I was sitting over on the Battle.net forum, and someone over there mentioned seeing wands doing ranged attacks! Said he has a friend who played the demo to confirm it too. I was shocked, never thought they would really implement something like this in Diablo, but I really like it. Staffs might do it too, not sure though.
Anybody else notice this in any footage, or perhaps had a go at the demo themselves to confirm this? What would all of you think about wands and/or wands doing a ranged attack?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
Hmm, I dunno about this one. Source seems a little too unreliable, I mean it IS the battlenet forums...
Anywho, in case nobody has played Guild Wars before, they had this system. Made it easier for casters to sit back and pummel shit with spells, and being able to dish out a couple hits while they wait for cooldowns.
Personally, I've got nothing against this system. People rarely used staffs/wands in melee simply because the casters were usually too squishy to use in melee combat. Now, I'm sure that somebody out there made a melee build, and will probably shit bricks at me, but for the most part casters avoided melee combat.
Makes sense as well, the staff/wand can serve as a focus to channel powers through it, thus giving it a ranged attack.
edit: Aha, SFJake was right, that DOES look like a wand effect being used by the wizard.
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.
Isn't that what you see in the Wizard's gameplay footage? I thought it was, it could be a spell, but it looks like she is using only her wand and the effect is pretty basic, perfect for a wand.
I like wands, since they essentially give spellcaster an attack that is intended to work when you are out of mana, or when keeping mana and only dealing with weaklings.
Its all nice, as long as its not as in WoW and Priest, where mana was so tight you had to Wand your way through everything... though "wanding" sounds funnier in D3 than in WoW since its an action game.
I'm all for them, though.
EDIT: Look here: http://d3db.com/media/video/view/10 Right at the begining.
Now, is that how Magic Missile look? Or is that a wand attack? You can see the wand glowing purple when she throws them, which doesn't really mean anything in the end but.. when she uses her other spells it looks different.
Personally i hated : ( My previous experiences with "shooting staffs" were terrible. I don't know why but i allways liked the idea of the spellcasters been 100% pedent on their magical power (mana). A magician without his powers are just a ordinary person. With those wands you can keep casting spells (even very tiny and weak bolts) even without mana (unless staff attack cost mana but that would just be pointless). Only powerfull artifacts should be able to cast spells by itself.
Well think about it man, it's basically a bow, except with a different item model and a different "bolt".
I get what you're saying though, does make sense that they shouldn't be able to use spells without mana, even if they're using them through staffs/wands.
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.
Well think about it man, it's basically a bow, except with a different item model and a different "bolt".
OH gosh you just get the point !! It's like a bow. But wait.. a wand shouldn't be like a bow
A magician character shoudn't play and act like having a bow in his hand and using it like a pistol or something. It only increase the already to large similarity between the spellcaster archetype and the ranged weapon user archetype in those action rpgs.
Really, in some D2 mod i played the amazon-like class had a Orb Arrow, a skill execly like sorc's Frozen Orb, but it used weapon damage instead of just skill levels to calculate the damage. Really, this zon played execly like my orb src in the original D2. That depressed me forever for some reason...
My vision of a wizard/magician is a very limited but extremely powerfull character. Limited because his physically weak (he spend his time studing, not trainning) and dependent on rituals and stuff to use his powers. Extremely powerfull because he can summon powers beyond a human capacity.
Personally i hated : ( My previous experiences with "shooting staffs" were terrible. I don't know why but i allways liked the idea of the spellcasters been 100% pedent on their magical power (mana). A magician without his powers are just a ordinary person. With those wands you can keep casting spells (even very tiny and weak bolts) even without mana (unless staff attack cost mana but that would just be pointless). Only powerfull artifacts should be able to cast spells by itself.
As far as the feeling goes, I'd agree with you, but gameplay wise, I think its important to have multiple choice for the spell caster.
This is assuming Mana is actually made as a ressource that -is- valuable, powerful but limited. You can use it, in lower or higher quantity, but you can use your wand to fill this gap, still do some damage (damage that should be lower than pretty much anything else you could do) and avoid touching your mana.
In short, wands are a nice way to not force a spell caster to become 100% useless out of mana, but more importantly gives him a way to manage his mana a bit should he need to. This is generally more true in the begining of the game. I'd be hoping that the stronger you get, the less you need that little wand of yours, but its still an option.
To make them less boring through time too, I'm hoping different kind of wands, different elementals but also, different effects? (multi shot wands, etc..) Nothing that makes them stronger than your spell, but that makes them stronger than your previous wand other than bigger numbers.
Isn't that what you see in the Wizard's gameplay footage? I thought it was, it could be a spell, but it looks like she is using only her wand and the effect is pretty basic, perfect for a wand.
I like wands, since they essentially give spellcaster an attack that is intended to work when you are out of mana, or when keeping mana and only dealing with weaklings.
Its all nice, as long as its not as in WoW and Priest, where mana was so tight you had to Wand your way through everything... though "wanding" sounds funnier in D3 than in WoW since its an action game.
I'm all for them, though.
EDIT: Look here: http://d3db.com/media/video/view/10 Right at the begining.
Now, is that how Magic Missile look? Or is that a wand attack? You can see the wand glowing purple when she throws them, which doesn't really mean anything in the end but.. when she uses her other spells it looks different.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
OH gosh you just get the point !! It's like a bow. But wait.. a wand shouldn't be like a bow
A magician character shoudn't play and act like having a bow in his hand and using it like a pistol or something. It only increase the already to large similarity between the spellcaster archetype and the ranged weapon user archetype in those action rpgs.
Really, in some D2 mod i played the amazon-like class had a Orb Arrow, a skill execly like sorc's Frozen Orb, but it used weapon damage instead of just skill levels to calculate the damage. Really, this zon played execly like my orb src in the original D2. That depressed me forever for some reason...
My vision of a wizard/magician is a very limited but extremely powerfull character. Limited because his physically weak (he spend his time studing, not trainning) and dependent on rituals and stuff to use his powers. Extremely powerfull because he can summon powers beyond a human capacity.
Guess I should have worded it differently, but what I was trying to express was that basically, they're giving wizards a ranged option beyond that of spells.
As I said before though, I'm with you on the whole mana feeling, it just feels... wrong.
But gameplay wise, it will definitely help Wizards to become more useful once their mana has been exhausted.
Also helps keep them out of the front lines once their mana has been exhausted, having to melee with a caster class when you're out of mana would end up being a pretty risky ordeal.
edit: About the whole archetype between ranged/magical, that may not happen as long as the damage of the wizard's spells are indipendant from that of his wand. A ranged character usually does damage based on his bow's damage, a wizard simply has badass skills. However, I do see your point. Seems like they're filling a somewhat similar role.
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.
To make them less boring through time too, I'm hoping different kind of wands, different elementals but also, different effects? (multi shot wands, etc..)
Muli-shot wands should cost mana because they could be overpowed. Sit in a corner behind a Barbarian and cast your wand for however long it takes to clear out a mass of enemies and then proceed on. So muli-shot wands should be out of the question imo.
Quote from "SFJake" »
Nothing that makes them stronger than your spell, but that makes them stronger than your previous wand other than bigger numbers.
Hm... This is a classic RPG tradition, haha. I would see no progression if everything is ALWAYS the same percentage-distance away in terms of numbers.
I just hope that whatever Blizzard decides to do, long-range wands will be fairly weak.
I just hope that whatever Blizzard decides to do, long-range wands will be fairly weak.
I second this notion. Though I do believe a wand would be a wonderful utility if you are seriously out of mana, they do need to be relatively weak to balance it out. Spells should always dominate wands, giving you incentive to use them as mana allows, but when you have enough mana for ONE more spell do you use an offensive spell or do you teleport/fear, wand it up a bit, and continue attacking when mana permits? The wand actually fits in pretty well for an ARPG, being out of mana doesn't mean your out of tricks. As a spell caster, if you run out of mana thats it, your done out of the action for a few. At least with a wand you can continue to evade and attack as your mana recharges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
As far as the feeling goes, I'd agree with you, but gameplay wise, I think its important to have multiple choice for the spell caster.
This is assuming Mana is actually made as a ressource that -is- valuable, powerful but limited. You can use it, in lower or higher quantity, but you can use your wand to fill this gap, still do some damage (damage that should be lower than pretty much anything else you could do) and avoid touching your mana.
In short, wands are a nice way to not force a spell caster to become 100% useless out of mana, but more importantly gives him a way to manage his mana a bit should he need to. This is generally more true in the begining of the game. I'd be hoping that the stronger you get, the less you need that little wand of yours, but its still an option.
To make them less boring through time too, I'm hoping different kind of wands, different elementals but also, different effects? (multi shot wands, etc..) Nothing that makes them stronger than your spell, but that makes them stronger than your previous wand other than bigger numbers.
Yea but thats all about the feeling : / I don't feel it's right to give a ranged weapon to every spellcaster. For me this kind of stuff belongs to a more expecialized class (like the Arcane Archer in D&D).
And gameplay wise I agree the wiz needs a cooler mana management then the D2 sorc. But they could implemented in a different way (like give the wizard a good mana regen in the low levels). I just don't like the idea of the wizard casting something without mana and items that cast spells by itself been so trivial and unlimited like in WoW, Gw and Oblivion.
I second this notion. Though I do believe a wand would be a wonderful utility if you are seriously out of mana, they do need to be relatively weak to balance it out. Spells should always dominate wands, giving you incentive to use them as mana allows, but when you have enough mana for ONE more spell do you use an offensive spell or do you teleport/fear, wand it up a bit, and continue attacking when mana permits? The wand actually fits in pretty well for an ARPG, being out of mana doesn't mean your out of tricks. As a spell caster, if you run out of mana thats it, your done out of the action for a few. At least with a wand you can continue to evade and attack as your mana recharges.
Why don't equipe a crossbow ? Or use a fire magical potion ? Or try your luck with a sword ?
Muli-shot wands should cost mana because they could be overpowed. Sit in a corner behind a Barbarian and cast your wand for however long it takes to clear out a mass of enemies and then proceed on. So muli-shot wands should be out of the question imo..
Whats the difference, multi-shot or not? They should still remain weaker than any of your offensive spells. Making them multi-shot, as an example, would just make your basic ranged attack more versatile. Anyway, thats just opinions and balance we can only guess. It could stay a single shot, too.
Quote from "Morden79" »
I second this notion. Though I do believe a wand would be a wonderful utility if you are seriously out of mana, they do need to be relatively weak to balance it out. Spells should always dominate wands, giving you incentive to use them as mana allows, but when you have enough mana for ONE more spell do you use an offensive spell or do you teleport/fear, wand it up a bit, and continue attacking when mana permits? The wand actually fits in pretty well for an ARPG, being out of mana doesn't mean your out of tricks. As a spell caster, if you run out of mana thats it, your done out of the action for a few. At least with a wand you can continue to evade and attack as your mana recharges.
This sums it up.
Quote from "italofoca" »
Why don't equipe a crossbow ? Or use a fire magical potion ? Or try your luck with a sword ?
This isn't D2, though we don't know much about this, we don't know if spell casters can even dream of using crossbows or bows.
Quote from "Dill" »
You still have mana potions and mana orb things.
Of course, but what if you run out of mana and don't want to waste a potion just to kill a few week monsters? Besides, mana potions are not going to rain from the sky and you can't use 16 in a boss fight. The wand could make you avoid wasting potions. Again, thats situational, I wouldn't hesitate using my mana potions against a boss.
This isn't D2, though we don't know much about this, we don't know if spell casters can even dream of using crossbows or bows..
I'm not telling shooting wands are useless gameplay wise because you can do the stuff I said.
The crossbow, fire oil and sword are a suggestions that can resolve the "no mana wizard" problem without transforming wands in ranged weapons.
Instead of transform the wand in a ranged weapon they should simply allow the wizard to use a ranged weapon or implement those potions that would be especially usefull to him in those situations.
Of course, but what if you run out of mana and don't want to waste a potion just to kill a few week monsters?
If they're that weak, I'd have no problem running up to it and whacking it. But I'm not saying wands should be melee--I'm not saying they should be long-ranged either--I just don't want them to be too relied on if you're out of mana and out of pots.
You know what? Scrap wands. Wizards are Asian, they can fist-fight.
Considering gameplay only, I think ranged wands are a good idea. Especially without chugging mana potions, a wizard can still do at least some damage without getting owned due to weak armor.
Regarding to the suggestion about bows/crossbows, it may not be as "ideal" for gameplay. Most likely these bows will have stats and bonuses that favour an archer. Of course you could just make wizard bows...
As for the image, personally I'd rather have a wizard using a wand that shoots mysterious laser beams than a wizard using a bow. It just doesn't fit the archetype of wizard.
A poor attempt to make shooting wands look less logical is that, Diablo is full of weird unrealistic stuff anyways. I mean we got wands that can initiate lightning bolts at 10%...so why not have wands that have the inherent ability to shoot stuff, thus not "needing" mana. That is, if a barb were to use it, he can also shoot stuff with it as well. It's a cheesy attempt, but whatever...
In Diablo 2, I honestly felt wands were pretty much only useful for adding stats. It would honestly fit much better as a ranged weapon anyhow. Could come in handy for bosses, especially if we find that we won't be capable of using bows as a caster, and those oils never really get put into Diablo 3. At this point we have almost no clue what will be there and what will be equipable, but knowing that a wand could be used as a lower damage single target ranged attack will be nice. It will never be as powerful as your magic, probably not even as powerful as a regular arrow. It'll just give you some back up if you need it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
I'll admit, if a zombie had nearly 1% HP left, I wouldn't want to waste the 10 out of 35 mana casting Magic Missile. Just zap it with your wand and it will die.
Oh, wait... you could do that with melee weapons as well. Scratch the above.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anybody else notice this in any footage, or perhaps had a go at the demo themselves to confirm this? What would all of you think about wands and/or wands doing a ranged attack?
Anywho, in case nobody has played Guild Wars before, they had this system. Made it easier for casters to sit back and pummel shit with spells, and being able to dish out a couple hits while they wait for cooldowns.
Personally, I've got nothing against this system. People rarely used staffs/wands in melee simply because the casters were usually too squishy to use in melee combat. Now, I'm sure that somebody out there made a melee build, and will probably shit bricks at me, but for the most part casters avoided melee combat.
Makes sense as well, the staff/wand can serve as a focus to channel powers through it, thus giving it a ranged attack.
edit: Aha, SFJake was right, that DOES look like a wand effect being used by the wizard.
I like wands, since they essentially give spellcaster an attack that is intended to work when you are out of mana, or when keeping mana and only dealing with weaklings.
Its all nice, as long as its not as in WoW and Priest, where mana was so tight you had to Wand your way through everything... though "wanding" sounds funnier in D3 than in WoW since its an action game.
I'm all for them, though.
EDIT: Look here: http://d3db.com/media/video/view/10 Right at the begining.
Now, is that how Magic Missile look? Or is that a wand attack? You can see the wand glowing purple when she throws them, which doesn't really mean anything in the end but.. when she uses her other spells it looks different.
Bah.. maybe it's just me.
EDIT: SFJake already showed the source : )
I get what you're saying though, does make sense that they shouldn't be able to use spells without mana, even if they're using them through staffs/wands.
OH gosh you just get the point !! It's like a bow. But wait.. a wand shouldn't be like a bow
A magician character shoudn't play and act like having a bow in his hand and using it like a pistol or something. It only increase the already to large similarity between the spellcaster archetype and the ranged weapon user archetype in those action rpgs.
Really, in some D2 mod i played the amazon-like class had a Orb Arrow, a skill execly like sorc's Frozen Orb, but it used weapon damage instead of just skill levels to calculate the damage. Really, this zon played execly like my orb src in the original D2. That depressed me forever for some reason...
My vision of a wizard/magician is a very limited but extremely powerfull character. Limited because his physically weak (he spend his time studing, not trainning) and dependent on rituals and stuff to use his powers. Extremely powerfull because he can summon powers beyond a human capacity.
As far as the feeling goes, I'd agree with you, but gameplay wise, I think its important to have multiple choice for the spell caster.
This is assuming Mana is actually made as a ressource that -is- valuable, powerful but limited. You can use it, in lower or higher quantity, but you can use your wand to fill this gap, still do some damage (damage that should be lower than pretty much anything else you could do) and avoid touching your mana.
In short, wands are a nice way to not force a spell caster to become 100% useless out of mana, but more importantly gives him a way to manage his mana a bit should he need to. This is generally more true in the begining of the game. I'd be hoping that the stronger you get, the less you need that little wand of yours, but its still an option.
To make them less boring through time too, I'm hoping different kind of wands, different elementals but also, different effects? (multi shot wands, etc..) Nothing that makes them stronger than your spell, but that makes them stronger than your previous wand other than bigger numbers.
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.
Guess I should have worded it differently, but what I was trying to express was that basically, they're giving wizards a ranged option beyond that of spells.
As I said before though, I'm with you on the whole mana feeling, it just feels... wrong.
But gameplay wise, it will definitely help Wizards to become more useful once their mana has been exhausted.
Also helps keep them out of the front lines once their mana has been exhausted, having to melee with a caster class when you're out of mana would end up being a pretty risky ordeal.
edit: About the whole archetype between ranged/magical, that may not happen as long as the damage of the wizard's spells are indipendant from that of his wand. A ranged character usually does damage based on his bow's damage, a wizard simply has badass skills. However, I do see your point. Seems like they're filling a somewhat similar role.
Muli-shot wands should cost mana because they could be overpowed. Sit in a corner behind a Barbarian and cast your wand for however long it takes to clear out a mass of enemies and then proceed on. So muli-shot wands should be out of the question imo.
Hm... This is a classic RPG tradition, haha. I would see no progression if everything is ALWAYS the same percentage-distance away in terms of numbers.
I just hope that whatever Blizzard decides to do, long-range wands will be fairly weak.
I second this notion. Though I do believe a wand would be a wonderful utility if you are seriously out of mana, they do need to be relatively weak to balance it out. Spells should always dominate wands, giving you incentive to use them as mana allows, but when you have enough mana for ONE more spell do you use an offensive spell or do you teleport/fear, wand it up a bit, and continue attacking when mana permits? The wand actually fits in pretty well for an ARPG, being out of mana doesn't mean your out of tricks. As a spell caster, if you run out of mana thats it, your done out of the action for a few. At least with a wand you can continue to evade and attack as your mana recharges.
Yea but thats all about the feeling : / I don't feel it's right to give a ranged weapon to every spellcaster. For me this kind of stuff belongs to a more expecialized class (like the Arcane Archer in D&D).
And gameplay wise I agree the wiz needs a cooler mana management then the D2 sorc. But they could implemented in a different way (like give the wizard a good mana regen in the low levels). I just don't like the idea of the wizard casting something without mana and items that cast spells by itself been so trivial and unlimited like in WoW, Gw and Oblivion.
Why don't equipe a crossbow ? Or use a fire magical potion ? Or try your luck with a sword ?
You still have mana potions and mana orb things.
Whats the difference, multi-shot or not? They should still remain weaker than any of your offensive spells. Making them multi-shot, as an example, would just make your basic ranged attack more versatile. Anyway, thats just opinions and balance we can only guess. It could stay a single shot, too.
This sums it up.
This isn't D2, though we don't know much about this, we don't know if spell casters can even dream of using crossbows or bows.
Of course, but what if you run out of mana and don't want to waste a potion just to kill a few week monsters? Besides, mana potions are not going to rain from the sky and you can't use 16 in a boss fight. The wand could make you avoid wasting potions. Again, thats situational, I wouldn't hesitate using my mana potions against a boss.
I'm not telling shooting wands are useless gameplay wise because you can do the stuff I said.
The crossbow, fire oil and sword are a suggestions that can resolve the "no mana wizard" problem without transforming wands in ranged weapons.
Instead of transform the wand in a ranged weapon they should simply allow the wizard to use a ranged weapon or implement those potions that would be especially usefull to him in those situations.
If they're that weak, I'd have no problem running up to it and whacking it. But I'm not saying wands should be melee--I'm not saying they should be long-ranged either--I just don't want them to be too relied on if you're out of mana and out of pots.
You know what? Scrap wands. Wizards are Asian, they can fist-fight.
Regarding to the suggestion about bows/crossbows, it may not be as "ideal" for gameplay. Most likely these bows will have stats and bonuses that favour an archer. Of course you could just make wizard bows...
As for the image, personally I'd rather have a wizard using a wand that shoots mysterious laser beams than a wizard using a bow. It just doesn't fit the archetype of wizard.
A poor attempt to make shooting wands look less logical is that, Diablo is full of weird unrealistic stuff anyways. I mean we got wands that can initiate lightning bolts at 10%...so why not have wands that have the inherent ability to shoot stuff, thus not "needing" mana. That is, if a barb were to use it, he can also shoot stuff with it as well. It's a cheesy attempt, but whatever...
Oh, wait... you could do that with melee weapons as well. Scratch the above.