WD in full plate? Is it possible? [Archive] - Diablo 3 & Diablo 2 Forums

stillman

14-08-2008, 22:58

I am quite worried about what the WD is going to look like in full plate armor.

First, he is from a tribe and uses leaves for dress. So how is it possible for there to even be a WD suit of metal armor? Even if there was a wierd suit of armor for him, how is he supposed to play basketball in it? That is, he trembles and shakes so much I figgure he would rattle around in the armor too much. Also, are there going to be special blacksmiths who build wierd breastplates for hunchbacks?

I guess they will likely come up with something like a suit of armor made out of leaves, bones or wood--something that just seems silly and flameable compared to metal armor. What are they going to do, wear HARDER leaves and WAXY feathers? Now a bone splint mail would be neat, but there's just no way it can offer the cover a full suit of metal armor can.

It makes me angry that in the LoD expansion, the armor got downgraded to druid pelts which we are supposed to believe are more defensive than metal. How is this possible? How can a fur pelt be stronger than a steel full helm? And there are special club waepons for the druid too, since he's such a nature freak. But to go from giant axes to clubs when you're up against 500 pound demons is outragous to me.

I can just tell that d3 is going to make these same sort of silly impossibilities exist. We're going to see a wad of feathers with higher defense than a solid steel helmet. A big necklace made out of clam shells or little bones is going to have higher def than a breastplate, just like a duskshroud has higher def than gothic plate.

Is anyone else disturbed by this Walt Disney armor taking over the awesome looking heavy stuff?

Mad Mantis

15-08-2008, 11:14

First, he is from a tribe and uses leaves for dress. So how is it possible for there to even be a WD suit of metal armor?

Approaching the Char from a Western culture might not be the most effective. If there is a suit of metal armor it would probably look like those Indian armors, but adorned with all kinds of feathers and sorts. I chose Indian since both African and Native American tribes tend to not wear decent armor and the Indian still has that complete exotic feel to it.

The headdress is something that I can live with if they make it outlandish and high def. Nothing prevents a type of mask like that to be made from steel and adorned with feathers, leaves and skulls.

Is anyone else disturbed by this Walt Disney armor taking over the awesome looking heavy stuff?

Not really the Walt Disney armor, but more the complete lack of regards for physics. Pauldrons even greater than the ridiculous size of the Space Marines. Spikes so large that the char shouldn’t be able to move. Dare I say WoW-ifying the armor. A bit over the top is fine, such as gaps in the armor not being a big deal, but please keep it somewhere realistic.

additov

16-08-2008, 00:45

Don't understand what you are crying over honestly - it made you ANGRY (literally?) when Druid Pelts were introduced? ..........................................
In the end, I think you're over-analyzing; because ultimately it is a video game - that you play, and enjoy. There has to be some variations and new elements.

Mad Mantis

16-08-2008, 13:11

Just because it is a video game doesn't mean that anything goes. The creators of the series set up certain rules for the universe they create. Other additions need to fit within this rule set or they feel odd. Leaves > Steel would feel odd even in this video game setting.

ill logic

16-08-2008, 17:34

Dude, they're ELITE leaves.

Gosh!

But why couldn't the WD just pick up full plate for the first time in his life during the events of D3? It seems weird that the armor changes for each char, but WDs could just use the armor that looks similar to that of another. And he's not helpless. Like all humans, I'm sure WDs have a tremendous capacity for adapting.

I've heard they'll have zombie arms attached to their armor that actively parry and block attacks.

And for nostalgia's sake:
http://www.geocities.com/alainpp66/ArmourAppearance.html

Majaii

22-08-2008, 22:45

Whose to say that the defense is not from some magical source too, instead of purely physical? I mean sure a full plate offers good defense, but if you have an enchanted animal skin that can magically turn a sword blade, wouldn't that offer pretty good defense too? This is a fantasy world after all.

Azymn

23-08-2008, 01:11

It's more about style than realism, but like Mantis said, you want to respect the rules. Maybe they're demon feathers?

Diablo II already did the cloth > metal thing. Ghost Armor trumped Full Plate Mail, Tiara's gave better defense than Full Helms, magic clubs were better than battle axes, glass jars with shrunken heads protected one better than tower shields, etc.

I think the keyword here is magic, and it doesn't fall outside the Diablo ruleset to create an artifact like Feathered Mail.

Reddimus

23-08-2008, 01:33

Aztecs or Incas had gold plated stuff, didn't they?

Chialex

23-08-2008, 07:04

Maybe most of the D3 items will be more class specific this time around instead of universal. They're already implementing that drops are not going to be universal and it will be specific per player.

Reddimus

23-08-2008, 16:59

Maybe most of the D3 items will be more class specific this time around instead of universal. They're already implementing that drops are not going to be universal and it will be specific per player.

What you mention is a new mechanic to make players happy instead of angry though. In Hellgate I think a lot of players were angry about armors being divided three ways... imagine dividing usable armor by 5 :x

Kiley

24-08-2008, 00:29

Fairly certain that Blizzard has already stated there will not be a huge amount of class only items. No plans at all for class only armor. Obviously some armor is more suited for certain classes, but nothing but the stat requirement would decide who could wear it if they wished to. In fact the only class only items they mentioned putting in the game were certain offhand weapons that would only be useable by certain classes.

As for the subject, I have no problem with whatever class using some odd stat build to equip whatever they want. The fun of Diablo is experimenting with different builds. I don't want someone telling me my Nuker class shouldn't be allowed to wield a polearm, or my witchdoctor can't use metal armor, just because they have some picture in their head that can't be violated.

Azymn

24-08-2008, 09:25

I think what they'll do is have a Witch Doctor put on armor and it just "gets" a feathers & voodoo makeover. Similar to D2 (the same armor looks different on each character), but with a bit more emphasis.

GoHabsGo

24-08-2008, 14:57

You guys are so hypocrite. You spent most of your D2 career wearing a flashy green bald guy hat (shako), a quilted armor with 3 stones in it (enigma) and other completly unsafe and unprotective pieces of armor. Hell, most people even used items and charms to profit from the ''STR bug'' therefore, wearing armors without having the required strentgh to do so and looking fully naked while doing it.

But we're all going to bash the ''unrealistic'' looks of futur D3 armors because it's the cool thing to do nowaday.

Mad Mantis

24-08-2008, 18:16

PepsiMan

25-08-2008, 01:12

Blah blah blah blah point of possible but not automatic validity

MAAAAAAAAAAGIC! MAAAAAAAAAAAGIC IT'S ALL MAGIC! I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER ALL THIS MAGIC!

But I disgress. Perhaps the armor merely need look protective, whether it be thick plated metal, or a magical forcefield eminating from rags.

stillman

25-08-2008, 02:33

That would help, being able to see the "forcefield"...

The whole "It's magic" defense just doesn't sit well with some of us. Take the high def tiaras for instance. They offer more protection than a big metal helmet even though tiaras only cover a little band area around the head. So let me see if I have this correct: the magic tiara (not even called "godly" or "blessed" with a def mod) emits some sort of magic force field that envelopes the entire head and defletcs blows. Ok, I'm buying it, I'm buying it...

But why not just have a belt that emits one of these invisible force fields over the entire body? And why can't a ring have a huge def mod using such a field? Well designers went only half way; a ring makes sense by not having a def mod due to it's tiny size (the instruction booklet for d1 explains the no def rule on rings), but shouldn't this also apply to tiaras which are basically just head bands?

I'm hoping the WD will have some metal armor with funky tribal engravings on it. They did a good job imo of the sorc from d1 and d2 by making their armor look like special mage plate that looks quite protective. Likewise, the d1 rogue had her own design for full plate. I just dont want to see a tropical flower neclace with one of these supposed force fields giveing it the integrity of steel and extra invisible coverage. That's too much of a stretch imo.

It all adds up: the cloth shakos surpassing steel, the bugs droping pole arms, daggers outdoing giant 2 handed axes for physical damage. It all leads to an immersion problem. It feels a too wacky. I want a dagger to have a dagger feel to it and dagger limitations that feel right. It kind of makes a giant axe lose all it's decorative glory if a tiny dagger does more physical damage.

If you take the magic aurguement far enough, there may as well be no armor in the game. Just let us wear 10 rings with defensive force fields...

eohano

25-08-2008, 04:59

Who said there were going to be normal/exceptional/elite items?
That was just a way to save space, you get to re-use the graphics from each item, thus it takes a third of the amount of time and space to make more items. They had all the items they really needed, then just multiplied it by three.

I doubt it will work that way in DIII
There will probably be one continuous line of armor, although much longer. That way, you can have the same range of defense in DIII, except it would get, and appear, progressively better.

GoHabsGo

25-08-2008, 05:36

Besides the fact that some of us probably had builds that used different gear, has it ever crossed your mind that the idiocy of gear in DII is why we are commenting on possible idiocy in DIII? We don’t want situations that lead to the situation you mentioned.

Necromancers we're wearing Skulls for head protection, how is that realistic? They used decapitated HEADS as shields for blocking, how is that realistic? Yet, everyone on this forum are crying about the injustice of replacing this necromancer by a fresh new idea, the Witch Doctor.

Even though I find it very silly to see people whine and complain so much about a game that is not even close to being done and for which they haven't seen more than 1% of the content, I understand without discussion about what D3 ''might'' be, this forum couldn't live. So it's normal for people to speculate and express some fear about possible flaw in the game.

But does that mean it has to be mindless unintelligent free bashing? I don't think so. To spit on the WD because of it's ''unrealistic'' armor (which we don't even know what will look like) and then claim in another post that they should bring back the ''oh so perfect'' necromancer is senseless. It's like a violent person taking place in a march against violence.

MAAAAAAAAAAGIC! MAAAAAAAAAAAGIC IT'S ALL MAGIC! I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER ALL THIS MAGIC!

But I disgress. Perhaps the armor merely need look protective, whether it be thick plated metal, or a magical forcefield eminating from rags.

If you want to be taken seriously when arguing with someone, you could at least have the decency of quoting him right. But I've read this sort of behavior reflects a lack of self-esteem in real life. You should go ahead and start up your own message board, as the admin, you'll be able to edit anyone's post. That should spice up your world a little bit!

Hige

25-08-2008, 06:07

Wow. People are actually complaining about things like this? At this rate Blizzard will never please anyone. If you want the perfect game make it yourself and stop whining.

Mad Mantis

25-08-2008, 19:00

Necromancers we're wearing Skulls for head protection, how is that realistic? They used decapitated HEADS as shields for blocking, how is that realistic?

Who claimed that was realistic? Isn't that precisely one of the things that stillman commented on in his first post? That we would rather see something make more sense?

Yet, everyone on this forum are crying about the injustice of replacing this necromancer by a fresh new idea, the Witch Doctor.

What does this have to do with wanting to see a more sensible gear progression in D3?

But does that mean it has to be mindless unintelligent free bashing? I don't think so.

Most of the comments in this thread were not mindless, unintelligent or bashing. People tend to know how to behave themselves. You can always report a post you don’t agree with.

To spit on the WD because of it's ''unrealistic'' armor (which we don't even know what will look like) and then claim in another post that they should bring back the ''oh so perfect'' necromancer is senseless.

Who is spitting on the WD? Who said the Necro was perfect? Nobody. This thread was all about the illogical progression of armor we had in DII. For some reason you decided to make this a WD vs. Necro issue.

But I've read this sort of behavior reflects a lack of self-esteem in real life. You should go ahead and start up your own message board, as the admin, you'll be able to edit anyone's post. That should spice up your world a little bit!

Both of you need to quit this.

At this rate Blizzard will never please anyone. If you want the perfect game make it yourself and stop whining.

They don't have to please anyone. All they need to do is follow their own vision and make their own decision. After they release the game we will make up our minds on buying it.
That doesn't mean that we should just stay quiet. Everyone of us sees things that they do not like in DI, DII and DIII. Voicing those opinions might give Blizz some insight they didn't have before. At the very least it will allow us to have a good time.

Saying that people should stop whining and make their own game is a really poor retort. First of all making an ad hominem by calling even people with legitimate complaints whiners is not the best way to engage in discussion. Saying people should make their own game does not help anyone interested in discourse on the topic of DIII.

Hodl Pu

25-08-2008, 20:09

Wow. People are actually complaining about things like this? At this rate Blizzard will never please anyone. If you want the perfect game make it yourself and stop whining.

Blizzard was never able to please everyone anyway. People still complain about d2, haha. And it didn't seem like whining (refering to the OP's post at least), he sounds quite casual and humorous about the subject. Its weird how a lot of people consider something "whining" when they oppose to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm glad WD's can wear full plate. When they wear it, it will probably be changed to fit his look. (I imagined a witch doctor wearing full body armor like a paladin, and it look hilarious). Restricting a WD to only cloth is... just basically class specific items in a way. And yes, there will probably no more elite/exceptional items in diii (just ongoing new ones), so that might take care of quilted armors with 300 defense. After all, if blacksmiths can repair strange looking armor, they can sure alter its look for your character. You just don't have to go through the hassle of watching them make it for you :)

GoHabsGo

25-08-2008, 21:19

Who is spitting on the WD? Who said the Necro was perfect? Nobody. This thread was all about the illogical progression of armor we had in DII. For some reason you decided to make this a WD vs. Necro issue.

Who is spitting on the WD? Top three threads on this forum at the moment;

Better name?
I hate the witch doctor
The reason i dont like witch doctor so far

I did not decide to make this a WD vs Necro issue. This forum as been about this ever since it opened. They should actually rename it WD vs Necro forum.

Didn't even take 2 seconds for me to spot 5 threads related to this on the first page.

Which you prefer: Necromancer or Witch Doctor?
Witch Doctor Versus Necromancer
fast paced necro ie the witch doctor
No Necromancer, confirmed by Bliz
No Necromancer? NOOOOOOOOO!

Like I said in my previous post, I know the purpose of a forum is to discuss and it's totally normal for people to share their expectation on D3. I just feel like this specific forum (Witch Doctor) is nothing more than free bashing and negativity.

Hige

25-08-2008, 22:55

Blizzard was never able to please everyone anyway. People still complain about d2, haha. And it didn't seem like whining (refering to the OP's post at least), he sounds quite casual and humorous about the subject. Its weird how a lot of people consider something "whining" when they oppose to the discussion.

Don't see how that's weird, and I'm not whining. I'm making a statement. People should complain less when they aren't even near done the game yet. So...

Mad Mantis

26-08-2008, 08:57

Who is spitting on the WD? Top three threads on this forum at the moment;

I was referring to this thread, not the entire forum.

Like I said in my previous post, I know the purpose of a forum is to discuss and it's totally normal for people to share their expectation on D3. I just feel like this specific forum (Witch Doctor) is nothing more than free bashing and negativity.

The bashing and negativity are the result of the way the forum was made. All the threads on this issue from the other boards were collected here. WD vs. Necro has been of great importance to people since the announcement.

Unfortunately there hasn't been any more new info released that we could discuss. The forum tends to remain static and people only really post things related to topics already open. You are free to add a positive note.

I'm sure that when new information surfaces we'll see a shift in the number of threads.

Kiley

27-08-2008, 02:52

I was referring to this thread, not the entire forum.

Heh, well to be fair, this entire forum should be renamed *Necromancer isn't in the game I hate you Blizzard*.

I really do get it, I loved the necromancer, only second to my dozens of Amazon characters. I can't really dog the WD haters because if Blizzard doesn't do something really original with the new bow/ranged class, I think I'll be acting just like these necro vs WD haters. If the new ranged class is a lame ranger with nature skills or traps, I'll probably be a vocal hater of the new class as well.

stillman

27-08-2008, 07:01

I didn't feel the need to mention this, but it may help, so I just wanted to say I'm not someone who is opposed to the WD being in the game. I am one of the fans who was hoping to see all new classes since I'm very much into originality and new ideas. Therefore, I was pleased to see a WD instead of a necro coming back to dish out more d2ness. After playing so much d2, I want a fresh new landscape of heros. I believe all the heros from d2 should be left in d2 and d3 should be full of new things. Indeed, d2 didn't bring back any playable classes from d1.

I thought this would be the case for d3, but I was wrong as the barb made a comeback. The barb looks awesome though, so I'm happy. The d2 barb had anatomy problems imo, and the d3 barb looks like a huge improvement. Anyway back OT...

I'm happy about the WD being in the game. My main complaint is about problems with immersion and believability. I have to agree with the group from another thread who say the barb looks so awesome he kind of makes the WD look not so great. The WD has the following problems imo:

The WD seems to be composed a giant mask with giant feathers. It's kind of hard to decipher him. For instance, where is his neck? Is his mouth really under the mouth part of the mask? IF they bring tiaras into the game, will the WD suddenly look 50% smaller once his mask is gone (it's a HUGE mask)? Do we have to have a mask on him at all times for this reason? If we have no helm item worn on him, will he still appear on the screen with a big mask? It seems the mask is an essential part of scaring off his enemies with that AoE spell. Can we use this spell without a mask?

Most of all, will the mask replace a breastplate...we see he is hunched over so his face is hovering around the area where his heart would be. Now try to think of this position if he is wearing full plate. They would have to design very special hunchback metal armor or make the WD actually stand up striaght to wear feasable armor. I hope they go wtih the latter. Maybe he can look like a prominant tribe elder standing tall in his decorative full plate-equivalent (I hope).

Then of course, there is the material issue. I wanted to point out that the shrunken heads mentioned in an above post are one of the things in d2 I never liked. Blocking with a head is too much of a stretch, and apparently Charsi is a neurosurgeon who can repair heads. They could have made special necro specific amys that are shrunken heads and I would have been pleased with this.

I'm really into armor and I simply don't want to see armor looks become meaningless like the trend in d2. The graphics mean nothing. Just to bring up some support, many players dislike the new inventory system because you don't get to see big weapons in their full glory (they may change this however). Well I have a similar issue with suits of armor lacking their glory because of some tiny def number which makes no sense. The big gothic plate graphics means nothing if a helm (like corona) has way more def. We are expected to believe there is one of these force fields from the helm that covers the entire body like gothic plate would.

I don't see how it's wrong to point this out. The d2 Armor/Defense system makes no sense at all. Like I said, we may as well be using a combo of force fields generated on jewelry items since d2 is all about these "magic" fields. Armor is an old RPG classic system that has always been a vital part making us feel powerful in melee. I would hate to see it go, being replaced with "magic" like it is in d2.

This is really about hope for d3 and mild concerns, not really bashing. We all know d3 is going to be 100's of hours of intense fun, but as the days go by, there will of course be things we don't like seeing.

You wouldn't want your big glorious fireball/meteor to be drawfed by a little canfle flame firebolt that does way more damage would you? You could easily say that more "magic" invested in the firebolt leads to greater heat and damage, or you could just say "hey, it's fantasy, who cares?" But the fact remains that we all, by nature, expect a giant ball of fire landing on someone's head and exploding leaving a pool of flames engulfing the victim to be far more destructive and damaging.

Well the armor issue is much the same. If you think it's petty to talk about these concerns than maybe these sorts of nitpicking threads are not your cup of tea. But some of us are really into some aspects of RPGs and we're really passionate about it. For instance, the mentioned necro fans who have their beloved favorite chr seemingly replaced by something else (the WD) are just passionate about the necro. The necro changed the Diablo world by having all kinds of good guys vs bad guys action on the screen as opposed to d1 where it was just the one hero vs bad guys (plus golem, meh). Such a deletion (the necro) is a shock to the fans so I understand their beef with the WD who has some big shoes to fill. I don't agree the loss of the necro is a bad thing, but I'm not going to put down the passionate fans who are concerned about thier favorite diablo thing.

Finally, I think "fixing" a few of these conerns is remarkably easy and would not hurt the game at all. For instance, bug swarms could be made to never drop items and istead give a bit more exp for your efforts or w/e, or they can drop small items only, etc. This change won't hurt the game any. It's not like I'm saying "take the WD's mask out of d3", I'm just hoping they implement it in the most sensable way so we don't see mask = 700 def, full plate = 134 def.

Mad Mantis

27-08-2008, 14:25

Heh, well to be fair, this entire forum should be renamed *Necromancer isn't in the game I hate you Blizzard*.

I'll run that by Elly.

Orphan

28-08-2008, 01:32

I don't see how it's wrong to point this out. The d2 Armor/Defense system makes no sense at all. Like I said, we may as well be using a combo of force fields generated on jewelry items since d2 is all about these "magic" fields. Armor is an old RPG classic system that has always been a vital part making us feel powerful in melee. I would hate to see it go, being replaced with "magic" like it is in d2.

I've never thought of the exceptional/elite armors having some sort of "Forcefield" which makes them tougher. I've always simply considered it to be different materials. The D2 world wouldn't necessarily have the same materials that our world has, so they wouldn't necessarily be limited to stone/iron/steel/etc. Alot of games have their own materials that forge stronger armor, such as Mithril, Kryptonite, Adamantium, Orichalcum, etc.

An example of this is the balrog skin elite armor. Unlike it's normal counterpart, this armor is actually made of demon skin, which in the Diablo universe appears to be stronger than metal. Speaking of demon skin though I assume you might also want to debate the fact that some of the monsters appear to wear minimal equipment, but have a high defense rating.

Even if we did assume that the tiara item type did indeed have some sort of extra natural magical protection (or "forcefield"), there could be alot of explanations as to why that same property wouldn't work on other gear (such as belts). Perhaps the close proximity to the mind is what allows for it, thus making a belt unsuitable. Perhaps it's material/rune based as above, which would be unsuitable for a belt again (since wearing a belt is not the same as wearing a Tiara).

You wouldn't want your big glorious fireball/meteor to be drawfed by a little canfle flame firebolt that does way more damage would you? You could easily say that more "magic" invested in the firebolt leads to greater heat and damage, or you could just say "hey, it's fantasy, who cares?" But the fact remains that we all, by nature, expect a giant ball of fire landing on someone's head and exploding leaving a pool of flames engulfing the victim to be far more destructive and damaging.

Firebolt in D2 can already be more powerful than fireball, with the right skill point placement. I like the current concept, and I also like the fact that with proper "training" even the lower skills can be stronger than the higher ones. The last thing I want is a system where no-one would ever use the lower tier skill, even though that's already apparent in some cases of D2...

Zerosugar

29-08-2008, 00:30

Approaching the Char from a Western culture might not be the most effective. If there is a suit of metal armor it would probably look like those Indian armors, but adorned with all kinds of feathers and sorts. I chose Indian since both African and Native American tribes tend to not wear decent armor and the Indian still has that complete exotic feel to it.

The headdress is something that I can live with if they make it outlandish and high def. Nothing prevents a type of mask like that to be made from steel and adorned with feathers, leaves and skulls.

Not really the Walt Disney armor, but more the complete lack of regards for physics. Pauldrons even greater than the ridiculous size of the Space Marines. Spikes so large that the char shouldn’t be able to move. Dare I say WoW-ifying the armor. A bit over the top is fine, such as gaps in the armor not being a big deal, but please keep it somewhere realistic.

Realistic would be to prevent sorceress/wizards from wielding a heavy axe or two handed sword while wearing plate They spend their entire lives studying books,spells,runes etc leaving no time for physical training, sword fighting etc. As such they are rather weak physical. They rely in spells for defense.

They shouldn't have a penalty.. they shouldn't be able to use those items all together and each class have their own loot. Rogues, thieves, lockpickers, assassins requires stealth and ease of movement to accomplish their tasks of assassination, stealing, backstabbing..those classes should not wear armor that makes noise or prevents their movements. THAT would be realistic but the WoWkids of today want it all.. realistic or not unfortunately. there may or may not be any rogish or pure spell casters in the final game but my point is the same. Look at what the characters really are and came to be.. then create something that realistically matches.

Zerosugar

29-08-2008, 00:42

I've always simply considered it to be different materials. The D2 world wouldn't necessarily have the same materials that our world has, so they wouldn't necessarily be limited to stone/iron/steel/etc. Alot of games have their own materials that forge stronger armor, such as Mithril, Kryptonite, Adamantium, Orichalcum, etc.

I could accept this possible and somewhat viable explanation if not for the fact that armor has a strength requirement. Having a strength requirement tells us that this armor is heavy and you need to be strong to wear it. Someone devoted their life mastering the arts of magic is not a "strong" character. If they devoted time to hit with a gigantic axe with a huge strength requirement (pumping all your points into str which is possible if somewhat stupid but quite possible) and training their physical body they wouldn't be masters of the art of magic. that requires nothing but reading books and spells their entire lives from a realistic and rpg point of view.

Having said all that D2 wasn't created based on realism or the old D&D rulesets so maybe we shouldn't expect it in the sequel. it would be nice though if they added just a touch of something that makes sense

Orphan

29-08-2008, 01:01

I could accept this possible and somewhat viable explanation if not for the fact that armor has a strength requirement. Having a strength requirement tells us that this armor is heavy and you need to be strong to wear it.

Hmm, I don't see why the strength requirement would be an issue (unless I'm missing something). Sure, Mithril was supposedly lighter than steel but that doesn't mean all materials are. The exceptional and elite versions of the armor could require stronger and heavier (denser?) materials, which results in more defense but higher strength requirement. A higher strength requirement would be required to wear it, but not necessarily forge it.

Kiley

29-08-2008, 02:55

Realistic would be to prevent sorceress/wizards from wielding a heavy axe or two handed sword while wearing plate They spend their entire lives studying books,spells,runes etc leaving no time for physical training, sword fighting etc. As such they are rather weak physical. They rely in spells for defense.

They shouldn't have a penalty.. they shouldn't be able to use those items all together and each class have their own loot. Rogues, thieves, lockpickers, assassins requires stealth and ease of movement to accomplish their tasks of assassination, stealing, backstabbing..those classes should not wear armor that makes noise or prevents their movements. THAT would be realistic but the WoWkids of today want it all.. realistic or not unfortunately. there may or may not be any rogish or pure spell casters in the final game but my point is the same. Look at what the characters really are and came to be.. then create something that realistically matches.

It is odd that you are complaining that WoW kids are ruining the game by wanting it all. WoW IS the game that has a bazillion class only items, a bunch of rules about who can use what item, what bow, axe or shield. With that system, chances are good that any rare item you find can't be used by you, and if it does happen to be for your class, it doesn't fit your build. With that system they eventually stopped loot drops almost all together and started handing out tokens so you could go shopping for custom loot......ick.

Diablo is the game that has always allowed any class to use whatever item they wanted if they had the stats to equip it. I really don't want the game to get too "serious" about naming items for certain classes. In the long run that just makes every character end up being the same couple builds, with no deviation ever. I imagine a witchdoctor that used bows might suck, or the mage class that used a spear and shield might not be optimal, but why cut off such experiments with heavy handed item rules?

We each pick our stats each level. Are you now saying that maybe mages or rogues shouldn't be allowed to put points in strength? And if they do, they shouldn't gain anything from in, like using heavier armor, weapons or shield?

I imagine the most optimal caster build will never be a high strength 2 handed axe using sorcerer, but why care if someone does it. Many of us hope to play this game for a few years at least. Somewhere around your 8th or 15th character we will want to try that oddball build, just to see if it can be done. Those builds will be very limited if you got your way and a caster could only use robes, staves and daggers, or the rogue could only use bows, daggers and leather armor.

I'm hoping part of the fun of this game is trying out new and crazy builds. I don't really picture the Diablo series, as becoming a game where you play one "main" character and play him for years, that style of play seems more fitting with stringent class only item rules.

Zerosugar

29-08-2008, 03:41

It is odd that you are complaining that WoW kids are ruining the game by wanting it all. WoW IS the game that has a bazillion class only items, a bunch of rules about who can use what item, what bow, axe or shield. With that system, chances are good that any rare item you find can't be used by you, and if it does happen to be for your class, it doesn't fit your build. With that system they eventually stopped loot drops almost all together and started handing out tokens so you could go shopping for custom loot......ick.

I guess i should have explained what i meant by WoW kids better. I was referring to the generation of gamers that started out with WoW. The "Console Generation" as i like to call them are what i refer to..they are all about instant gratification and removal of challenge and having to think for themselves. I could go into a whole debate on how i think they are responsible for the decline in quality games today but that's not what the post is about.

Diablo is the game that has always allowed any class to use whatever item they wanted if they had the stats to equip it. I really don't want the game to get too "serious" about naming items for certain classes. In the long run that just makes every character end up being the same couple builds, with no deviation ever. I imagine a witchdoctor that used bows might suck, or the mage class that used a spear and shield might not be optimal, but why cut off such experiments with heavy handed item rules?

Being as this is the Diablo universe anything goes as far as points allocation and wearing any type of armor.. it IS lighthearted arcadish gameplay which suits the majority..that's fine. Realistic it is not which is what i was adressing. yes you can apply a certain extent of realism within that lore of a universe even if fictional or made of pixels. D&D did this..they added things that made sense within that universe. For my own enjoyment i would like such rules apply.

Spell casters is confined to wear cloth..now there could be a 10000 different cloth items that adds as much defense by having magical properties but it should be cloth imho. You can even have certain class only gear tailored to certain builds allowing you to try your "crazy builds". Warrior types shouldn't have any restrictions in regards to armor. rogues should be confined to leather or light chain. it makes sense because of what the classes does. Ever read a fantasy book with swords and sorcery books? ..wizards and sorcerers does NOT wear plate and fight with axes ..in fact the more powerful they are the more plain their robes are. i would like to see that applied to D3 but i know it's not going to happen. too many console kids would scream murder

I'm hoping part of the fun of this game is trying out new and crazy builds. I don't really picture the Diablo series, as becoming a game where you play one "main" character and play him for years, that style of play seems more fitting with stringent class only item rules.

Builds doesn't necessary have to be tied into equipment like it was in D2. Infact making a game a do-all be-all playground makes it harder to get into the story and the lore. For me the storyline is half the game. But if you like the arcadish style of play then that will probably suit you. i personally want a deeper experience.

We each pick our stats each level. Are you now saying that maybe mages or rogues shouldn't be allowed to put points in strength? And if they do, they shouldn't gain anything from in, like using heavier armor, weapons or shield?

Here is another thing i would like to see reworked ..making strong fighter classes start with high strength while others start with very low making it impossible to reach the strength stat of a fighter even if spending ALL your points there. Or better yet you get x amount of points you can spend as you like..but spending your points in strength will have a cost of say 4 to 5 points? making it near impossible for you to wear gear your class shouldn't be using in the first place considering his profession. Or maybe a third option i haven't thought off that's more embraceable.

generally i don't care what others do or don't do that's not the point. The point was for something to make sense within that universe and i never found anything to make sense in D2's universe. It has always been lighthearted fun with an arcadish feel to it. games such as baldurs gate had a MUCH deeper and intriguing storyline. this is not baldurs gate but it wouldn't hurt to add depth to the game.

Kiley

29-08-2008, 04:16

I guess i should have explained what i meant by WoW kids better. I was referring to the generation of gamers that started out with WoW. The "Console Generation" as i like to call them are what i refer to..they are all about instant gratification and removal of challenge and having to think for themselves. I could go into a whole debate on how i think they are responsible for the decline in quality games today but that's not what the post is about.

Being as this is the Diablo universe anything goes as far as points allocation and wearing any type of armor.. it IS lighthearted arcadish gameplay which suits the majority..that's fine. Realistic it is not which is what i was adressing. yes you can apply a certain extent of realism within that lore of a universe even if fictional or made of pixels. D&D did this..they added things that made sense within that universe. For my own enjoyment i would like such rules apply.

Spell casters is confined to wear cloth..now there could be a 10000 different cloth items that adds as much defense by having magical properties but it should be cloth imho. You can even have certain class only gear tailored to certain builds allowing you to try your "crazy builds". Warrior types shouldn't have any restrictions in regards to armor. rogues should be confined to leather or light chain. it makes sense because of what the classes does. Ever read a fantasy book with swords and sorcery books? ..wizards and sorcerers does NOT wear plate and fight with axes ..in fact the more powerful they are the more plain their robes are. i would like to see that applied to D3 but i know it's not going to happen. too many console kids would scream murder

Builds doesn't necessary have to be tied into equipment like it was in D2. Infact making a game a do-all be-all playground makes it harder to get into the story and the lore. For me the storyline is half the game. But if you like the arcadish style of play then that will probably suit you. i personally want a deeper experience.

Here is another thing i would like to see reworked ..making strong fighter classes start with high strength while others start with very low making it impossible to reach the strength stat of a fighter even if spending ALL your points there. Or better yet you get x amount of points you can spend as you like..but spending your points in strength will have a cost of say 4 to 5 points? making it near impossible for you to wear gear your class shouldn't be using in the first place considering his profession. Or maybe a third option i haven't thought off that's more embraceable.

generally i don't care what others do or don't do that's not the point. The point was for something to make sense within that universe and i never found anything to make sense in D2's universe. It has always been lighthearted fun with an arcadish feel to it. games such as baldurs gate had a MUCH deeper and intriguing storyline. this is not baldurs gate but it wouldn't hurt to add depth to the game.

Depth isn't added by taking options away. We'll just have to disagree, I really do think Baldurs Gate is one of the best games ever made, but that doesn't mean fantasy rpgs must follow wizards-robes, rogues-leather, warrior-metal. Baldurs Gate was a deep game compared to Diablo, but it had nothing to do with what armor or weapons your characters could use.

What doesn't make sense is Diablo's universe? Those last two words are important, this is Diablo's universe, not a D&D game. There is no logical reason that a meteor or fireball spell can't be cast in plate armor......except that D&D said so.

You asked if I had ever read a fantasy novel. Of course I have, they are as varied as opinions. Some of the greatest warriors in hero novels wore a cotton shirt, leather trousers, no armor or shield at all. In some novels some of the greatest powers of magic were in shiny armor and had swords of great power.

You have a narrow view of what any fantasy character should be, if they don't fit your view, they must be punished extremely for deviating from your view. As I said, what you think would add depth is quite the opposite, you are about adding so many restriction that every class would be forced into your comfortable view of fantasy rpg........just because.

One of my favorite novels had a sneaky conniving rogue. He also happened to be a swordsman feared by the most hardened warriors. Another novel a healer had such skill with knives he could throw a dagger and split the stalk of a weed 3 times before it hit the ground from the first throw. In your world, I'd bet a healer couldn't even use a sharp weapon. In another novel a mage was a bow shot beyond rival, due to his training in concentration, knowledge of physics, wind, etc. He didn't use magic to do it, but he was a deadly shot. In your world, a mage couldn't even use a bow. I could go on, in some novels the most power magic user used a sword, he preferred that for mundane killing, as each magic use took a bit from him. He was a whirlwind of swords.

Leave the character concepts to the players, not traditional fantasy games, those world rules only apply to their worlds, they aren't hard and fast rules.

Zerosugar

29-08-2008, 05:39

Depth isn't added by taking options away. We'll just have to disagree, I really do think Baldurs Gate is one of the best games ever made, but that doesn't mean fantasy rpgs must follow wizards-robes, rogues-leather, warrior-metal. Baldurs Gate was a deep game compared to Diablo, but it had nothing to do with what armor or weapons your characters could use.

What doesn't make sense is Diablo's universe? Those last two words are important, this is Diablo's universe, not a D&D game. There is no logical reason that a meteor or fireball spell can't be cast in plate armor......except that D&D said so.

You asked if I had ever read a fantasy novel. Of course I have, they are as varied as opinions. Some of the greatest warriors in hero novels wore a cotton shirt, leather trousers, no armor or shield at all. In some novels some of the greatest powers of magic were in shiny armor and had swords of great power.

You have a narrow view of what any fantasy character should be, if they don't fit your view, they must be punished extremely for deviating from your view. As I said, what you think would add depth is quite the opposite, you are about adding so many restriction that every class would be forced into your comfortable view of fantasy rpg........just because.

One of my favorite novels had a sneaky conniving rogue. He also happened to be a swordsman feared by the most hardened warriors. Another novel a healer had such skill with knives he could throw a dagger and split the stalk of a weed 3 times before it hit the ground from the first throw. In your world, I'd bet a healer couldn't even use a sharp weapon. In another novel a mage was a bow shot beyond rival, due to his training in concentration, knowledge of physics, wind, etc. He didn't use magic to do it, but he was a deadly shot. In your world, a mage couldn't even use a bow. I could go on, in some novels the most power magic user used a sword, he preferred that for mundane killing, as each magic use took a bit from him. He was a whirlwind of swords.

Leave the character concepts to the players, not traditional fantasy games, those world rules only apply to their worlds, they aren't hard and fast rules.

As i said before..spellcasters spend their entire lives researching spells reading forgotten books and scrolls..they devote their entire lives to it. It makes no sense to me even in diablo for a physically weak character to have the strength to wear a heavy armor wielding a heavy weapon. From a logic standpoint if your character has the strength to wear plate and an adept swordsman he will be weak in the ways of magic since training to fight with weapons wearing full plate would take a considerable time away from studying. I would like to see that kind of realism added to the game. In any game i can think of hybrids are masters of none and that is exactly what i would call a wizard using a sword and wearing plate.

I wouldn't call my view narrow but more traditional.

Depth isn't added by taking options away

Nor is it giving you the option to do as you like in a world that has rules and boundries ..or should have like every other deeply engrossing game. Having rules such as gravity may not add depth to you but the lack of it would make it a bit silly unless it made sense to the game (an example). having free reign doesn't make sense to me in Diablo and never will. After all they are using rpg elements such as spells, mana, experience, levels etc. I think adding rules boundries and limitations would do wonders for the story but again i guess we will just agree to disagree.

Leave the character concepts to the players, not traditional fantasy games, those world rules only apply to their worlds, they aren't hard and fast rules.

Leaving choices to the playerbase is a sure way to make a game fail. You would have all the old characters back and no new character concepts because everybody wants their favorite character in D3. Except for a few smart individuals who doesn't fear change

Kiley

29-08-2008, 06:22

Leaving choices to the playerbase is a sure way to make a game fail. You would have all the old characters back and no new character concepts because everybody wants their favorite character in D3. Except for a few smart individuals who doesn't fear change

Old characters arent' coming back, other than the barbarian. Other than that, what do you mean by smart individuals who don't fear change? Change is good, we are going to have 4 brand new classes, with all brand new skills. That is change.

I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Change is not adding in a bunch of arbitrary item restrictions that have been used in every online game since 1998. That is what you are proposing, using rules that have been the mainstay of pen and paper rpgs for 35 years, you call that change?

Again I find it odd you are accusing people of fearing change, when what you are proposing is continuing some fantasy gaming concept that is 30+ years old, just because D&D said so.

You totally ignored there is much fantasy literature that follows none of that. Try reading something other than Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance for your fantasy references.

Ok I'll calm down now, this forum is moderated very well. I just find it odd that someone claims to want to push Diablo in a new fresh direction, yet all they can say is make it like game systems that were implemented in 1970.

I have Neverwinter Nights for that, good game also btw.

Kiley

29-08-2008, 06:34

As i said before..spellcasters spend their entire lives researching spells reading forgotten books and scrolls..they devote their entire lives to it. It makes no sense to me even in diablo for a physically weak character to have the strength to wear a heavy armor wielding a heavy weapon. From a logic standpoint if your character has the strength to wear plate and an adept swordsman he will be weak in the ways of magic since training to fight with weapons wearing full plate would take a considerable time away from studying. I would like to see that kind of realism added to the game. In any game i can think of hybrids are masters of none and that is exactly what i would call a wizard using a sword and wearing plate.

You see it isn't for you to say what Fred's spellcaster is. His idea may be that he wasn't a privileged rich guy that had the luxury to bury his nose in books 18 hours a day.

Maybe his toon was accepted due to great natural talent, but he was ridden with guilt over leaving his poor mum behind. He knew she couldn't support his 3 sisters on her own. He barely got by on his studies because he sneaked out every morning after studies and worked at the stone quarry to send his mom home a few coppers to help out.

He got caught sneaking out of the academy by a guard and was blackmailed. He could either get kicked out of the academy or wear that guards armor and uniform, in return for not getting reported. The guard was happy to be relieved of duty for a few hours a night in return for his silence.

What do we have, a mediocre wizard who barely got by, very fit from his work in the quarry and used to wearing heavy armor.

But no, its more realistic to think every single wizard is 5'6' tall, wieghs 93 pounds and falls over if a sword is ever handed to him.

Where is the depth, in assuming every wizard is the same stereotype you suggest, or my examples?

Zerosugar

29-08-2008, 08:20

As for fearing change..look around the various forums..you say leave it to the playerbase..i say don't ..they are whining already they can't have their favorite characters back..necromancer and paladin being the top ones not to mention the graphics. I'm all for new characters so im glad we won't see a return. I didn't think my sentence structure was that hard to read that this could be misunderstood.

And yes change is deviating from the previous installment..so adding restrictions would constitute as "change".

As for the system being old..it is still quite successful. Every successful fantasy MMO has this limitation..can you guess what game had over 10 mill subscribers that had those limitations? In any respect this isn't an MMO but the concept is hardly a recipe for failure ..too many games new and old disprove your point..sorry.

I stopped reading forgotten realms when i was a teen. Last books i read was the sword of truth series.. if you haven't read them you should pick them up..you might learn something :).

And yes it is more realistic to think a wizard is weak.. natural gift or not spells take research ..remember D1 and researching books to learn spells? well within the lore of the diablo universe which your example fail to accomplish.

this back and fourth thing is pointless..you won't see my point which is fine i don't expect you to. you have your opinions i have mine :) I'll just end this discussion from my side with that we disagree and that's that :thumbup:

Kiley

29-08-2008, 09:01

I stopped reading forgotten realms when i was a teen. Last books i read was the sword of truth series.. if you haven't read them you should pick them up..you might learn something :).

Oh you mean that very good book series where the person with the potential to be the most powerful wizard the world has ever known was also a warrior with a sword and able to bow shot a fly out of the air at 200 yards? *wink* In your world Richard couldn't use a bow or a sword, or if he could, he couldn't use magic. Think before you quote a novel series that breaks every convention you are trying to support.

I can guess what successful fantasy MMO had those same class item limitations. The same game you cited as ruining the gaming industry. Not a very good pedigree for advancing gaming, when you suggest it must be good just because X game did it, then claim that same game is destroying gaming.

So far you have been wrong on citing novels, and have given one successful game to support you, while you have also claimed that same game has destroyed the gaming industry.

I contend you really only think games should follow your rules because D&D said so:)

Its cool to disagree, I really did enjoy the games you mentioned and The Sword of Truth novels are great, I'd continue a discussion on those in the appropriate forum. I don't take anything personal and good to find people with good taste in books.

stillman

29-08-2008, 09:52

I have to agree with zerosugar: a game that allows us to have it all is going to look silly and have less challenge. I think having limits is one of the great challenges of RPGs.

Now, I wouldn't mind at all if I saw some axe mage being successful. That would be original and neat. It would look silly, but seeing one or 2 silly chrs once in a while is fine with me. But what I don't want to see is hundreds of axe mages using axes because of some res bonus on a famous unique axe and because anyone can use axes. There's got to be some middle ground: There should be some limitation like what zerosugar said, even a punishment for a mage being so bold as to use an axe. I think the punishment is d2 is simply an unoptimal chr--you must put points in str which means fewer points in mana or vit making you a worse mage.

I'm also in favor of armor limitations per class (though I'm sure this will never happen in a Diablo game). Someone above mentioned there is no reason whatsoever why a mage can't use heavy armor. Well, there is. I hate to bring it up, but it is described in D&D and it makes good sense: a mage needs to wave his arms and fingers about in delicate ways which heavy armor would interfere with. The mage may be perfectionist; he can't have armor lessen his chances of messing up a spell. Also, the shoulder plates and neck gaurd might inhibit a bow user from reaching behind to access a quiver, drawing back the bow, and looking around fast. A simple limitation of being able to use field plate at most with chain mail underneith would eliminate these problems and give almost the same protection. It just can't be the BEST protection in the game.

Thus, I'm not asking for devastating limitations, just a few minor things that would make sense. The alternative is ummm...the armor has rubbery "magical" shoulder and neck parts that bend easily. Or, the arrows jump out of the quiver and land in your hand. If some of this stuff was explained in-game or in the booklet, all would be cool with me. But nothing is explained because they can't explain it and they used non-thorough, cheap methods in their game design.

Orphan, the problem with your explanation of the elite forms of armor is this: it still amounts to a "force field" explanation for at least some of the armors. So you might say the dusk shroud is a different stronger material than steel, so it has higher def than full plate. Ok, fine, fine... The problem is the dusk shroud only covers the body and a bit of the arms. Full plate is drawn in the game showing plates that cover the arms, wrists, knees, legs, everything except head hands and feet. So the dusk shroud would have to be drawn as a 'dusk snow suit' for your explanation to apply. I guess we'll have to assume the old magical force field is giving it that extra def to make it higher def than full plate.

Also, if demon hide is stronger than steel, how can the demons move in the first place?

Some of the mentioned hero ideas from fantasy novels I have to disagree with. For instance the mage who was also an expert with the bow kind of sounds like he has it all. I think these characters are too much like Charlie Sheen who has 3 different stunt men to do the pro-archery parts and and the pro-spell caster parts. I'm not buying it.

The protagonist know-it-all heros become like Superman or Count Dracula with all their wonderful abilities. Dracula is up against a spear thrower? No problem, he'll just turn into fog. An army is approaching? No problem, he'll just turn into a bat and fly away. The army is all over the land? No problem, he'll use his great hiding ability to hide out in his giant castle since he is so rich too. Someone is about to give away his secret hiding place? No way, he just uses his mind powers to control the will of the snitch and silence them. By the way, he is centuries old and is an expert fighter and scientist too.

I think we already have the ability to slaughter thousands of monsters and that should be enough. Maybe there could be a small number of these Supermen who are best possible archers AND mages in one chr, but I'd only be happy if these were the top 100 or less players on bnet.

Anyway, all of the little immerison problems I have could even be solved with cosmetic graphics added, explanations mentioned in-game by NPC's or even just in the instruction booklet. Cain could just say in gossip that some magic armors "pull" incoming weapons toward them and away from unprotected areas.

So with the firebolt example, all they would need is a cosmetic pillar of flame accending higher and higher with more synergy points invested in it, or more sparks flying with more investment, and this would give the impression that the fire is hotter and more destructive than a big meteor. These are simple solutions that would make the game more understandable and make us "feel" the gameworld better. I'm sure they will go some extra distance with d3. The more the merrier they say...

Kiley

29-08-2008, 10:27

stillman

29-08-2008, 11:06

Ok, fine with the mages wearing armor then, but what about a bow expert using a full helm with the little eye slits? How would they hit flying things if their vision is so limited... Some of the D&D rules are based on logic and physics, that's all I'm saying. I like the one about theives not being able to use their thief skills in armor greater than studded leather or w/e, but they can still wear it if they chose and not have all their powers while wearing it. I just want them to apply 'similar to D&D rules' if it helps make sense in the game.

For instance, spell interupt is in both D&D and Diablo2 IIRC.

Mad Mantis

29-08-2008, 11:41

Zerosugar

29-08-2008, 13:57

Oh you mean that very good book series where the person with the potential to be the most powerful wizard the world has ever known was also a warrior with a sword and able to bow shot a fly out of the air at 200 yards? *wink* In your world Richard couldn't use a bow or a sword, or if he could, he couldn't use magic. Think before you quote a novel series that breaks every convention you are trying to support.

I can guess what successful fantasy MMO had those same class item limitations. The same game you cited as ruining the gaming industry. Not a very good pedigree for advancing gaming, when you suggest it must be good just because X game did it, then claim that same game is destroying gaming.

So far you have been wrong on citing novels, and have given one successful game to support you, while you have also claimed that same game has destroyed the gaming industry.

I contend you really only think games should follow your rules because D&D said so:)

Its cool to disagree, I really did enjoy the games you mentioned and The Sword of Truth novels are great, I'd continue a discussion on those in the appropriate forum. I don't take anything personal and good to find people with good taste in books.

You are putting words in my mouth and twisting what i say never said WoW was the downfall of games or anything of the like..i talked about the players and their mentality. I never mentioned i was pushing for a fresh start either with D3 although I'm happy we are getting it except for a few things i would like to see personally. You need to read what you reply to no offense intended.

As far as Richard goes he was s WAR WIZARD!!/BattleWizard ..a hybrid of sorts if you want to call it that. One that hasn't been seen in thousands of years. The Wizards in the book all wear plain robes and do not fight with swords..as i said the more plain the more powerful. He was also the seeker which is why he was using a sword. Are you trying to say the sorceress class in D2 is a Richard Rahl of sort and also a seeker?..where does it say that or did you pull that out of your hat :).

As for gaming reference..look at 90% of all the arpgs/mmos out there and to quote yourself lol

I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Change is not adding in a bunch of arbitrary item restrictions that have been used in every online game since 1998

As for you fighting for your right to wear plate..you are exactly what i think is wrong with the gamers today without trying to insult. They want it all, even if it makes no sense or takes away from what could be a deeper and engrossing game. It's not because D&D said so or the myriads of novels that has been written way before computer rpg's was even thought of..nor is it because WoW said so. It's because it makes sense. If you are a master of something you have devoted your whole life to be a master of that one thing. If you spend half your time lifting weights or work in a quarry as you put it you are not a master of anything.

I can write a book about a wizard who uses machineguns and shoot spells out of his dong and then make a game about it.. that way people can use it as a reference when wizards are brought up and how they are only able to throw spells from their hands. No this game and my book does it different so it makes sense!. id rather go with what the majority has written about and made games about.

let me copy past from the sorceress description

The Sorceress
A rebellious woman who has wrested the secrets of magic use from the male dominated Mage-Clans of the East, the Sorceress is an expert in mystical creation ex nihilo. Though somewhat lacking in the skills of hand-to-hand combat, she compensates for this weakness with fierce combative magic for both offense and defense

They added something that makes sense in the description based on thousands of literature and games but didn't implement it in the game. It was made to cater to people like you. That's not necessary a bad thing since it became hugely popular with kids and adults alike. But it would be nice to actually have something that makes sense within the genre. The only thing you and i will accomplish is using the same arguements for our cause over and over again without agreeing to anything. i wasn't going to reply but i hate being misquoted or quoted for things i never said or even hinted at.

Orphan

29-08-2008, 14:17

I hate to bring it up, but it is described in D&D and it makes good sense: a mage needs to wave his arms and fingers about in delicate ways which heavy armor would interfere with.

As mentioned above, the Diablo universe is nothing like the DnD universe. Sure, casting a spell in DnD may require intricate gestures and waving of the hands, but that doesn't mean every single spell in every game functions the same way. Spells in D2 don't require those additional movements and precision, thus are not limited by heavy armor. There are worlds out there where people can cast magic with a blink of the eye.

Orphan, the problem with your explanation of the elite forms of armor is this: it still amounts to a "force field" explanation for at least some of the armors. So you might say the dusk shroud is a different stronger material than steel, so it has higher def than full plate. Ok, fine, fine... The problem is the dusk shroud only covers the body and a bit of the arms. Full plate is drawn in the game showing plates that cover the arms, wrists, knees, legs, everything except head hands and feet. So the dusk shroud would have to be drawn as a 'dusk snow suit' for your explanation to apply. I guess we'll have to assume the old magical force field is giving it that extra def to make it higher def than full plate.

Think of it using this example:

One soldier is wearing an armor entirely made out of paper. It covers him from head to toe. Another soldier is wearing only a breast plate made out of solid steel. Who has more defense? I'd say the latter. I know it's abit extreme but it goes back to material quality. Just because an armor covers less doesn't mean it provides less defense, because if it can deflect/absorb more damage then it's still better than something made of weaker materials but covers the entire body.

This goes in line with the fact that weapons also get stronger the higher they get (exceptional + elite). So an elite weapon against a normal full plate mail is go to have as easy a time as a hot knife through butter. Demon's on hell are probably like "true demons", where their claws and attacks can shred through normal steel. Stronger materials are needed to absorb greater damage.

Also, if demon hide is stronger than steel, how can the demons move in the first place?

Because demons are strong and demonhide is flexible. By today standards, I guess you could think of it along the same lines as some sort of bullet proof armor.

I mean, why not debate Mithril in Tolkien's universe? It's stronger than steel and lighter to boot. That doesn't make really sense, but we accept that this is the case in that scenario and I can't really see why we can't accept that demon hide or other elite/exceptional armor materials also exist in D2.

Funkopotamus

30-08-2008, 19:19

If you want the armor system to make more sense, it would make sense that if you can't wear full plate armor you're too anemic to be fighting evil.

Zerosugar

31-08-2008, 06:08

If you want the armor system to make more sense, it would make sense that if you can't wear full plate armor you're too anemic to be fighting evil.

in the realm of sword and scorcery spellcasters has always had alternative means to protect themselvs. You speak out of pure ignorance and lack of experience in the genre

Funkopotamus

31-08-2008, 07:39

You speak out of pure ignorance and lack of experience in Funkopotamuses.

And so what? It's pretty obvious a lot of things in the Diablo, and many series, are incredibly simplified. Maybe they could of made 30 light armors, 30 medium, etc, or not reused art and built the two (now three) tiers of armor up from cloth and ended on some super dense vibranium/mithril alloy armor, a reference which defeats itself because those are supposed to be two light metals. But they didn't, and it's just cosmetic. And ultimately, the result is roughly the same. Unless my characters aren't the norm. My casters never have the strength to maintain a useful defense while my melee manage well enough due to weapon costs.

Though I do think it would be cool to have cumulative equipment costs. It was in Hellgate and it looks like Blizzard still has Blizzard North's notes. Also, it may pan out to unorthodox "melee caster" type builds being weaker in magic in D3 if energy has an effect on casting. It would certainly help the broken stats now.

Brother Laz

31-08-2008, 13:11

Cumulative costs in HGL were epic fail, because they inherited the same problems as the D2 system (gee, I just found an item that costs less than the one I've been using... looks like I now have some wasted points in str).

I agree that str, dex and enr need to have more pronounced effects for their respective characters. Putting 400 points into str should amount to something.

......

Nowhere does it say just how people cast magic in the Diablo world, and in fact some elements contradict each other, in the game and in the lore. (Even if we ignore the books, which have little to do with the Diablo way and more with D&D)

But if you accept that people can cast spells while holding a war hammer, then magic must be some sort of mind power. Also, skeleton mages are animated by 'ancient wizard spirits' and can cast magic. Except in D1 you obtained spells by reading books.

......

Anyway, let people make up their mind about this themselves, the game doesn't need to explain everything. On my end, I added some sorceress-specific armors in Median XL (kazarghand, lamellar armor, ceremonial armor, ...) with unusual ingame looks; perhaps spellcasters did come up with their own exotic armor designs that permit fluid movement and spellcasting and can also be engraved for MOAR SKILL LVLZ.

Funkopotamus

31-08-2008, 20:52

Cumulative costs in HGL were epic fail, because they inherited the same problems as the D2 system (gee, I just found an item that costs less than the one I've been using... looks like I now have some wasted points in str).
The kind of person who has a major problem with that would probably be remaking their character because it's now imperfect and ugly.

I agree that str, dex and enr need to have more pronounced effects for their respective characters. Putting 400 points into str should amount to something.
Seconded. Those extra points in str are a lil' sextra damage. I misspelled that but I think I'm gonna leave it.

voraginous

01-09-2008, 21:22

In D2 you lost almost nothing by making a Spellcaster wear high strength armor since those points weren't really needed besides in Vitality. The point distribution for every class was the same; enough in strength for gear, if you don't block enough in Dex for gear, otherwise enough for max block and the rest in vitality. The first thing they need to do is add a stat point system that actually means something. A good mage should have put points in energy since that would help them out.

Adding decent penalties in a system where stat points mean something will still benefit the archetypical mage, but allows people to experiment with other options. If I wanted to make a Melee Sorc I could, but I'd know that I would be nowhere near as powerful a mage as a pure Fireball Sorc.

Adding restrictions based on physics could be useful, provided that it doesn't make the game less fun.

This is right. :thumbup:

As a sidenote in Diablo 1, stats were completely different.

Vitality was the useless stat. Noone EVER put points here. Complete opposite of D2.
Magic allowed you to read books and affected your spell to hit, damage, duration and such.
Strength allowed you to wear gear and affected melee damage to a huge extent. Most of the damage a high level warrior did was due to his massive strength.
Dexterity Chance to block, chance to hit, dex requirement for gear, and damage for rogues

I think in D3 energy needs to be made useful again, but they cant do it the way they did in D1, because skills arent spells. Makes no sense for a physical bash skill or a bow to hit chance to be tied into your energy stat. You can tie the skills of the mage-like classes to energy, but it doesn't make sense for the barb. Also they may make different kinds of energy stats for each class: spirit for the barb, mana for the WD, whatever..

Kaeros

04-09-2008, 00:57

Let's stop thinking about what's "logical" and think a little bit more about what's fun.

A) I do not want to roll a sorcerer and have to wear cloth armor variants and staves from level 1 - 99. *SNORE.*

B) I do not want to roll a character and see that 80% of the equipment that drops is colored red because I'm not the right class to use it.

C) I do not want to see high-level Witch Doctors (or any other class) all wearing the same small selection of items because they're restricted by armor-type, weapon-type, shield-type, etc.

D) I'd rather not deal with the logistical nightmare there'd be if this was to ever happen. To compensate, Blizzard would have to introduce dozens of new armors per class to keep the variety there.. that means completely new graphics, and completely new stats that ALL need to be balanced against every monster in the game.

E) I want as much variety as possible and as little restriction as possible in a game that is 100% about collecting loot. HGL will be online for a few more weeks if you really want that.

I apologize for the slight sarcasm, but come on.

Also, assume that the stat system will be overhauled in DIII .. it probably won't be easy for a sorcerer to wear full-plate, but the option should at least be there if the player were to choose to pursue it.

stillman

04-09-2008, 02:44

Kaeros,

Have you even done any reading here? No one is suggesting or hoping for any of that (though it was briefly mentioned). The point of the thread is concern about feathers and leaf-skirts being more defensive than metal plates. I don't want to see any nonsense from d2 like "magic" cloth or a pair of boots being more defensive than full plate.

If you read a few of my posts you'll notice I am not asking for anything extreme that would limit variety in the game. All I'm suggesting is the game would be more imersive if armor is made to make a little more sense in the game or, alternatively, the wierdness of high def cloth/feathers/leaves is explained in-game by Cain or someone describing "force fields" on some items. Or, if the hardness or magic properties Orphan mentioned of more flexible materials is explained off hand by Cain or some NPC in-game, that would help a lot.

So here's what I want to see in d3: You gossip to Cain or a blacksmith at some point in time and he says, "Some magic tiaras and other gear can pull weapons towards them so they may absorb the blows". Would that wreck the game for you? A single sentence added to the game?

I also noted that I am actually hoping for WD full plate in some metal form with a fancy design that relates to the WD as opposed to leaves and feathers replacing full plate. My other concern is that the WD will look silly playing basketball (tremor) in his suit of armor made exclusively for hunchbacks. Has anyone seen hunchback breastplates or backplates before? That sure would look silly imo. So I suggested they make the WD stand up straight and look "prosperous" or soemthing like a tribe elder or whatever while wearing his full plate.

All the stuff about D&D rules and other ideas are just conversation, and I don't expect any of that to be implemented in the game. It's just discussion pertaining to the topic.

quintal

08-09-2008, 13:22

well, i dont think armor restrictions are immersive.

on the other hand i think that freedom when raising a character adds to replayability.

i'm against preventing mages from using full plate armor.

i like diablo 2 precisely because it allows that.

I also like the fact that cloth can give more def than steel does.

If you want a simulation or a D&D game, go play one.

You should be more careful when asking for a change, though.
Diablo 2 still has many players 8 years after its release.

I'm sure you believe it would have more success still if there were more armor restrictions, realism and what you think is immersive.
But I do disagree with you there.

Diablo 2 isnt cheap in design because of the lack of stats-allocation and armor restrictions. It is subtle in design because you can wear plate as a mage, and yet you are restricted if you do so (less points in vita, dex or energy).

Freedom isnt cheap, it is smart. Hard restrictions are cheap and boring.

Now I read the whole thread and I can see that what's bothering the guy is that his mage looks unrealistic when wearing steel armor or even a steel weapon.
Well, you got it all wrong. Go play D&D if you want _cheap_ realism. And find me one D&D game that has as much success as diablo.

WoW is doing good because a mmorpg offers a special incentive to be played forever. But all in all, restrictions kill replayability and thus they kill immersion as well.
Once you have raised your class to the max, if you cant mess up with gear and stats what's the point to keep playing? Getting more über gear? No, it gets old fast. Now if you can make the same class, but totally differently thanks to freedom in allocating stats and wearing gear, this is interesting and keeps your interest and fun aflame.

Anyway.. D3 will suck.... its lead designer is lame. So I expect mistakes to be made in line with the OP of the thread, more mistakes to drive me away from that game.

Kiley

09-09-2008, 03:00

Kaeros,

So here's what I want to see in d3: You gossip to Cain or a blacksmith at some point in time and he says, "Some magic tiaras and other gear can pull weapons towards them so they may absorb the blows". Would that wreck the game for you? A single sentence added to the game?

Well actually that might wreck the game for me:) I'm no realism nut, but I'd at the very least *LOL* if Cain told me that the reason my little tiara could protect me from the blows of glowing fiery great axes bigger I am, was because the tiny twisted band of metal on my brow, attracted all weapons to my forehead! You are one crazy old man, I'm not wearing that! OUCH!

I see what you mean though, a little explanation would be cool. How many bad *** magic tree type creatures did we fight, the druids/witchdoctors learned to cultivate the magic strength of those creatures without harming them during winter, or naturally dropped leaves and branches, whatever.

I think the guy you are referring to got sidetracked from the original point(as I did). The couple guys who wanted D&D or WoW rules to apply. Cloth for casters, metal for warriors, leather for everyone else......etc.

Anyways I am all for allowing anyone to use anything, but I do agree int/energy needs to be made a more important stat for casters, so that they give up something other than just their mana pool when forgoing int to equip heavy armor/weapons. We know nothing about itemization, but it was too easy to get +energy and leech items and never have to spend a single point in energy if you had a few hand me down items.

edited: Actually this could be taken care of by including a little blurb in the detailed item description rather than random chatter. Its a double bonus, you get a little backstory on who created or wielded the items, why they are special. Of course only for rare/named items not every single loot drop of average quality. I always remember my old pen and paper D&D items had a little cool history even if they weren't especially uber powerful, it always made items mean a little more.

Zerosugar

13-10-2008, 10:33

With the removal of player stat location looks like i will be getting my wish ..casters wearing **gasp** caster gear and not some lame platemail ringmail type.

Somebody at blizzard think as i do, thank god.

Akse

13-10-2008, 14:52

Yeah I don't like to wear plate as a sorc in D2. I always aim for the leather armors. And as I play mostly classic I have no other choice actually. The low str requirement is a blessing on those, that allows me to have base strenght on my sorc.

MooCQ

15-10-2008, 00:25

Full Plate Mail is heavy, bulky, restricts movement, you'll get hit often, slow movement, reduces visual awareness, and there are areas of vulnerability [especially at joints,] it also causes warriors to tire easily.

You cannot discount the defensive value of a light weight pelt armor, it can be equally as strong/useful. It allows freedom of movement, quickness, agility, while up against a plate weilding assailant, its not likely you'll be hit as you could easily out-manuever them. On the other hand, with limted protection, one hit and its over.

but to say brute bulk is the answer, is misguided at best (especially considering the magical fantasy world of diablo) speed and agility are equally as important in consideration of defensive value. Especially if "sacred feathers" or "toad slime" adds an additional [+50] to evade..

In context of lore, I wouldn't count on the WD wearing plate mail..

Gigashadow

15-10-2008, 00:33

I don't really understand the craze with putting plate on magic characters, anyway. Hybrids have always proven to be weaker than streamlined characters, especially in games. Hybrids may be more adaptive, but otherwise, they are weaker than streamline. I suppose you could allow hybridation for WD anyway, but I am not sure how many people would really try it. In DII it worked because hybrids had advantage over absolutes due to a crooked attribute system...

Jcakes

15-10-2008, 03:42

I don't really understand the craze with putting plate on magic characters, anyway. Hybrids have always proven to be weaker than streamlined characters, especially in games.

It is because some people find it fun to play a build that someone else has not thought of, or is less common than your average cookie cutter build.

Naja

15-10-2008, 03:43

Well, fear not. Blizzard just said that items will not have attribute requirements.

So there. Witch Doctors in plate armor. Go nuts.

Mad Mantis

15-10-2008, 11:46

Well, fear not. Blizzard just said that items will not have attribute requirements.

So there. Witch Doctors in plate armor. Go nuts.

Oddly enough the thread started out as a concern on how the WD would look if he wore heavy armor.

Gigashadow

16-10-2008, 01:46

It is because some people find it fun to play a build that someone else has not thought of, or is less common than your average cookie cutter build.That's not what I found. From my experience, the percentage of players that are actually interested in weird builds is very low. Most people are simply trying to gain advantage by doing oddball builds. But oddball builds, truly, should be disadvantaged, or adapted for other situations (such as a fire-ice sorc is more adapted against immunities than a pure fire sorc, but a pure fire sorc kills faster). [yes, I know, fire-ice sorc is not an oddball built, but that's not my point]

"someone else has not thought of"
I am pretty sure sorcerers with plate were in Blizzard's mind before DII even began development... don't kid me... everyone thought of everything by now. I don't remember any oddball build that was truly oddball. Yes, these builds are fun, but oddball is oddball, it should not be, um, supported. And I saw plenty of cookie cutter guides for glass cannons and what not. There is nothing original here.

An oddball build is a build that goes against developmental prediction. This means:
a) this build has a chance to be imbalanced, either overpowered (real real bad: smiter), or underpowered (this one is usually the case and it's fine).
b) this build wasn't really intended as a common build for the game; therefore, gameplay is not adapted for this build...

From this it should be clear to you that oddball builds are not what makes a game great... they are, in fact, developmental holes, whether they are purposeful or not. But if a glass cannon build is better than a typicalist build, there are some serious balancing issues, and we saw that in Diablo. Ideally, developers should manualate any oddball builds that have the right to exist. But we got misbalances instead (sorcs gaining too much from block, etc.). If something in the game is not predicted and you're using it, you're probably squeezing the last juices out of the game, and you're certainly going into uncharted territory. This may be fun, sure. But, it's not something devs should worry about. Their intentions are not to make room for too many oddball builds.

In other words, you are saying DII was cool because DII was not well thought out and well balanced. In fact, it seems to me that many DII fans love it for its mistakes.

Mad Mantis

16-10-2008, 08:53

In other words, you are saying DII was cool because DII was not well thought out and well balanced. In fact, it seems to me that many DII fans love it for its mistakes.

What you are referring to as mistakes is exactly the kind of thing that keeps people interested in games. In your ideal game, where everything is only playable for a select few developer supported builds, things will get rather stale rather quickly. This illusion of choice, whether it be to the overpowered side, or underpowered side is exactly what keeps people interested in the game.

Gigashadow

16-10-2008, 12:23

In your ideal game, where everything is only playable for a select few developer supported builds, things will get rather stale rather quickly.Last time I checked, people are running around as Hammerdins, WW Baba's, Bone Necros...

If Blizz put those builds in half-intentionally, which it did, for the most part (hammerdins were a mistake but WW baba's weren't), people would not even notice. Illusion of choice is a powerful thing. But, truly, a good game provides a huge choice of equally useful builds instead of a puny choice of useful builds + a lot of versions that suck. That's what DII did. It just had a lot of stuff put together, so, obviously, people could toy with it forever, but there was very few really useful builds.

This illusion of choice, whether it be to the overpowered side, or underpowered side is exactly what keeps people interested in the game.I highly doubt it, it's what kept me disinterested in the game, because I soon realized that 99% of builds that I ever wanted to try, such as Thorns aura pally, are totally pointless because the developers did not include them...

Mad Mantis

16-10-2008, 14:29

Last time I checked, people are running around as Hammerdins, WW Baba's, Bone Necros...

The illusion of choice. In this case to the overpowered side. These people like overpowered builds and breezing through the game. My guess is if they were the same strength as all others there would be less interest in them.

It just had a lot of stuff put together, so, obviously, people could toy with it forever, but there was very few really useful builds.

This I agree on. I too think that there were too few supported builds. D3 promises to be a real improvement on that. D2 had thirty skills per character. D3 has about sixty, if my memory is correct. My guess is that there will be many more supported builds. But there should still be choice to all sides.

I highly doubt it, it's what kept me disinterested in the game, because I soon realized that 99% of builds that I ever wanted to try, such as Thorns aura pally, are totally pointless because the developers did not include them...

My guess is that you like the more powerful builds as well. For you the lack of properly supported powerful builds is a turnoff. But you still want choice. Whether it is illusionary or not.
Other people revel in the idea of taking a less than useful build through the game, if for nothing else than to prove a point. I've seen a fair number of threads by people who love to try their hand at the Necro version of a Thorns aura Pally. The choice in D2 is there. It is something D3 needs to expand upon.