Quote fromSynergies aren't being planned for nor are they expected.
It's sort of a funny question, because broken down you're essentially asking "Are the skill trees in Diablo III going to be boring and require incentive to spend points in skills no one wants?"
Ideally the answer to that is no. Smiley
There are some other things going on too that make sure synergies even less of a necessity. Clear separation of active and passive skills, respecs, ... and MORE!
I personally felt that synergies fixed more than they broke but, as we all know, Diablo II has had a long history of bad balancing and cookie-cutter builds. Perhaps in light of how Diablo fans reacted to synergies in Diablo II, the Diablo III team is deciding against such an implementation.
This quote actually also led to some speculation by one of our own members here (http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18838), DarkMagicc, about the viability of respeccing, if anyone wants to go and check that out.
I'd say we're actually getting a decent flow of updates if you know what to look for. Comments? Ideas? Trolling that I can delete to raise my moderation score?
Actually, we now have passives, we have skill runes, we will probably have different levels of the same rune (to make it effective). I bet there will be more mechanics to make skills more customizable..
yeah it makes sense that firebolt makes fireball stronger.
But why spend 20 points in firebolt if you will only use fireball? If they wanted it to be stronger they should have just made a separate skill for more fireball damage.
I think they will do stuff like this in d3, for the arcane arcane missile attack the wizard has and other attacks
Example bone armor, it was better to put points to bonewall which gave you more armor than bone armor itself.. (If i remember correctly)
read this:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18838
that's what i was thinking.. that the rune system is basically synergies
In my view of the system, is that they are making the stats less important, the skill decision less important, but how you use the skills, your weapons, and which runes you use..
So maybe runes are necessary to be efficient in the game..I would prefer that they add more systems like this, increasing the variety of ways to play.
I believe they should keep synergys but balance them and make them useful
That's not exactly fair to compare at all though. This is a entirely different game and I'm sure things would be balanced with the absence of synergies in mind.
To me synergies just kind of seemed like "Well we can't think of anything better to do with skills so we'll do this!"
Was just something to waste points in and limit us from having every skill.
Yes, but by giving an attack, a multistrike rune, you are basically making it (i think you call it and AOE attack) It hits more monsters, causing more over all damage with one shot.
There could be a power rune that raises damage.. Runes have many more possibilities than synergies. Synergies just limit the amount of good builds..(Its like going to college getting a Bachelors, having general attacks early on; then to succeed you must specify your build, by taking 2 or 3 attacks..by the time you get your ph.d, you only use 1-2 attacks
Now, the way it seems to me (in my head), is that you can take an attack, and make it stronger, more efficient, or just more effective, by adding a rune.
But runes aren't permanent (it wouldn't make sense to be), by putting in a run, you don't screw up a character (you might loose a rune if you want to change it), but your over all base character is still in tact...
I want to be the witch goddamn crazy doctor spamming bats and exploding mongrels with fire an poison all at the same time!!!
Diablo 3 will kickass!