Has anyone wandered why there are no shield skills at all? How could they have shields and not have any skills that gives players more of an incentive to use them?
I personally am a fan of using shields, but I think it would be nice if we had some special moves or abilities that gives us reason to use shields, other than an extra boost to our defense.
"Has anyone wandered why there are no shield skills at all? How could they have shields and not have any skills that gives players more of an incentive to use them?
I personally am a fan of using shields, but I think it would be nice if we had some special moves or abilities that gives us reason to use shields, other than an extra boost to our defense. "
Utter Rubbish....
Also, most likely a character that is centered around shields is a definately possibility in an up coming expansion.... Paladin perhaps....
Has anyone wandered why there are no shield skills at all? How could they have shields and not have any skills that gives players more of an incentive to use them?
I personally am a fan of using shields, but I think it would be nice if we had some special moves or abilities that gives us reason to use shields, other than an extra boost to our defense.
Shields are pretty much for casters... they don't really make sense for what the monk, barb, and dh are supposed to be. Remember, the barb is a crazed death machine, not a warrior/paladin/templar/indestructible killer in a can type. Killing with your fists with a shield on your back is pretty dumb as well, and so is being a quick agile class, throwing traps, plinking at things with a little one handed crossbow pistol, and doing backflips while holding a large wall of metal.
For the casters, its a choice between a class restricted offhand (orbs and voodoo dolls), or a shield. Just stats either way.
Would be kind of odd to give a caster shield attacks, the wizard's armor spells fill the enchant-my-shield niche, and the witch doctors defenses are all more active. I think it actually makes a lot of sense that there aren't shield skills... they just wouldn't really fit anywhere.
Requiring certain types of items in order to use a skill seem pretty lame to me. A passive skill which boosts defense based on a percent however is a great incentive to use a shield on your character.
Even without skills that utilize a shield, a shield is still useful in itself. Making skills that utilize the should would probably just make having one way too powerful.
They could have added 1 or 2 skills that change slightly while wielding a shield for the barb. It wouldn't have taken anything away from the barb as a class, but could have added a little more diversity.
Not saying we need more diversity, but it would have been nice
I really do hope a paladin-like class comes in the expansion; I'm a huge fan of shields.
D3 really needs the paladin back as the 1h and shield wielder, atm shield doesn't fit any of the class. Only fits the Templar follower.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I love all loot fest kind of game! I will be playing all of them for the next few years. Loot fest games I'm looking forward to: LotR: War in the North,Torchlight 2,Borderlands 2 and of course Diablo 3.
At one point in D2, weapon/shield barbarians were imba. Couldn't hit them and they'd just WW you to death. That changed, obviously, but I remember it being fun as hell being untouchable.
Sword shield holy archetype is what I just so truly miss from this game and it seems like a few niche are missing, including use for shields. Frankly, I don't see any of the current class to feel right with a shield. They seem to all have better alternatives that also fits them better.
A paladin would also fit perfectly of course for defensive and offensive oriented shield skills.
Sword shield holy archetype is what I just so truly miss from this game and it seems like a few niche are missing, including use for shields. Frankly, I don't see any of the current class to feel right with a shield. They seem to all have better alternatives that also fits them better.
A paladin would also fit perfectly of course for defensive and offensive oriented shield skills.
So, a holy, melee, healing, aura, shield archetype is needed to complement the holy, melee, healing, aura, not-shield archetype?
Paladin is just what you know, maybe not so much what Blizzard can make you happy with. If everything but the shield is what really made you love the paladin, I would bet (or at least hope) you will enjoy the monk. If the shield was what really made the paladin tick for you, I think Blizzard can do a lot better than adding something so similar to the monk.
I don't disagree that there is room for a shield-based class, but if they fill that niche in an expansion, I think it the right way to do it to make something a lot more distinct from the monk than "we brought back the diablo pally." That role is kinda filled.
The cool kids these days like to pretend that Blizzard doesn't make absolutely amazing games, and that everyone who can register a forum account can make better games, but I guess I'm just not cool. If they expand with a shield-based class, I expect them to bring something a little more unique, and would be shocked if it is anything short of awesome. If they can't come up with something distinct from the monk and barbarian (just including cause shield-based tends towards melee), something awesome, I expect they wont make a shield class. That would make me a bit sad, but not as sad as if they gave us something mediocre.
That would be pretty sweet. Shield/spear was always a favorite of mine, but it's just so unused in most games. The earth spells would add a cool new twist to it, too.
Either that or I just want them to let me play as the Templar
So, a holy, melee, healing, aura, shield archetype is needed to complement the holy, melee, healing, aura, not-shield archetype?
Paladin is just what you know, maybe not so much what Blizzard can make you happy with. If everything but the shield is what really made you love the paladin, I would bet (or at least hope) you will enjoy the monk. If the shield was what really made the paladin tick for you, I think Blizzard can do a lot better than adding something so similar to the monk.
I don't disagree that there is room for a shield-based class, but if they fill that niche in an expansion, I think it the right way to do it to make something a lot more distinct from the monk than "we brought back the diablo pally." That role is kinda filled.
The cool kids these days like to pretend that Blizzard doesn't make absolutely amazing games, and that everyone who can register a forum account can make better games, but I guess I'm just not cool. If they expand with a shield-based class, I expect them to bring something a little more unique, and would be shocked if it is anything short of awesome. If they can't come up with something distinct from the monk and barbarian (just including cause shield-based tends towards melee), something awesome, I expect they wont make a shield class. That would make me a bit sad, but not as sad as if they gave us something mediocre.
I have the Beta, and the monk is boring. (opinion)
You seem to have made a few too many assumptions. Paladin is really just an example that is exactly what I liked from Diablo 2. I'd be perfectly fine if they thought of a more interesting sword-shield wielding class. The holy part isn't what I care about the most, the sword and shield part is.
There are totally plenty of sweet and more unique ideas they could come up with and I'd welcome that. I would -prefer- a Paladin specifically but I'd settle for anything with a sword and shield, and I can understand if the Paladins steps in the Monk's way.
Though just because it is holy, doesn't mean it has to be anything like the Monk. Or Diablo 2's Paladin for that matter.
Oh hell yes! I can totally see this happening and working. I'd really like to see a shield style class added in the expansion and the egyptian themed warrior would work nicely.
I think that a spear/shield type class would be cool. What blitzer posted sounds like a great idea. Maybe a little homage to the Amazon (and give it some 2h possibility so as not to be "stuck" with just a shield).
To get back to the original topic, I think a shield skill or two would be neat for the Barbarian.
Concentrate Barbarians used shields in D2, so there's no reason why the D3 Barbarian couldn't use one as well.
Even just one skill for offensive shield use could open up the field for all kinds of defensive oriented builds. Right now Barbs rely pretty much on Shouts for defense.
I certainly don't think it would hurt the game, anyway. And it would still leave the field open for future shield-bearers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I personally am a fan of using shields, but I think it would be nice if we had some special moves or abilities that gives us reason to use shields, other than an extra boost to our defense.
I personally am a fan of using shields, but I think it would be nice if we had some special moves or abilities that gives us reason to use shields, other than an extra boost to our defense. "
Utter Rubbish....
Also, most likely a character that is centered around shields is a definately possibility in an up coming expansion.... Paladin perhaps....
Shields are pretty much for casters... they don't really make sense for what the monk, barb, and dh are supposed to be. Remember, the barb is a crazed death machine, not a warrior/paladin/templar/indestructible killer in a can type. Killing with your fists with a shield on your back is pretty dumb as well, and so is being a quick agile class, throwing traps, plinking at things with a little one handed crossbow pistol, and doing backflips while holding a large wall of metal.
For the casters, its a choice between a class restricted offhand (orbs and voodoo dolls), or a shield. Just stats either way.
Would be kind of odd to give a caster shield attacks, the wizard's armor spells fill the enchant-my-shield niche, and the witch doctors defenses are all more active. I think it actually makes a lot of sense that there aren't shield skills... they just wouldn't really fit anywhere.
Even without skills that utilize a shield, a shield is still useful in itself. Making skills that utilize the should would probably just make having one way too powerful.
Not saying we need more diversity, but it would have been nice
I really do hope a paladin-like class comes in the expansion; I'm a huge fan of shields.
D3 really needs the paladin back as the 1h and shield wielder, atm shield doesn't fit any of the class. Only fits the Templar follower.
I agree it needs to use shield stats more tho.
Uh... no there aren't. What are you talking about?
Sword shield holy archetype is what I just so truly miss from this game and it seems like a few niche are missing, including use for shields. Frankly, I don't see any of the current class to feel right with a shield. They seem to all have better alternatives that also fits them better.
A paladin would also fit perfectly of course for defensive and offensive oriented shield skills.
So, a holy, melee, healing, aura, shield archetype is needed to complement the holy, melee, healing, aura, not-shield archetype?
Paladin is just what you know, maybe not so much what Blizzard can make you happy with. If everything but the shield is what really made you love the paladin, I would bet (or at least hope) you will enjoy the monk. If the shield was what really made the paladin tick for you, I think Blizzard can do a lot better than adding something so similar to the monk.
I don't disagree that there is room for a shield-based class, but if they fill that niche in an expansion, I think it the right way to do it to make something a lot more distinct from the monk than "we brought back the diablo pally." That role is kinda filled.
The cool kids these days like to pretend that Blizzard doesn't make absolutely amazing games, and that everyone who can register a forum account can make better games, but I guess I'm just not cool. If they expand with a shield-based class, I expect them to bring something a little more unique, and would be shocked if it is anything short of awesome. If they can't come up with something distinct from the monk and barbarian (just including cause shield-based tends towards melee), something awesome, I expect they wont make a shield class. That would make me a bit sad, but not as sad as if they gave us something mediocre.
Offensive spells, Earth spells, Golems
That would be pretty sweet. Shield/spear was always a favorite of mine, but it's just so unused in most games. The earth spells would add a cool new twist to it, too.
Either that or I just want them to let me play as the Templar
You seem to have made a few too many assumptions. Paladin is really just an example that is exactly what I liked from Diablo 2. I'd be perfectly fine if they thought of a more interesting sword-shield wielding class. The holy part isn't what I care about the most, the sword and shield part is.
There are totally plenty of sweet and more unique ideas they could come up with and I'd welcome that. I would -prefer- a Paladin specifically but I'd settle for anything with a sword and shield, and I can understand if the Paladins steps in the Monk's way.
Though just because it is holy, doesn't mean it has to be anything like the Monk. Or Diablo 2's Paladin for that matter.
You have inspired me to make a fan class... The
GLADIATOR
Thats sounds like something that would fall into a DOTA class... a 200-300 range melee attack and a web/stun lol.
Concentrate Barbarians used shields in D2, so there's no reason why the D3 Barbarian couldn't use one as well.
Even just one skill for offensive shield use could open up the field for all kinds of defensive oriented builds. Right now Barbs rely pretty much on Shouts for defense.
I certainly don't think it would hurt the game, anyway. And it would still leave the field open for future shield-bearers.