I'm good with wands being ranged, it only makes sense. My question is damage type. Will the wands basic auto attack have elemental damage or will it be basic damage. I guess comparedto regular weapons there would be normal and one with elemental damage. I just find it wires that a wand would do normal damage. It seems almost that would have to have some sort of damage. I was also wondering (despite we don't know he other classes) would anybody else be able to use a wand other than the wizard?
I believe every wand have a attack type (in the wiz footage the wand bolts really looked like arcane. So i believe we will also see wands of other elements).
No. Bashiok said it's too expensive to animate every weapon with every class, and in the end it would be useless -- you aren't going to use a wand as a Barbarian.
I am pretty sure, as Italifoca said, the WD will be capable of using wands as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
Ranged weapons make perfect sense. It balances the classes a bit, too. And the wizard doesn't need to be torking enemies with a tiny piece of wood like an idiot. Warriors and rangers always get extra damage from weapons, while mages don't. >>
Hmm, I compared that to the official D3 website video for Magic Missile, seems its just a magic missile. However, that does not debunk this concept. Take a look at this screenshot:
Sorry its a bit big, too lazy to get the size changed.
The purple thing closest to the skeleton is simply a magic missile, as shown on the Diablo 3 website and other places. The golden sparkle with the slightly purple hue, however, is nothing I have personally seen, and if you look closely on the actual Wizard, running right by her orb on our side is a small straight stick: presumably a wand. Seems fairly good evidence to me, especially if what Fallingblack heard was true: this is how it is on the demo.
I personally don't think its absolutely realistic in the fact that it costs no mana either, however it does make for interesting game play. While a Wizard focusing many points in the conjuration tree would probably be able to run in and take some hits while giving some of her own, other builds may not allow for this very well. For that fact, a ranged style wand would definately be a very good implementation in my mind.
I think that stick (the wand in question) is apart from the orb- it looks like the wand is in her right hand and the orb is independent of it since the orb is not focused at the tip of the wand. Furthermore, I think that since in the footage of the initial Wizard stuff, we saw her walking around with nothing but that orb, that the orb, itself, is just "part" of the character. I don't know how to describe what I mean, though.
As for the idea of a wand and/or staff with the ability to throw moderate-damage ranged attacks, I think it's a great idea. People are saying that casters shouldn't have the benefit of this without their mana because they should focus on their spells: I say that's an injustice. The weapons should be useful to the caster- it's kind of a downer that in the previous games they only served as boosters for skills. They would probably only function with the range of any normal weapon- damage, for instance- and would provide another means of playing with the Wizard (or any caster that could use them) besides skill-mashing while still holding true to the casting roots of any such wielder.
I don't really know anything about it, though. I suppose they might incorporate skills in the Wizard's tree to account for them if they will function in this way- to add to damage, shooting speed, or something of that nature. Passive stuff.
I think that stick (the wand in question) is apart from the orb- it looks like the wand is in her right hand and the orb is independent of it since the orb is not focused at the tip of the wand. Furthermore, I think that since in the footage of the initial Wizard stuff, we saw her walking around with nothing but that orb, that the orb, itself, is just "part" of the character. I don't know how to describe what I mean, though.
.
Probably they are both different item types. Whether or not they can both be equiped at one time will have to be seen. However I would definately agree on holding an orb instead of a shield which isn't very "Wizardly" in my opinion. Then having your wand in the weapon hand.
Quote from "Seth" »
As for the idea of a wand and/or staff with the ability to throw moderate-damage ranged attacks, I think it's a great idea. People are saying that casters shouldn't have the benefit of this without their mana because they should focus on their spells: I say that's an injustice. The weapons should be useful to the caster- it's kind of a downer that in the previous games they only served as boosters for skills. They would probably only function with the range of any normal weapon- damage, for instance- and would provide another means of playing with the Wizard (or any caster that could use them) besides skill-mashing while still holding true to the casting roots of any such wielder.
I also agree. In D2 every class had powerful skills to destroy enemies that cost mana. Without those skills however they still possesed the basic attack from their respective weapons. It wouldn't kill things very quick but it was an option that was sometimes a life saver. (HP, Mana Leech) The spell casters unfortunately didn't have such luxuries, instead they only had the option of buying mana pots then running away to buy more. Unless they had insane ammounts of Mana recovery.
I believe that attacks from wands should be ranged but also limited. And by limited I mean in terms of range. They shouldn't become archers, but instead have semi-ranged attacks (5 to 10 feet). Such as the distance of an inferno spell.
This way the Wizards would have an attack to rely on in case of emergencies without having to run away and stop the game so they can go replenish. Keeping the action intense, but also giving them a certain ammount of risk and danger. If they had unlimited range on the screen I think it would remove the challenge. Give these weapons abilities such as stun, or mana leech/hp leech , or even knockback, then limit the ammount of mana available to give a certain challenge to casters. They used to be tanks in D2 anyways. It would definately give the casters more depth instead of relying only on spells that usualy become overly powerfull in short ammount of time.
Quote from "Seth" »
I don't really know anything about it, though. I suppose they might incorporate skills in the Wizard's tree to account for them if they will function in this way- to add to damage, shooting speed, or something of that nature. Passive stuff.
Yeah, plus the passive stuff. :thumbsup:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
When I think of ranged wands, make me remember the old Westwood Studios Diablo clone, "Nox"
Behaved mechanically like a bow, in terms of you clicked a direction and it shot a projectile. Instead of ammo, you had charges, and instead of arrows, it shot spells. In terms of "reloading," you had a vendor "repair" it, sort of like throwing weapons in WoW.
Wands ranged from pathetic sparks with 200 charges, to wands that shot fireballs with 40 charges (fireballs in Nox did a knockback, so less charges balanced it.)
Compared to the Nox Wizard's arsenal of spells, they were decent, but the Wizard's spells could be upgraded to be much more powerful whereas the wands were only basic version of the spells (and with a limit at that.) Compared to a bow (not usuable by the wizard in that game btw), you didn't use wands as your primary attack, it was just an alternative if you wanted to conserve your mana or you ran out of mana.
I also agree. In D2 every class had powerful skills to destroy enemies that cost mana. Without those skills however they still possesed the basic attack from their respective weapons. It wouldn't kill things very quick but it was an option that was sometimes a life saver. (HP, Mana Leech) The spell casters unfortunately didn't have such luxuries, instead they only had the option of buying mana pots then running away to buy more. Unless they had insane ammounts of Mana recovery.
I didn't even think about MANA LEECH! That would be brilliant on a ranged wand! I'm out of mana, and I can't find any mana orbs (say I'm fighting a boss), and I just start wanding him for my mana back! That took me from ranged-wand indeferent to ranged wand EXCITED!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
I didn't even think about MANA LEECH! That would be brilliant on a ranged wand! I'm out of mana, and I can't find any mana orbs (say I'm fighting a boss), and I just start wanding him for my mana back! That took me from ranged-wand indeferent to ranged wand EXCITED!
Fairly rare? Why make bias the randoms like that? It should be a random stat just like every other thing. Mana leech doesn't get very powerful until later on, and still its not amazing then either. I just got a mana leech mace on my D2 druid today, and while its not giving me amazing amounts of mana, its definitely helping me get it back faster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
Random magical atributes were always "biased". Different statistics had different chances to spawn. For example, remember how many charms you found gold find, or HP on? Now compare that to how many you found with MF, or all res.
Same translated over to weapons/armor, some stats like enhanced damage or defence wefre fairly common, but other stats like resistances or +attack rating percent, were much more rare.
If mana leech were in game, I'd have to slap it in the mid-range of rarity. Not too common to be found on every fucking wand, but not too rare to make you grind endlessly just to find one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Sixen" »
"One in every 10 million people can potentially have a headache from this pill." God forbid she is the 0.000000001% of having a headache.
Fairly rare? Why make bias the randoms like that? It should be a random stat just like every other thing. Mana leech doesn't get very powerful until later on, and still its not amazing then either. I just got a mana leech mace on my D2 druid today, and while its not giving me amazing amounts of mana, its definitely helping me get it back faster.
I already think that a caster do damage without mana is bad imagine recover it while doing it.
Mana should be recouvered by using skills, like WD's soul harvest, not using a lazer stick.
I don't know about Wands being used as a ranged attack, but it sure was annoying when I ran out of Mana as a necro and being stuck using a little twig to fend for myself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hey guys...don't you ever just...fall over...cuz ya know...the world is moving...and you're standing still?"
I already think that a caster do damage without mana is bad imagine recover it while doing it.
Mana should be recouvered by using skills, like WD's soul harvest, not using a lazer stick.
Although I do like the semi-ranged wand attack with leech, I do prefer itafolica's perspective on mana recovery. Mana is a means to magical feats, therefore should be regained/recovered by magical means. This way it would give the caster a choice to either be offensively insane with less mana, or more mana friendly with less offensive capabilities. I believe it would balance out the caster class character instead of turning them into tanks like they used to be in D2. (tele orb sorc iwth stormshield and mana shield and all that crazy shit) I do believe that they should have immense power, but they must have a weakness, they have to make a sacrifice. Not just get the best of all worlds)
If there was a skill or spell to help a caster regain mana, it would mean that he would have to adapt his playing style to his character, as well as adapting his char to his playing style. It would give limits to the otherwise invulnerable casters. (such as mana regenerating totems, or close range mana absorbtion, or even meditation transe skills to highten mana reserves, etc.) All temporary of course.
Now before anyone cries "blasphemy" I would add that every class (Especially melee Classes) have many restrictions in such that they cannot continue to fight when they are low on HP, or if there weapons/armor are broken. Or if they are outnumbered, etc.
A mage on the other hand, can fight large groups with low hp, with less risk. He is only limited to his mana. The squishy nature of casters make them glass canons by definition, so most players develop a game style that is very cautious, or are just simply used to avoiding monsters since most of their spells are ranged based. However on a melee char, there is no such luxury in most cases (not all), no matter what the style is, the player will inevitably end up face to face with hordes. Death is therefore common. (Just look at the D3 demo video, you'll see that it;s the Barbarian that gets eaten by the siegebreaker, not the firebomb throwing WD.......Keep that in mind.
All this to say that casters shhould be controled to be kept at a strength level similar to all other classes. Or in other words, all classes should have the same potential in general.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
Yes, but every character has the same restrictions pretty much. Everybody has special moves based off some sort of usable force. In D2 EVERYONE had mana, now its getting modified. Sure, a barbarian can go in swords swinging without mana and be fine, but a Wizard or WD definitely could not. Mana leech while using a wand would just be an extra means of picking up some mana faster than the standard regeneration rate, and I don't see anything wrong with that as long as Bliz keeps it balanced.
No, we don't want Wizards or WD turning to their wands instead of their primary skills because its so powerful. No, we don't want to shoot 3 wand blasts and have full mana. Its just a matter of balance. Keep the wand damage low and mana leech won't be bringing that much back anyway. It will still, however, be more mana than you would have had just standing there like an idiot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
Yes, but every character has the same restrictions pretty much. Everybody has special moves based off some sort of usable force. In D2 EVERYONE had mana, now its getting modified. Sure, a barbarian can go in swords swinging without mana and be fine, but a Wizard or WD definitely could not. Mana leech while using a wand would just be an extra means of picking up some mana faster than the standard regeneration rate, and I don't see anything wrong with that as long as Bliz keeps it balanced.
No, we don't want Wizards or WD turning to their wands instead of their primary skills because its so powerful. No, we don't want to shoot 3 wand blasts and have full mana. Its just a matter of balance. Keep the wand damage low and mana leech won't be bringing that much back anyway. It will still, however, be more mana than you would have had just standing there like an idiot.
Honestly, I agree with both sides (Spell Wise, or Wand Ranged) as long as it's properly balanced out so to add depth to D3 instead of just making thinks imba. Either idea is good if well implemented. imho
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
i can't really see a wizened spell caster walking about hitting armored creatures with a thin wooden wand without instant breakage. From a realistic perspective It's ranged attack wand or no wand. Of course, this game isn't famous for its realism.
i can't really see a wizened spell caster walking about hitting armored creatures with a thin wooden wand without instant breakage. From a realistic perspective It's ranged attack wand or no wand. Of course, this game isn't famous for its realism.
That's why to look real bad ass, sometimes I'd have my Sorc or Necro not have a weapon. Especially useful with a maxed out and fully synergized Enchant, so my Sorc could actually contend with a lot of enemies barehanded.
But on topic, I guess having wands ranged adds another layer of depth to the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hey guys...don't you ever just...fall over...cuz ya know...the world is moving...and you're standing still?"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I believe every wand have a attack type (in the wiz footage the wand bolts really looked like arcane. So i believe we will also see wands of other elements).
And I think Wd and Wiz will b our wand users.
I am pretty sure, as Italifoca said, the WD will be capable of using wands as well.
I think that stick (the wand in question) is apart from the orb- it looks like the wand is in her right hand and the orb is independent of it since the orb is not focused at the tip of the wand. Furthermore, I think that since in the footage of the initial Wizard stuff, we saw her walking around with nothing but that orb, that the orb, itself, is just "part" of the character. I don't know how to describe what I mean, though.
As for the idea of a wand and/or staff with the ability to throw moderate-damage ranged attacks, I think it's a great idea. People are saying that casters shouldn't have the benefit of this without their mana because they should focus on their spells: I say that's an injustice. The weapons should be useful to the caster- it's kind of a downer that in the previous games they only served as boosters for skills. They would probably only function with the range of any normal weapon- damage, for instance- and would provide another means of playing with the Wizard (or any caster that could use them) besides skill-mashing while still holding true to the casting roots of any such wielder.
I don't really know anything about it, though. I suppose they might incorporate skills in the Wizard's tree to account for them if they will function in this way- to add to damage, shooting speed, or something of that nature. Passive stuff.
Probably they are both different item types. Whether or not they can both be equiped at one time will have to be seen. However I would definately agree on holding an orb instead of a shield which isn't very "Wizardly" in my opinion. Then having your wand in the weapon hand.
I also agree. In D2 every class had powerful skills to destroy enemies that cost mana. Without those skills however they still possesed the basic attack from their respective weapons. It wouldn't kill things very quick but it was an option that was sometimes a life saver. (HP, Mana Leech) The spell casters unfortunately didn't have such luxuries, instead they only had the option of buying mana pots then running away to buy more. Unless they had insane ammounts of Mana recovery.
I believe that attacks from wands should be ranged but also limited. And by limited I mean in terms of range. They shouldn't become archers, but instead have semi-ranged attacks (5 to 10 feet). Such as the distance of an inferno spell.
This way the Wizards would have an attack to rely on in case of emergencies without having to run away and stop the game so they can go replenish. Keeping the action intense, but also giving them a certain ammount of risk and danger. If they had unlimited range on the screen I think it would remove the challenge. Give these weapons abilities such as stun, or mana leech/hp leech , or even knockback, then limit the ammount of mana available to give a certain challenge to casters. They used to be tanks in D2 anyways. It would definately give the casters more depth instead of relying only on spells that usualy become overly powerfull in short ammount of time.
Yeah, plus the passive stuff. :thumbsup:
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
Behaved mechanically like a bow, in terms of you clicked a direction and it shot a projectile. Instead of ammo, you had charges, and instead of arrows, it shot spells. In terms of "reloading," you had a vendor "repair" it, sort of like throwing weapons in WoW.
Wands ranged from pathetic sparks with 200 charges, to wands that shot fireballs with 40 charges (fireballs in Nox did a knockback, so less charges balanced it.)
Compared to the Nox Wizard's arsenal of spells, they were decent, but the Wizard's spells could be upgraded to be much more powerful whereas the wands were only basic version of the spells (and with a limit at that.) Compared to a bow (not usuable by the wizard in that game btw), you didn't use wands as your primary attack, it was just an alternative if you wanted to conserve your mana or you ran out of mana.
I didn't even think about MANA LEECH! That would be brilliant on a ranged wand! I'm out of mana, and I can't find any mana orbs (say I'm fighting a boss), and I just start wanding him for my mana back! That took me from ranged-wand indeferent to ranged wand EXCITED!
If thats fairly rare it would be nice.
Fairly rare? Why make bias the randoms like that? It should be a random stat just like every other thing. Mana leech doesn't get very powerful until later on, and still its not amazing then either. I just got a mana leech mace on my D2 druid today, and while its not giving me amazing amounts of mana, its definitely helping me get it back faster.
Same translated over to weapons/armor, some stats like enhanced damage or defence wefre fairly common, but other stats like resistances or +attack rating percent, were much more rare.
If mana leech were in game, I'd have to slap it in the mid-range of rarity. Not too common to be found on every fucking wand, but not too rare to make you grind endlessly just to find one.
I already think that a caster do damage without mana is bad imagine recover it while doing it.
Mana should be recouvered by using skills, like WD's soul harvest, not using a lazer stick.
Although I do like the semi-ranged wand attack with leech, I do prefer itafolica's perspective on mana recovery. Mana is a means to magical feats, therefore should be regained/recovered by magical means. This way it would give the caster a choice to either be offensively insane with less mana, or more mana friendly with less offensive capabilities. I believe it would balance out the caster class character instead of turning them into tanks like they used to be in D2. (tele orb sorc iwth stormshield and mana shield and all that crazy shit) I do believe that they should have immense power, but they must have a weakness, they have to make a sacrifice. Not just get the best of all worlds)
If there was a skill or spell to help a caster regain mana, it would mean that he would have to adapt his playing style to his character, as well as adapting his char to his playing style. It would give limits to the otherwise invulnerable casters. (such as mana regenerating totems, or close range mana absorbtion, or even meditation transe skills to highten mana reserves, etc.) All temporary of course.
Now before anyone cries "blasphemy" I would add that every class (Especially melee Classes) have many restrictions in such that they cannot continue to fight when they are low on HP, or if there weapons/armor are broken. Or if they are outnumbered, etc.
A mage on the other hand, can fight large groups with low hp, with less risk. He is only limited to his mana. The squishy nature of casters make them glass canons by definition, so most players develop a game style that is very cautious, or are just simply used to avoiding monsters since most of their spells are ranged based. However on a melee char, there is no such luxury in most cases (not all), no matter what the style is, the player will inevitably end up face to face with hordes. Death is therefore common. (Just look at the D3 demo video, you'll see that it;s the Barbarian that gets eaten by the siegebreaker, not the firebomb throwing WD.......Keep that in mind.
All this to say that casters shhould be controled to be kept at a strength level similar to all other classes. Or in other words, all classes should have the same potential in general.
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
No, we don't want Wizards or WD turning to their wands instead of their primary skills because its so powerful. No, we don't want to shoot 3 wand blasts and have full mana. Its just a matter of balance. Keep the wand damage low and mana leech won't be bringing that much back anyway. It will still, however, be more mana than you would have had just standing there like an idiot.
Honestly, I agree with both sides (Spell Wise, or Wand Ranged) as long as it's properly balanced out so to add depth to D3 instead of just making thinks imba. Either idea is good if well implemented. imho
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
Those mana leech and poison and ice damage wands cracked me up.
That's why to look real bad ass, sometimes I'd have my Sorc or Necro not have a weapon. Especially useful with a maxed out and fully synergized Enchant, so my Sorc could actually contend with a lot of enemies barehanded.
But on topic, I guess having wands ranged adds another layer of depth to the game.