D&D 5E I think the era of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons had it right. (not talking about the rules).

[Sacrosanct]

What would be the primary, underlying reason for assuming an "advanced" player needs additional content above-and-beyond what we currently have?

If anything, the advanced player would need less content, because they know the rules better, and thus could create their own content easier/better than someone new to the game. Lord knows we all did in the 80s. And I still do, as a matter of fact, even award winning material if you can believe that

 

[Corwin]

Maybe they would be most likely to be bored with the basics we currently have*?

Maybe. But then again, maybe not. Which is why I asked for reasons that assumption was being made by the poster. I, and many of my D&D friends, are all very much "advanced" players. Yet we haven't even scratched the surface of playable material just to be found in the PHB yet. Let alone everything that has come since.

What you said did bring an old chestnut to mind, though. To paraphrase: "There are no boring moments, just boring people."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yet we haven't even scratched the surface of playable material just to be found in the PHB yet.

As a player, I've barely touched that surface. Because I've already mined everything of the least interest presented by it - in prior editions. The freshest class presented in the 5e PH is from 2004, and it didn't interest me then. I haven't played out every possibility in the 3e Sorcerer, but the 5e Sorcerer doesn't offer any of those remaining possibilities. Everything else 5e has to offer for player options I'd gotten enough of from D&D in the 20th century.

5e is wonderful for what it set out to be: an evocation of the classic game. The downside of that is 30+ years of playing said classic game leaves you with very little new to glean from from such a focused iteration of it. You have to bring interest to it, yourself (and, yeah, game of the imagination, that's not unreasonable), it's just the opportunities to do that are, IMHO/X, all on the DM side of the screen.

So, yeah, this 'advanced player' would like to see some more player content.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So, yeah, this 'advanced player' would like to see some more player content.

It seems to this "advanced player" that the reason you would like to see more player content isn't that you are an "advanced player", but that you are more selective in what you have interest in - even possibly more selective in that aspect than is the norm, because my whole group are "advanced players" and want to play at least one of everything in the 5th edition player's handbook.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This did not exist. The fact that it did not exist was a problem, as it was something they were banking on as 4e was made to work with a VTT. Then the guy making it went insane and died and it fell apart and was never released.

This was never a thing. So unless you were using a third party device and thought it was made by WOTC you are making stuff up.

Also both Maptool and Roll20 are free. (Roll20 less so as there are ads and stuff, but it's popular. And maptool requires you do most of the work. but they work.)

No, there CERTAINLY WAS a VTT that WotC put out for 4e. It didn't come out until later in the product cycle, and it was always labeled 'beta', but it worked FINE. In fact you can still use it, they sold it to a place that runs various online game. I ran a game using it a couple years ago. In fact they've continued support and provided a lot of pay content. Honestly I think roll20 is probably a better choice at this point, but anyway WotC did certainly have a VTT that was part of DDI.

Maptool I've used a LOT and its a HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK to get it to do 4e very well. As in I'm a very accomplished software engineer and maintaining macros correctly for 4e was more work than I wanted to do. Its a program with a vast array of features, but that's not always a good thing!

I think its more legitimate to question if WotC could really improve on Roll20 though. It has most of the features their own VTT had/was supposed to have, seems to be a better program overall, and generally supports 5e quite well, and can do 4e at least as well as anything else not built for it (I guess there are some 4e templates and whatnot left from a couple years ago).

Anyway, I have to agree with the OP, I don't really understand the theory here with basically abandoning any serious attempt to have content and software online to support 5e. Its short-sighted at best.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a player, I've barely touched that surface. Because I've already mined everything of the least interest presented by it - in prior editions. The freshest class presented in the 5e PH is from 2004, and it didn't interest me then. I haven't played out every possibility in the 3e Sorcerer, but the 5e Sorcerer doesn't offer any of those remaining possibilities. Everything else 5e has to offer for player options I'd gotten enough of from D&D in the 20th century.

5e is wonderful for what it set out to be: an evocation of the classic game. The downside of that is 30+ years of playing said classic game leaves you with very little new to glean from from such a focused iteration of it. You have to bring interest to it, yourself (and, yeah, game of the imagination, that's not unreasonable), it's just the opportunities to do that are, IMHO/X, all on the DM side of the screen.

So, yeah, this 'advanced player' would like to see some more player content.

I really have to agree.

The other thing the dearth of 5e material does is undercut the kind of DMing techniques that work so well in 4e and make it just vastly easier to run. That is there's ALWAYS a monster stat block, usually a map, most often some encounters and at least parts of adventures, hooks in the form of lore and NPCs, etc. I can just mildly cook that stuff, drop it into play as needed, and do away with a LOT of prep.

 

[Parmandur]

No, there CERTAINLY WAS a VTT that WotC put out for 4e. It didn't come out until later in the product cycle, and it was always labeled 'beta', but it worked FINE. In fact you can still use it, they sold it to a place that runs various online game. I ran a game using it a couple years ago. In fact they've continued support and provided a lot of pay content. Honestly I think roll20 is probably a better choice at this point, but anyway WotC did certainly have a VTT that was part of DDI.

Maptool I've used a LOT and its a HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK to get it to do 4e very well. As in I'm a very accomplished software engineer and maintaining macros correctly for 4e was more work than I wanted to do. Its a program with a vast array of features, but that's not always a good thing!

I think its more legitimate to question if WotC could really improve on Roll20 though. It has most of the features their own VTT had/was supposed to have, seems to be a better program overall, and generally supports 5e quite well, and can do 4e at least as well as anything else not built for it (I guess there are some 4e templates and whatnot left from a couple years ago).

Anyway, I have to agree with the OP, I don't really understand the theory here with basically abandoning any serious attempt to have content and software online to support 5e. Its short-sighted at best.

It seems that WotC realized that, as you point out, they couldn't invest enough to compete with Roll20/Frantasy Grounds, so instead of wasting mo ey trying, they took those companies money instead. Win-win-win, for WotC, the VTT companies, and people who like that sort of thing. No sub-par software that just happens to be "official." And mostly, the math in 5E is so easy even a non-math person like me can do ot longhand: software is besides the point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really have to agree.

The other thing the dearth of 5e material does is undercut the kind of DMing techniques that work so well in 4e and make it just vastly easier to run. That is there's ALWAYS a monster stat block, usually a map, most often some encounters and at least parts of adventures, hooks in the form of lore and NPCs, etc. I can just mildly cook that stuff, drop it into play as needed, and do away with a LOT of prep.

Nod. You can't paint-by-numbers when running 5e. It's part of the price of DM Empowerment.

I'm beginning to realize that 5e is pointed at experienced DMs & players, but also meant to work for new players being brought in by them. New players with an experienced DM sounds like a winning formula, and if 5e was intentionally designed to facilitate that, it was some smart thinking.

 

[Elderbrain]

I liked the online monster builder for 4e, I'd like to see it return for 5e... also was nice to be able to see what monsters existed in the system, what level (CR) they were, etc.