I would have them as they are but without the stupid 30% dmg reduction buff for monk and barb.
I wouldn't have removed fundamentals, virtuoso or gimped weapon throw passive.
If Blizzard insist on giving melee characters more dmg boost they could simply work around the issue and either:
- Make shields stronger
- Make defensive passive skills stronger.
To these two changes , one might say: "Sumsarr... doesn't that mean a range class could have the same dmg reduction as a melee class? That's outrageous!". Well, it's not. If a range class whishes to sacrifice their damage, they gimp their whole purpose: dealing dmg to mobs before they reach them. One might then claim that they will be doing the same amount of damage, but with the difference being that the ranged variation will have the advantage of being ranged. That is false:
If we first choose to look at Wizard we can comfirm that all the melee spells are more efficient than range spells. Explosive blast deals 205% weapon dmg in 12y for 20 ap. Compare this to the infamous Arcane Orb which deals 175% weapon dmg in 10y for 35 ap. One could also compare spectral blades with magic missiles and draw the same conclusion.
This would mean a ranged wizard wearing a powerful shield would deal less damage than a melee wizard. However, if she removes the shield and replaces it with a strong offhand, she will likely deal more damage (or as much, but with the advantage of being ranged) as the melee wizard. Same principle goes for passive skills.
Comparing a melee DH to a ranged DH is easier in this scenario, because it would look something like this:
The strongest 1hxbow in the database has 210 dps (http://us.battle.net...rossbow/#page=2) while the strongest melee sword has 245 dps (http://us.battle.net...word-1h/#page=2). This means that the melee DH can afford to spend passives (or item slots) on defensive stats while still not being afraid of losing damage.
The issue with Wizard is that Blizzard built a bad system regarding dmg (weapon dmg for spells as well as melee dmg). This makes it VERY hard to balance a spellcaster, since the spellcaster, the Wizard, will be using basicly the same equipment when they're ranged and melee.
My overall changes would therefore be:
- Remove 30% shit buff
- Implement Virtuoso, fundamentals and ranged barb passsive buff
- Slight buff to Wizard melee spells. Add a few more runed melee variations to the Wizard allowing more melee playstyles and give the existing onces a slight buff. Explosive blast could for instance have ~3 second cooldown instead of 6.
- Make a bit shields stronger. By doing this The barbarian and the monk and the melee variations of DH, Wiz and WD could feel more comfortable in melee range. Some might whine and say a Barbarian shouldn't be forced to pick up a shield in order to pass inferno, but maybe he doesn't have to. You should be able to build a "glass barbarian" as well as a glass wizard. The glass barbarian might rely on dealing shitloads of damage while leeching life you simply killing stuff before they kill him. He will, however, lose defensive stats.
- Make defensive passives slightly stronger. By doing this only extend the variation of unique playstyles, which is something good according to me. As we have noticed, a range Wizard could pick up the defensive passives as well, but that would mean she would deal less damage than her melee variation, making it fair.
With these changes, some people will think I'm ruining the class diversity. That's not the case. What these changes would do is make the existing class diversity balance. As it is, Blizzard have made it possible to do a melee DH and a melee Wizard with clear spells and runes. The possibility does however not mean it's good by any means. Actually, as it is, it's shit.
A melee Wizard will NEVER be as good as a melee barbarian and a ranged barbarian will NEVER be as good as a Demon Hunter. That is bullshit.
Consider a Diablo in which the paladin HAD to punch his opponents to death, the amazon HAD to use bows, the druid HAD to shapeshift and the assassin HAD to use martial arts. Now, try to remember Diablo II and what made the game amazing. Part of it was for sure the fact that the Druid could be a tankish melee class, taking as much damage as a barb or be played as a spell caster, being able to compeat with a sorc. The Amazon could at the same time go javazon style and deal most damage in game at the expense of losing her range, but she could also go the safe route and spam multishots.
It was BEAUTIFUL. It was still a clear class diversity, a druid was a druid and a sorc was a sorc, but when the druid and the sorc chose to compeat in the same field they were equals.
Sorry for lack of structure in the post. Not 100% sober.
Edited by Sumsarr, 08 April 2012 - 08:03 AM.