Unless Blizzard has stated this somewhere I see no reason to expect it.
I’m sure they will add more classes as some point but no Diablo game in the past has ever been able to cover every combination with its classes.
In a theoretical world where Diablo 4 has 15 classes then sure, but there is zero reason to expect it to get to that point.
No. A class should be designed to have a wide variety of tools at their disposal. That should not force players into playing them as hybrids.
Hybrid is kinda the wrong word here anyway.
The black center does not mean you have to build that way. It might not even be optimal to do it. The pure, yellow direction might be better.
It should be designed for it.
All classes in Diablos past have been hybrids.
Which of course does not automatically make it fine or good. But it does make it a Diablo thing.
God I hope this does not happen.
Again, the DotA class design concept. With one class = one build. Having a hundred classes. It is horrible. And not fitting for an RPG.
Nor would I expect it to happen of course.
Even if Diablo 4 got 15 classes, they should still all be “hybrids”. As in having melee, ranged, caster support, to varying degrees (it certainly might be 90%/5%/5%).
Class DLCs are one of their monetization ways. We are getting at least 10 classes in D4.
Each class being designed to end in the black is as bad design as it can be.
This is not a class designed to be a hybrid. A hybrid is 33%/33%/34%.
stop exaggerating in my thread
Again there is no guarantee of that. They can just as easily sell cosmetics like they said they were going to.
Which tend to be among the most lucrative mtx anyway.
Agreed. And they should not be designed to end in the black area.
They should be designed to allow for builds in the black area. As well as red, yellow, blue, green etc. builds.
Which should clearly be 10 hybrid classes then. 10 “pure” classes would be the saddest build diversity ever.
Maybe it is Blizzards goal to make Diablo 4 worse than Diablo 3. But I hope not.
Not really. But it is indeed why I said your use of the word hybrid might be problematic here.
They specifically said they endorse strong class identity and this is heavily hinting at the monetization of class DLCs.
If a class isn’t supported equally to be a hybrid aka 33/33/34 or 50/50/0 then most builds would go in the more supported area (90% from your 90/5/5) with those in the 5% area ending as memes due to not having enough support.
So, if you design a class as 90/5/5 you not only trick players to go in a meme direction for no benefit, you also cut viable builds from the pure scenario 100/0/0.
Diablo 2 also arguably has strong class identity too.
Sounds like you’re reading way too much into it for some wishful thinking.
Maybe they will and maybe they wont, but it’s way too early to be saying they almost certainly will do it.
We’ll see in a month about the D4 monetization. They’ll surely talk about it this time.
Which is fine.
That is not a logical conclusion.
Each build in Diablo 3 does not have 100% support from all skills. Obviously.
I mean, a whirlwind barb only got 1 whirlwind skill. 1/30 skill support. Not even 5% support 
Yet it exists.
Not really any different from a melee sorc having 1 skill they use with their sword.
Should have more than 1 skill of course, but the point would not change.
And you lower build diversity if you buff that 1 skill since every hybrid build uses it.
To have properly working hybrids these have to be designed as such with right proportion of skills so that build diversity is highest. Throwing a skill here and there to induce players go for a hybrid/unorthodox build is ancient design in games lacking content.
P.S. Lolli, can I use the word “ancient” or it’s exaggerating?
Don’t call them hybrids then, if you are unable to abstract the concept.
I have already described the differences between a hybrid like a druid fluidly switching between shapeshifts and spells, and a class that can go in separate directions, like Amazon, or indeed a sorceress.
No matter how you call them, when a class isn’t supported properly to be a hybrid, you end up with less build diversity due to making specific skills stronger for the meme purpose or due to players avoiding the less supported skills.
Players are always free to make any meme build. There’s no need to cripple classes in order to stimulate memes through a bad design. If a hybrid class is to be done, it should be done properly - with equal proportions.
Nonsense.
Skill diversity does not cripple classes, it enriches them.
Bringing more build diversity. Both in quality, and quantity.
A sorceress being able to go melee, swinging an enchanted sword, is simply more build diversity, than being able to cast a red ball vs. a blue ball of magic from your hands (if we for some reason had to choose only 2 of these skills for the class, which we obviously do not).
The idea that a real hybrid needs equal proportions for each aspect of the hybrid is nonsense too.
A druid with 50% spell casting, 25% wolf, 25% bear, can still be a hybrid.
There are way more interesting skills that the design team can add. They can even add close combat spells replacing the melee stuff.
That’s not 90/5/5 scenario. It’s 50% casting, 50% melee.
It would probably be something like choosing either between damage type based on different quiver usage, OR different firing mode… Something like that
For ex.: “high alert” mode = higher damage output and higher release rate but lower movement speed
“normal” mode = easy to stutter step but arrows fly less range
“high mobility” mode = fire as you move and gain CD reduction for movement skills but damage and range output is low
Either something like that but probably would be to choose special type of “tip” for arrows (upgrade one type of your choosing the most), i.e. (explosive vs freezing vs venomous, vs higher range reach for ex.)
Though tbh would prefer a “Conquistador” or “Marksman” type of class, i.e. hybrid, that isn’t just about “classic” bow/arrow character, but rather a combination between siege weaponry, defensive capabilities, and archery tbh
Close combat spells should obviously exist.
But they are no replacement for a wizard swinging a sword. Which should obviously also exist, as a viable choice.
And 50% spell, 25% dps, 25% tank, if you use other categories.
Or how about 10% summoner, 25% spell caster, 25% bear tank, 25% wolf dps, 10% ranger, 5% healer. And so on.
95% spell caster, 5% ranged weapon, 5% melee weapon, is perfectly fine too of course.
The more you split the class with conditional roles and skills, the worse in terms of build diversity. You’ll have very few viable builds compared to a pure scenario.
What you suggest would work better in a game with classless system where you can have rangers becoming bears and casting meteors from the ashes of which appear minions which corpses you can detonate or resurrect after they die. Such scenario will deliver a lot of gameplay options, but you have to discard the class fantasy (and you have to have the best balance team on Earth to make you at least a few builds in each top tier, but lets say you have AI from the future and balancing is not a problem at all).
Why is it obvious that a hero archetype that is all about casting spells should be capable with a melee martial weapon? That makes as little sense as a Barbarian spell-caster.
They said Diablo lore allows for it.
To me it looks like a meme.