowered options? Unclear rules? Rules that are clear but not working as intended?
A bit doom and gloom, but... you did read my suggestion to tell the player base that this kind of update won't happen again for at least 24 months.
Or some other sufficiently distant time that the market research dept is reasonably confident most buyers can't hold off making their purchase that long
Which just puts people in a position where they have to wait or buy content they know isn't "finished" and needs to be "patched". The longer people have to wait just means they get antsier wondering what will or will not be fixed.
When you know the update is coming, the content loses appeal. I know that during my 4e days, I banned PHB3 and Martial Power 2 at my table until the first updates, knowing it'd only be a few months.
I don't agree.
A visual cue to make it easy to see which printing you've got yes, but basically stick to the same appearance to give the notion "it's the same book - you and I are playing the same game".
I believe by keeping the same cover you send a strong signal that the book is the same, the playing base is the same, the game is one and the same.
The trade dress should be the same, as should the name and colour tone. It's not like people get confused and think that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a different book when the cover changes.
As long as it's called "PHB Revised" it should be fine.
But, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I really don't want a revision of the PHB. Not until sales lag and they can do a complete interior overhaul. But even then, that should be a look change at most, like what they did in late 2e.
I think that the important thing is for WotC not to ask folk to repurchase the book.
They have always done that. A new edition, a new cash cow.
But the idea is to stick to the PHB as an evergreen.
So there should be no big marketing push, no loud trumpeting of "all new PHB".
So a publishing company should publish a book and not advertise and hype it?
WotC is a business not a charity. They're not here not to make money.
If they're making a new printing, they need to pay for that print run as well as the cost of the redesign and editing.
The more I think about this issue, the less I want/need the information in a physical book. A revised PHB just causes confusion and conflict, and only really matters to optimizers who want all their options to be strong. Meanwhile, having alternate content that fills the same niche just means less new options when we do get some of the rare new content. I'd rather see a new ranger or two that does something interesting and fun than a retread of a ranger we already have.
Variants released free online are different, since you can opt into that. And many of the fixes can be applied via the DMsGuild. Since DMs need to approve any new content anyway, there's no functional difference between an official book, and official PDF, and a 3rd Party/Fan published rules patch.
(A variant ranger is still problematic as it's unlikely to work with current & future subclasses, meaning it either has to replace the class or it won't receive updates.)
The need for official errata only exists in the strange space where DMs only play "by the rules" and don't house rule or change the rules. If DMs feel comfortable and are encouraged to make the game their own, then official updates mean less as DMs can balance and rebalance anything that's not working at their tables. We don't really need a revised Beast Master ranger as any DM who really feels strongly about it being underpowered has likely taken steps to fix it.
Official patches is last-decade game design thinking… Empowering DMs and giving them the tools to fix things themselves is a better tactic.
