Traditional Weapon-Character Relation Maintained

Being one of the largest Diablo fan-based websites out there, it goes without thinking to say that all of you remember the heavy customization in Diablo II and I- your weapon selection, armor selection, and so forth- but new sources confide that this might not be the case in Diablo III to allow for more refined skill, rune, and item effects and animations. And, of course, the source is none other than Bashiok, as has been the case countless times in the past.

The question is, will this kind of limit be necessary to ensure stable animations and effects, as claimed by Bashiok on behalf of the Blizzard game developers, or are they simply trying to ease their workload by purposefully limiting the creativity of players? The discussion, as it continues, can be seen here for your viewing pleasure.

In the past, when the game was not as far along as it is now, very nebulous and vague replies were given for any inquiries about the function of character limitations in wearing certain kinds of gear. That was, however, some time ago, and it would seem that things are coming along now more quickly and definitively than in the past, as Bashiok goes to reply to fans about the status of character-specific gear:

Quote from "Bashiok »
[...][/I']we do now have some restrictions on weapon types usable by each class. It's been part of the game for a while now.


In Diablo II, many can remember that apart from gear specifically tagged with a character-specific label, players could equip their characters with any gear in the game that dropped. The Sorceress could wield a maul and the Necromancer could wield a two-handed hammer to seize of a barrel. While this did not in most cases work very effectively, as many other item types were tailor-made by developers with specific modifiers to account for specific character types and builds, it allowed a reasonable amount of creativity and past-time playability for players looking for something "outside the norm". This, however, apparently required more development time for additional logical animations to account for the use of certain skills when bearing a certain type of item for a certain class.

Bashiok went on to discuss the importance of the decision to regard characters wearing any type of item as a vital part of the game as something that could be dropped for other, possibly more exciting and important, parts of the game mechanics, specifically pertaining to weapons:

Quote from "Bashiok" »
Allowing every class to use every weapon type was actually going to require a huge amount of time and effort and it would have meant cutting out or cutting into other features. We evaluated really how often people would want to have their class holding a weapon type that (traditionally) contradicted their class-style versus that work going in to other features - specifically having a lot more skills and a lot more skill-rune effects. We made the obvious choice which is making sure there are a ton of awesome skills and rune effects to choose from.


However, quickly after this thought he went on to say, with a liberal amount of obvious typed-dictation, that allowed weapon types for characters will not dictate what stats will be on them at all times, although only logical modifiers will be on the equipment:

Quote from "Bashiok" »
Because I can see the conclusions being jumped to RIGHT NOW in my old cranium - let me state that weapon types do not dictate stats. At least not wholly (barbarians can't use staves so there's no point in allowing fury related stats on them). We understand that the game is about variation, customization, and experimentation in class builds. We're not World of Warcraft, we're not looking to make weapon stats "optimal" for the types and classes that will use them. Which is to say, we're not going to put specific stats in specific amounts on each weapon of a specific type because we're making assumptions about what each class wants out of their stats. We want variation, and experimentation, and all that good stuff. These restrictions don't affect those goals, it really just means you probably won't see a wizard lugging around a two-handed axe. Kind of a bummer, but then think about what it affords us to work on with more and better looking skills, a more robust rune-skill system, etc.


This will, though, as he said, not affect the customization of builds with the individual character, pertaining mostly, perhaps, to skill modifiers. He goes on to promise that they are working hard to ensure that custom "off" builds will still be both fun and effective, something that was found lacking for many in Diablo II.

Quote from "Bashiok »
[I][...][/I']we want to have a large variation of stats on all weapons to allow for experimentation and "off-build" customization.


When questioned about consideration of limiting armor choice for characters, Bashiok replied with a no, for the most part:

Quote from "Bashiok" »
There still aren't any armor restriction planned. Armor is a different issue as it's shown in much the same was as Diablo II, so more types don't actually increase the animation/modeling costs like weapon types would.


And, of course, he would not be a very good Blizzard representative if he did not end on a note of ambiguity, throwing any facts back to the wind of imprecision:

Quote from "Bashiok »
[I]The list of what weapon types are or aren't allowed for each class aren't final and could change.[/B'] They're fairly logical choices and what is most commonly seen as closely tied to the hero archetypes. In our current game the wizard can't wield a two-handed sword for instance, but can still use a one handed sword and shield if so desired.


With that, we end with a hope of what is on most of our minds as we consider the newer implementations and focuses in the up-coming sequel to the decade-old Diablo franchise- that the ideas that they are choosing to work with are primarily focal points that they want to make the series, as a whole, better with in this new installment, focusing on the first-hand rational issues:

Quote from "Bashiok" »
We want to spend our time and effort on what makes sense to making the game better.


(See [B]here
for a similar discussion.)

Comments

  • #1 exen88
    So to say, you'll probably never see a wizard holding a sword as this weapon can only be carried by a barbarian or a class capable of wielding such weapons. Imagine 1000 players playing the wizard class and none of them holds any other different kinds of weapons other than a staff and stave. They all will look the same.

    With the class restricted items being implemented, I can only hope it doesn't ruin the game in the character building aspect, anyways.
  • #2 Magistrate
    No, only specific types of swords. You won't see a Wizard holding a ten-ton, two-handed sword. A short sword? Yes, most likely.

    Of course, so far we haven't seen a Wizard carry anything but that odd, glowing orb, so we don't even know if the stereotypical casting weapons will only be limited to that, anyway.

    And, of course, as was quoted, that isn't set in stone yet, anyway (although it is very likely).

    I can only hope it doesn't ruin the game in the character building aspect, anyways.


    Bashiok said that it shouldn't be an issue, although he failed to elaborate on how they were going to supplement it. In all reality, though, not many people play outside the norm, anyway. Although it's nice to have the option there, of course.
  • #3 exen88
    Quote from "Seth" »
    No, only specific types of swords. You won't see a Wizard holding a ten-ton, two-handed sword. A short sword? Yes, most likely.

    Of course, so far we haven't seen a Wizard carry anything but that odd, glowing orb, so we don't even know if the stereotypical casting weapons will only be limited to that, anyway.

    And, of course, as was quoted, that isn't set in stone yet, anyway (although it is very likely).



    Bashiok said that it shouldn't be an issue, although he failed to elaborate on how they were going to supplement it. In all reality, though, not many people play outside the norm, anyway. Although it's nice to have the option there, of course.

    Again, bashiok stated that because of the weapon restriction they are allowed to dive into creating better stats in a weapon specific for a class. This is only logical as it helps the character archetype, as he said. So, in saying, it would be pointless for a wizard to wield a sword when that sword doesn't give any specific stats to the wizard. Overall, if you look at it this way, no one will use a sword or any other weapon in the long run just because they don't get anything out of that weapon.

    as quoted by Bashiok...
    We want variation, and experimentation, and all that good stuff. These restrictions don't affect those goals, it really just means you probably won't see a wizard lugging around a two-handed axe. Kind of a bummer, but then think about what it affords us to work on with more and better looking skills, a more robust rune-skill system, etc.


    The list of what weapon types are or aren't allowed for each class aren't final and could change. They're fairly logical choices and what is most commonly seen as closely tied to the hero archetypes.
  • #4 Magistrate
    Quote from "exen88" »
    Again, bashiok stated that because of the weapon restriction they are allowed to dive into creating better stats in a weapon specific for a class. This is only logical as it helps the character archetype, as he said. So, in saying, it would be pointless for a wizard to wield a sword when that sword doesn't give any specific stats to the wizard. Overall, if you look at it this way, no one will use a sword or any other weapon in the long run just because they don't get anything out of that weapon.


    So, you're saying that, while a character may be able to equip any number of other weapons in the game, only a certain amount of them will matter to anyone serious about their class because only certain types of items will provide modifiers to work with the class?

    as quoted by Bashiok...
    We want variation, and experimentation, and all that good stuff. These restrictions don't affect those goals, it really just means you probably won't see a wizard lugging around a two-handed axe. Kind of a bummer, but then think about what it affords us to work on with more and better looking skills, a more robust rune-skill system, etc.

    The list of what weapon types are or aren't allowed for each class aren't final and could change. They're fairly logical choices and what is most commonly seen as closely tied to the hero archetypes.


    Yes...? What are you quoting it for? That's exactly what I said :D
  • #5 exen88
    Lol. I quoted what Bashiok said so you can read it and understand my point, and you did. Good.

    btw-why are you still up this late? Lol
  • #6 ScyberDragon
    I am ok with a wizard not wielding a maul. My only concern is that weapons will loose there importance to skill runes. IMO weapons were the most important piece of gear to get and armor was more as bonuses. When I got better boots I was like "yeah" but when I got a new weapon i was like "YEAH!!!". I feel with the direction they are going weapons will not be as important as skill runes. Not that skill runes aren't the best new system they are adding. I just feel in a dos game weapons still need to hold significance.
  • #7 SFJake
    "In our current game the wizard can't wield a two-handed sword for instance, but can still use a one handed sword and shield if so desired."

    Where is that line?

    Its extremely important.
  • #8 Magistrate
    Quote from "exen88" »
    Lol. I quoted what Bashiok said so you can read it and understand my point, and you did. Good.

    btw-why are you still up this late? Lol


    There wasn't anything to understand. Your initial point made no sense and then you quoted parts that said exactly what I did. You're an odd one, you :cute:

    Up this late? Time zones differ. And the times on posts are a few hours off, they're trying to fix it. Bit of a nuisance, actually....

    "In our current game the wizard can't wield a two-handed sword for instance, but can still use a one handed sword and shield if so desired."

    Where is that line?

    Its extremely important.


    Ah, thanks for noticing that. It seems my copy-and-paste skills are not what they used to be. That is a very important line.
  • #9 mattheo_majik
    It's some good news. I don't think folks should make a fuss about it. Once again a smart trade off done by Blizzard to eliminate an unused part of D2 and improve on it. D2 gave us the choice to equip anything but it honestly never really mattered for two reason;

    1) You never saw Necros throwing daggers, barbarians wielding crossbows or amazons swigning 200 pound thunder mauls. (wasted effort)

    2) If ever you did, it wasn't for the use of the weapon, only for it's + to such skill attributes or MF, etc. But apparently Blizzard are making sure that every weapon has a large assortment of attributes to make sure builds aren't limited.

    3) The only possible thing we lose outa this is the (funny factor) of seeing a zon with a staff, or being able to say, I'm different just cause my barb has a crossbow. But the fact of the matter is this coolness factor is more then compensated in the uniqueness of the skills/build/rune variations that we will see. And honestly, the maul zon would have a lasting wow effect of about half a second before it got boring and everyone realized how useless it was and moved on. The real original builds were not dependant on the visual of their weapons but on the effectiveness of their build complimenting powerful skills. Ex: A fire sorc transmuting into a warebear using massive enchant weapon. This was an original build that would of been just as cool with any weapons providing decent bonuses relevant to it's needs.

    So by removing all this nonsense and giving us the same ammount of customizability through weapon attributes and even cooler rune/skills, I believe they are really improving on what had made D2 so successful.
  • #10 Majpain
    Very Lame if you ask me.

    Its almost their trying to force you to play as a pure caster but bringing in skill runes to diversify things but the only thing is its going to create is there will be 1 rune that goes with a skill that is OP and every build will use it.

    Blizzard needs to change their way of thinking.
  • #11 Darkligen
    Quote from "scyberdragon" »
    My only concern is that weapons will loose there importance to skill runes. IMO weapons were the most important piece of gear to get and armor was more as bonuses. When I got better boots I was like "yeah" but when I got a new weapon i was like "YEAH!!!". I feel with the direction they are going weapons will not be as important as skill runes. Not that skill runes aren't the best new system they are adding. I just feel in a dos game weapons still need to hold significance.


    i absolutly agree with this. My strongest diablo 2 character was a necromancer and oddly enough his weapon was a maul. i just never thought that the class weapons had enough stat boosters to compensate for their weakness.

    The only way that i think that the extra focus on the new rune skill would be as good and probably better than the weapon thing would be if there was as much diversity in the runes as there are in weapons...doubt it but im keeping my fingers cross.
  • #12 Talic's_Demise
    Look guys come on, in Diablo II a sorceress could wield a giant maul too...it didn't mean she was gonna be tough stuff with it but it was possible...so ok we can wear everything in Diablo III but it doesn't mean it'll be the most appropriate stuff for every character...what's the big deal :D nothing to critisize this is just going great!!! I'm still waiting for patch 1.13 though :D:D:D
  • #13 lurked
    Quote from "Majpain" »
    Very Lame if you ask me.

    Its almost their trying to force you to play as a pure caster but bringing in skill runes to diversify things but the only thing is its going to create is there will be 1 rune that goes with a skill that is OP and every build will use it.

    Blizzard needs to change their way of thinking.


    So, you decided, without even trying 1 rune, that it would be extremely unbalanced, and in no way it would make your character different from others of the same class?

    I'm sorry, I'm not buying this. The way you're speaking, Blizzard has no idea how to develop a game, and anybody who played any blizz game even 1 day could do a better job and balance everything better...

    Playing some kind of skill-based rpg(like Ultima Online, where you dont have a class but hundreds of skills and you choose your 'class' only by using the skills you trained) it would make some sense, but in a class-based game, it's normal for some classes to have weapons limitations...

    Of course it's good to have some customization possibilities, to try some unexpected builds... But IMO a wizard able to wear a 2hands sword/maul is completely BS and doesn't fit in any respected RPG... That's one of the thing that was totally nonsensical in Diablo2.

    Very lame, if you ask me.
  • #14 Black_Sheperd
    Very Lame if you ask me.

    Its almost their trying to force you to play as a pure caster but bringing in skill runes to diversify things but the only thing is its going to create is there will be 1 rune that goes with a skill that is OP and every build will use it.

    Blizzard needs to change their way of thinking.



    What the heck is this, i didnt know we had a better game developer than blizzard withiin the blizzard forums.

    Listen my man Bashiok has already stated

    We evaluated really how often people would want to have their class holding a weapon type that (traditionally) contradicted their class-style versus that work going in to other features - specifically having a lot more skills and a lot more skill-rune effects. We made the obvious choice which is making sure there are a ton of awesome skills and rune effects to choose from
    .

    So yea we lose a bit senseless customization like having a wizard wield a maul twice his size (in the real world it would be like putting a medic with a rocket launcher in the front line, kinda wierd huh) but on the other hand as bashiok has said they will put the effort of senseless customization and direct it towards more skills , skill rune effects, so basically adding a lot more meaningful depth to each individual class. I prefer that idea over being able to use a freakin 2 handed pillar as an archer. I hope i was clear.
  • #15 SFJake
    Quote from name="Black Sheperd" »

    So yea we lose a bit senseless customization like having a wizard wield a maul twice his size (in the real world it would be like putting a medic with a rocket launcher in the front line, kinda wierd huh) but on the other hand as bashiok has said they will put the effort of senseless customization and direct it towards more skills , skill rune effects, so basically adding a lot more meaningful depth to each individual class. I prefer that idea over being able to use a freakin 2 handed pillar as an archer. I hope i was clear.



    I'm sorry, but you just bought his whole silly excuse which is nothing but a joke to make you think exactly that "I prefer that over this".

    His excuses makes no technical sense.

    I don't disagree entirely with the decisions, I mean the wizard can't use big two-handed stuff, the barbarian can't use wands.. I mean, that kind of things I couldn't care less and won't affect the game much, except those that really love to try anything.

    All I'm saying is, Bashiok doesn't deserve any credit for his comment. Sweet, he's talking to the community, but his text is there for nothing. A few lines would be saying the same thing.
  • #16 PhrozenDragon
    Quote from "SFJake" »
    I'm sorry, but you just bought his whole silly excuse which is nothing but a joke to make you think exactly that "I prefer that over this".

    So you'd rather have him say nothing and get angry fans complaining that Blizzard gives us even less info than now?

    Either way, much like most other changes so far announced in D3, I can't say I'm really glad or disappointed by them. You could call me saturated with D3 info, because I really don't care that much at present. For all we know, this could pan out great, or it could severely limit character builds.

    But without a ton of more info about the rest of the game, such as how skill runes work exacly, what limits they have, what bonuses they provide, how many weapons this actually prevents us from using, how big of a percentage that is of the total item pool and what other item modifying options there are, how are we supposed to know at this point if this is a horrible change?
  • #17 Rousse
    Quote from "SFJake" »
    His excuses makes no technical sense.


    Actually they do. For every weapon model you allow a character class to use, you have to design several swing animations for that weapon class, unique to the character class. For example, a 2h mace does not swing the same as a 2h sword, if you simply reuse the same animation, it looks awkward and cheap. By not allowing the wizard to use 2h swords and mauls, thats 2 less base attack animations to do, who knows if the wizard may have special melee attacks, creating 2 more animations that have to be developed and tested for each one.

    Yea, it may limit a few things that we can do with classes down the road, but if they do the itemization right we really shouldn't even care. If they're careful not to put anything too nifty for casters on 2h weapons, why would you ever want to equip one?
  • #18 SFJake
    Quote from "Rousse" »
    Actually they do. For every weapon model you allow a character class to use, you have to design several swing animations for that weapon class, unique to the character class. For example, a 2h mace does not swing the same as a 2h sword, if you simply reuse the same animation, it looks awkward and cheap. By not allowing the wizard to use 2h swords and mauls, thats 2 less base attack animations to do, who knows if the wizard may have special melee attacks, creating 2 more animations that have to be developed and tested for each one.


    Its no way as excessive as he says it is, unless their engine is so badly designed. According to him, it would mean even CUTTING some other features out. This sounds pretty ridiculous to me. I do understand that it takes -works- and all that, but he's pushing it.

    Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
    So you'd rather have him say nothing and get angry fans complaining that Blizzard gives us even less info than now?


    I'd rather he just get to the point.
  • #19 ScyberDragon
    The comment that "it is too time constraining when they could be spending that time on more important things like skill rune effects" only reiterates my fear that fear that weapons are loosing their significance.

    I don't want to do the whole WoW vs Diablo converation but...
    In WoW your weapon was more for stats to boost your spells more than the weapons itself. You would almost never auto attack it was spell after spell after spell.
    In D2 your auto attack was still viable and necessary meaning your actual weapon was still necessary for more than its stats. I am afraid weapons will just become stat boosters like an amulet or helm. IMO in a DPS game weapons need to take main stage over spells. Spells should supplement your attacks not replace them as I am afraid they are doing.

    Please dont get rid of "auto attack" hack/slash means weapons with spells not spells instead of weapons.
  • #20 lurked
    Quote from "scyberdragon" »

    In WoW your weapon was more for stats to boost your spells more than the weapons itself. You would almost never auto attack it was spell after spell after spell.



    I guess you played only a caster in WoW, because for any melee class, a weapon was a HUGE upgrade when you got a new one. Yes the stats were important, but the high end dmg/attack speed of the weapon was REALLY important for your auto-attack AND your skills in WoW.

    And for a caster, it was less important, it was more for the stats, but they balanced it so caster weapons had less stats budget in the dmg, and instead it was giving tons of Spell Power, to increase the spells dmg, so the significance of a weapon is still there.

    So you're right saying that it was more the spells doing the dmg, and obviously the auto-attacks are less important(except for rogues, where it's almost 50% of their dmg), but even in WoW, the weapons were a huge part of the dmg done by most classes.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes