Holy shit, Veeky Forums is just a bunch of delusional contrarians

Wasn't the Neverwinter MMO based on it? Encounter/Daily shit just translated to longer cooldowns or something like that.

Neverwinter MMO was a generic MMO made by a company that makes generic MMOs, it used none of the 4e mechanics.

play pillars of eternity

Pillars of Eternity is nothing like 4e. It's the old school D&D rpgs.

>MOBA style mechanics
You got your meme wrong. It's MMO, not MOBA.

Have you seen the abilities in 4e?

How about the rogue's "Move in a line, and make everyone attack themselves' manuvers

Also most MMOs and MOBAs share similar spell mechanics, because they're all based on auto attacks+modifiers, or some kind of AOE drawn in a line, circle, or cone.

Yes, this user has it, 4e stole MOBA mechanics before MOBA's were even a defined genre.

4e design teams heinousness knows no bounds.

It uses the names but nothing else.

Man, I love the skillshots on my warlock. Really makes him a great carry, even if he can't jungle as well as the ranger.

Is there a point to this thread somewhere?

4e Defender mechanics would be...interesting in a MOBA. You tag a guy and he suffers if he attacks anyone else. Would really piss off damage dealers who like to teleport past the front lines.

Still, most MOBA fights are too short for it to really work.

>4e stole MOBA mechanics before MOBA's were even a defined genre.
Hmm.
>released in 2007-2008
>before LoL was even a thing
>when DotA was a WC3 map that few people except koreans played
Fuck, you're right. 4e was really innovative and ahead of its time. Shame that WotC decided to release it under the DnD franchise as the "new hot thing" instead of making it its own thing, like, I dunno, "DnD Battles" boardgame spin-off or something?

Stirring shit?

Did you really need to make another thread? Not enough (you)s in the other one?

>were you all born this retarded, or did you do this to yourselves?
depends on the setting

Don't see why you wouldn't release it as D&D. It's got just as much role-playing potential as 3.5 had. Honestly, I'd say more because it actually had a skill system that let you play a skill professional without spells just replacing your ability.

Shame they released 3e under 'D&D' rather than a 'D&D Wizardwars' spin off or something.

But what shame? D&D 3e was hugely successful and highly influential.

Because it wasn't proper D&D and stunted roleplay.

It lacks a bunch of key sacred cows that keep people coming back to D&D. As repeatedly stated in the "what do you like about D&D" thread, many people like the weird shared assumptions and fiction of D&D.

>Don't see why you wouldn't release it as D&D. It's got just as much role-playing potential as 3.5 had.
That's true, but it has a single thing it did different that every single grognard hated - it divorced crunch from fluff. You see, 2e and 3e players were used to spells having fluff built-in into the spells', skills' and even races' descriptions.
People were expecting to have at least a paragraph-long description for every spell, skill, race, item etc. etc., so when 4e outright dropped the fluff, people didn't like it. Even though the previous fluff was shit and people had to come up with their own, the logic was that "shitty fluff that I'll have to replace with my own homebrew is still better than no fluff".
4e forced people to actually be imaginative and creative when they didn't want to.

I'm not saying 4e is bad, I'm just saying it could've gotten a much better reception if WotC used a different approach (and also didn't fuck up with its marketing).

Think of it like this:
The defenders stick close to the intended striker, acting as bodyguards and supporting the inherently squishy striker carries. The striker does not want to die, but does want to get enemies into fights against the defender.

I used to have a magazine (Knights of the Dinner Table) where they compared D&D 3rd edition to Diablo.

D&D 3.5 remains the most played game, people hate 5e because there is a hate bandwangon against new D&D editions since 4E and no ones care about 4E except the few fans who are to be able to talk about it without being shitted on.

>so when 4e outright dropped the fluff
That's not quite accurate. 4e reduced fluff a lot, but it still provided a snippet of "standard" or suggested fluff for every single piece.
Strike! then proceeded to drop fluff altogether.

You meant to say forced people to do all the work to turn the board game into a barely passable RPG user.

5e seems to have a lot more active players than 3.x.

I don't think 3.x games will ever die, tho, but it is shrinking.

>I'm not saying 4e is bad, I'm just saying it could've gotten a much better reception if WotC used a different approach (and also didn't fuck up with its marketing).

I honestly don't agree with it being better to call it something else, D&D has made dramatic changes in every single edition changeover save for 3.0 to 3.5. I think the death knell for 4e was threefold. One was a serious misinterpretation of the how the fanbase would take the marketing campaign.

The second was just how splatbook heavy 3.5 was. Entire books of new feats, new spells, new magic items ended up on shelves. Heck, I have an entire bookshelf that is just 3.5 books still because I've found it hard to part with them. That sort of investment in purchases creates a lot of inertia that needs to be overcome by any new edition.

The third (And most potent of the three) was the OGL. The OGL gave rise to Paizo as it allowed Paizo to go 'Hey, would you like to not learn a new system and invalidate a decades worth of book purchases? We can give you that!'. In addition, the OGL had sprung up with an entire industry of people making third party support for 3e who couldn't keep doing it with 4e, so they were very invested in moving over to Paizo. 3e for example didn't have AD&D hanging over it's shoulder going 'Hey, we've got a licence to keep making AD&D stuff for you!' and the lack of an OGL for 4e has killed any attempt for fans to sell support for it.

The OGL was an interesting idea at the time and likely contributed to the lifespan of 3e but it ended up an albatross around the neck of 4e when they tried to move away the edition with it.

Technically Strike! still has a snippet. I mean, the class IS called "Necromancer" or "Martial Artist". But it's more because descriptive names carry with themselves connotations than making default fluff for things, yes.

How was it not an RPG before? I'd be hard pressed to look at a 3.5 fighter sheet and a 4e fighter sheet and say 'This guy is less roleplayable than the other one'

>You meant to say forced people to do all the work to turn the board game into a barely passable RPG user.
I'm not sure that 3.5e had a good standard setting either.
I mean, yeah, unlike 4e, it WAS a barely passable RPG, but marrying fluff to crunch, or to be more precise, a setting to a ruleset is fucking dumb when you aren't planning to use that and only that setting exclusively.
In my opinion, 4e made the right move by reducing fluff, because fluff is always setting-specific. If you want your ruleset to function in multiple settings, you have to reduce the fluff anyways.

Funny thing is, I can return to my own 3e collection of splat and easily adapt it to 5e.

4e was just too dramatically different from the D&D playstyle, its called dungeons and dragons, which means you crawl through dungeons and fight dragons, 4e kind of made it all about fighting dragons and little else.

>4e kind of made it all about fighting dragons and little else.
It was that way from the very dawn of DnD, though. DnD was always a combat-heavy system, and it had very little focus on exploration or interaction with the environment.
Seriously, I mean, just count the amount of pages dedicated to combat rules in whatever DnD rulebook is your favorite one.
Then count the amount of pages dedicated to skill usage, or social interactions, or dungeon creation or whatever.

>its called dungeons and dragons, which means you crawl through dungeons and fight dragons, 4e kind of made it all about fighting dragons and little else.

...what? 4e's trap rules were great and it's environmental rules were wonderfully punishing. After a decade of running 3.5 it was wonderful to have people actually give a shit about the weather or survival in the wilderness because there wasn't level 0-1 spells to replace it.

Or it's disease rules, which made getting Tetanus from a rusty trap actually seriously inhibiting and even deadly rather than 'A vague annoyance we've got a potion for'.

I mean, you can complain about issues in 4e (I have my own issues despite liking the system) but it's ability to do exploration and environmental stuff was most certainly not one of them.

4e's disease track was great and something I still find myself using in other systems for various things, like disease, exhaustion, poison, etc.

I want that great big book of lore that was going to come out before it got axed by fucking Mearls so he could go straight to essentials, that hack.

You fell for the memes, kid. Sorry.

The D&D meme?

The "4e is a boardgame" meme.

Welcome to THE FUTURE, cryo-sleeper from 2014! You need to be more up to date on Veeky Forums hot button issues. Much has changed since you went into suspended animation.

Also, Donald Trump is the president of US.

What? The guy who wrestled Vince Machahon?