So I've been finding a large number of D&D videos recently and then I found D&D Player's Stop Calling it the Matt Mercer Effect. It surprised me because I liked Matt Mercer and listened to his DM tips as well as others. I wondered what the video was referring to. I have to admit I couldn't believe what they referencing and I'd have loved to have looked up more into this "Matt Mercer Effect", but a quick glance at the comments and listening to how Nerdarchy answered to it, I realized that I likely would agree with them in regards to what they were talking about, but I also realized that D&D in its popularity rise has changed.
It's not a bad thing. The game has been changing since Gary Gygax created it. I've played D&D for more than 15 years, but always a player and always version 3/3.5. It makes a difference when you look at all the different editions that are out there. Personally, I love the ability to make a character that changes their class each level creating a savant that has access to so many things that others can't or sticking with a specialized character. My characters have always changed with the campaign. I created a character who was a tibbit dragon shaman originally. The group was fairly large and had been playing 4.0 mixed with 3/3.5. For those who don't know - 4 does not mix well with others. The only reason 3/3.5 is referenced the way it is is because 3.5 was supposed to update 3.0. It was not completed however before they went to the next edition. You'll find, if you look in 3/3.5 books, that there are a few notable changes that are between the books. Two very notable changes are the skills and boots of striding and springing in the magic items list. The way my DMs have handled it is making greater and lesser boots of striding and springing and a ban on anything that has updated information in a 3.5 book. If there isn't, then you have to work with the DM to figure out what changes need to be made to update it like removing Ambidextrous from the requirements list of a prestige class/feat or putting intuit direction in with survival just for a couple of other possibilities. Trying to take a 3/3.5 creature into a 4.0 campaign or having people increase some of their stats because you're using a 4.0 creature doesn't work too well. I've looked at the various earlier ones and even had some looks at 4 and 5.
I don't like how 5 looks. That's not to say it's bad. I'm one of those people who manages to somehow create oddball combinations. My husband has tried to create a goofball illusionist with MPD and made it OP. I've managed to recreate Aerith in D&D 3/3.5 and an overpowered Blair from SoulEater. I don't know how possible it would be to do the same in 5. I do know it took a lot of research and DM rulings in each case. In Blair's case it was could we use fireball and just have it look like pumpkins? Since it didn't change anything except the look of the spell, yes, we could. I should probably note at this point that when I agreed to make Blair (she was totally a tibbit!) my husband became determined to create Soul and, more importantly, and annoyingly, Excalibur. He double-checked with both our closest thing to a psionics expert and myself as someone who was always willing to read through the information to see about any possible loopholes or missed information. It's always good to have someone else read over something to ensure you're reading it correctly...Anyway, he found a way to do so. When I return to my making characters series if I ever actually get it going. I know, I know, I keep putting off my various sets of stories. There's my cookbook/cooking series, my re-watching Charmed, and the previous campaign that I had started but didn't keep up with when life ran away from me. I have a lot of things I'm working on and really need to just get things organized so I'm actually on top of everything...
As I said, 5 is not necessarily bad. What little I've seen and heard about it makes it sound very similar to MMORPG's like WOW, NeverWinter, and Secret World, where you choose a race and class, but have a set of path choices after that determined by those options. This means there's no chance of becoming some of the combinations my husband and I have played in the past. Then when I click on a D&D article or video, if it's in regards to inner campaign workings, like character creations or world-building I have to check which edition it is before truly enjoying watching/reading/listening to it. It's not bad, I just can't stand how condensed it is even if it may make it easier for new players.
