Diablo 4 Proposal Attack Lifecycle Trigger Before After

General Discussion
61

I never understood why weapon was required for spellcasters.
Some spellcasters can have innate magic and go bare hands.
No wand is required for them, as they don’t need to canalize.
Plus some skills obviously do not require any weapon.

Examples

Fireball
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Spells:Fireball/#h-Fireball

Burning hands
As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Burning%20Hands

Power Word Kill
You utter a word of power
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Power%20Word%20Kill

It depends if the newbie has access to powers.
This is why powers generally come with level restriction.

Like it ! :+1:
Reminds me the old Wolcen.
https://youtu.be/LBByoMtoBiM?t=121

100% Agree.

Yes, Diablo 3 Developers took too much opiniated decisions so artificially reduced the possibilities of the game without realizing it.

Just remember the Diablo 3 Auction house in real money to begin with. This game was doomed from the start.

So is this “Hades” a thing worth to play ?

Dungeons and Dragons being a strategic game, Crowd Control plays indeed an important part on the battlefield.

The most enjoyable feature they added in Baldur’s Gate 3 is the “Shove” bonus action, which effectively can lead to death by gravity when you push the enemy from a cliff.

https://baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com/Actions

Can even work on big monsters using a force potion and enough high.

Yes.

It all depends on the framework built by the devs.

Multiclassing has to be designed and implemented from the start, or else it will be impossible to balance later on.

Yep.

Baldur’s Gate 3 has a long list of Affinities / Proficiencies.

https://baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com/Traits+and+Features

When player selects its class, it automatically get few of them as a token of its class identity.

Example:
A character selecting the class “Warrior” will automatically get the Heavy Armor proficiency.

Heavy Armour Proficiency
Wearing Heavy Armour will not impose disadvantage on your attacks or prevent the casting of Spells.

Your Warrior can now cast spells while wearing a heavy armour, which unlocks the concept or War Wizard.

This perk can also be selected by Wizards but later on, as it is not part of their “welcome pack” when selecting the Wizard class.

I really like the modularity of DnD Traits.

And they are not called “Traits” without reason.

Here’s why:

In programming (think about C++ or PHP), the concept of traits is an essential concept used to overcome classes inheritance. It unlocks multiclassing and does it gracefully.

Traits are granular powers that can be opted-in by classes.

In Javascript, this is realized by using modules, which is a far more flexible concept than classes. It is a sort of small package. It is a sort of trait that can itself embed traits. Composability at its maximum.

To sum up, programming languages abandoned a long time the concept of class-locking because it was unpractical to cover all challenges that reality offered to solve. Classes evolved into containers opting-in for traits, which later on evolved in the concept of packages and modules.

You can’t have good builds without having bad builds.

Good can only be defined in the presence of Bad.

If we consider Sets being still a thing, notwithstanding their inherent defaults, then I’m in favor of micro sets (3 items max), which allows multi-set thus enforce modularity on set powers.

In Diablo 3, the birthright of Nephalems allows them to use the power of gems. Because each newly created character is a Nephalem, they can use gems from other Nephalems.

Also:

It said in the lore that Worldstone can enhance powers.

Inarius tied the energies of the Worldstone into himself, enhancing his powers greatly

https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Worldstone

Why not see gems as shards / fragments of the World Stone ?

They would grant advantages, but as corrupted stone, would also be cursed and remove you characteristics.

More extreme gameplay if you equip gem A or gem B.

You can’t play the skill you want until you get the target level.
You can’t play the build you want until you get the target items / crafting materials.

You just play what game offers you at the moment.

The proposal sticks with this increasing complexity, but adds surprise so with each run you can discover and try a new build in the game.

With enough runs you will eventually be exposed to all gems.

It is a mechanic designed for game exploration.

Encouraging players to taste bits of all builds is important for them to make enlighted decisions.

RNG help to achieve this goal.
They are not the only way of course, but they help.

62

if you making game around meta your fkn retard and misleading costumer with felse info give then 1 class same spec all and be done with it unless u makin some random casino type of crap , normal healthy classes supose to have weak and strong sides unless evry class is superman just in difrent trausers on pants

63

Seems inspired from Painting Magic as it appears in the manga Black Clover.

https://blackclover.fandom.com/wiki/Painting_Magic

64

It’s not so about having maximum number of good builds rather builds that are to be tried by the player.

A designer’s goal has to be the player to experience as many builds and gameplay styles as possible.

If we take PoE for example and assign 100 million as theoretically possible builds aka B1 = 100m while comparing it to D3 with say 100k builds aka B2 = 100k, we’d expect PoE to have way more gameplay variance (since B1 > B2), but that’s not the case due to the reasons I mentioned above - most players doing easy content; most players going after meta/copying builds; builds playing the same way and not leading to new gameplay.

So, in the end it turns out that D3 offers more gameplay variance than PoE even while having thousand times less builds.

This is something the D4 devs have to consider while designing the game: It’s not the optimal number of builds that matters, it’s the optimal number of unique gameplay that matters.

To explain it even more simple with a real life example: Say one guy has 10 cats and they all behave similarly - laying lazy all day long, but another guy has a single cat that is very active displaying many unique types of behavior. That one cat is more fun to have than all those 10 other cats.

This is why Diablo 4 have to either:
1] Narrow classes from start (with choosing a clan) or narrow classes at level 50 with weapon specializations/professions
OR
2] Implement variables shuffling per account

65

Which is how battle mages usually work. They use magic to buff their weapon attacks and/or their defenses, allowing them to survive better in melee combat.

So, you need at minimum one weapon attack (preferably a few), and at minimum one magic buff that relates your melee combat. Voila, battle mage.

The number of skills is not a defining factor, unless your purpose is to argue that Diablo is a weak RPG.
Some would certainly argue that you cant really be called a spellcasting wizard if you only have 6 magic attacks either. In some other RPGs, a wizard might have a 100 different spells.
But, a character doesn’t stop being a wizard just because they only use a few spells. That is more of a game limitation than a class limitation.

The post you responded to said

But he can clarify what he meant, if needed.

I’d say it depends mostly on intent.
If you raise someone to save them vs. if you raise them to use them as rotten meat shields.

Yeah, that should be the goal tbh. Items should only enhance and adjust, not define, a build.

Wasn’t blaming Blizzard for the mockups. Just saying we cant use those items to conclude anything.
Although I wish they would tell when it is mockups, to avoid these situations of conclusions being made based on those pictures.

:+1:
Yeah, dont have to always be more power, can just be more options.
Not that seasons should come with new power or new choices all the time. Leave that for the larger patches/expansions.

Adding entirely new systems can be reasonable too, in expansions especially. We might come up with endless kinds of new systems. For example; factions/reputation systems with their own choices/benefits (Grim Dawn factions being an example), some kind of charm system, choices in a stronghold kind of setting such as in Wolcen, etc. The possibilities are endless.

It is an A-RPG and gear should matter. If gear matters more for some than others, there is an power imbalance.

If you mean required in the sense that you cant cast unless you have a “catalyst” equipped, then I agree, you should not need to have any specific items equipped to cast magic.

And that power is your characters power. Hence the lvl 60 being stronger than the lvl 1, and not just based entirely on items.

It is a decent game imo. Just a very different type of game than A-RPGs. For people who are into fast-paced Rogue-lites it is definitely among the better ones.
Biggest weakness probably is its relatively small size. It focuses more on story and characters than gameplay variety.

:+1:

Yeah. In the end, most theoretical builds will be bad or mediocre. Not a problem, as long as the viable builds can be counted in the hundreds or thousands.

Yeah, I hope sets are not in the game at release (just to be safe), but if they return, then mini-sets is the way to go. And the sets should have broad bonuses, not class-focused.

PoE both has a lot more theoretical builds, and a lot more meaningful/viable builds. With a lot more gameplay variety than D3.
Which isn’t to say PoE is good. Imo PoE is pretty bad in many ways.

Which is very much not Diablo 3…
Did you also just make an example in favor of classless system? :thinking: That is what the one cat would represent.

66

You either don’t understand what gameplay variety is or you are a PoE noob (or both :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:).

If the title isn’t for different builds one might assume it’s the same build while watching. Gameplay variety is zero.

67

Have you even watched the video you linked. Many of those builds are fundamentally different. Some melee, melee spellcaster, traditional spellcaster, various multishot, totems, explosions, some summoner builds. Heck, PoE has more variety in its summoning builds than D3 has in all its builds combined :smiley:

And then, asking one person about his favorite builds might give you answers in a specific direction, based on what he likes. Ask someone else and you get completely different builds.

Which again doesnt mean PoE is good and D3 is bad. They are both bad. PoE is just quite a lot better when it comes to build diversity.

68

But same gameplay. Why it’s so hard to understand the difference between build and gameplay variety - I don’t know.

1 Like
69

I hate to say this but our time traveling friend is kind of right. There may be more build variety in PoE but it’s basically all the same just with different spells. D3 is in a similar state as well with the zerg speed massive AoE, screen clearing builds. But the gameplay is essentially the same.

Early D3 and early PoE were greatly different where you had slow killing high survivability builds, glass cannon builds, jack of all trades builds, and so on. But both games careened into the too fast paced AoE zergs they are today. I blame seasonal resets for part of it. Limited time content forces players to eat it up fast before it goes away. I also blame players that need to do things as fast and efficient as possible to complete things instead of just enjoying playing hiw they would like to.

1 Like
70

It isn’t the same gameplay.
Maybe your mistake is confusing difficulty with gameplay. PoE is easy, you oneshot everything like in D3, but that does not mean gameplay is the same. Cut that damage by 99% and they are not playing remotely the same.

Hence both being bad, usually for the same reasons. PoE just has a lot more build diversity due to the much larger diversity in mechanics, skill designs, amount of choices you make, regardless of that AoE silliness.

:100:

71

I already wrote you most players don’t push content. It’s good you noted this now acknowledging the gameplay is the same on easy content.

72

But what does build diversity really mean when everyone of them plays roughly the same?

73

Which is completely irrelevant for anything being discussed in this thread?

It isn’t. Monsters just die so fast that you apparently cant grasp the differences.
This is absurd. Picking a low difficulty and complaining everything plays the same because monsters die when you look at them :smiley: Not that I expected anything else.

They dont though. Not even a little. A melee single target tank and an explosive totem build do not play the same, just like a multishot DH and a frenzy Barb do not play the same.

74

Yes. Most people farm/play on low difficulty. Welcome to Earth.

Difficulty changes the gameplay and when your classes aren’t narrow the end result is less unique gameplay for the player resulting in less playtime. Alleluia!

75

No, it really isn’t. The unique gameplay is still there, You closing your eyes does not mean it doesn’t exist.
Narrow classes => Less unique gameplay. By definition.
:partying_face:

76

Writing nonsense won’t make it true.

You can’t make your game equal to max level GR all the time since no casuals would play it. Casuals do the easy content and you want to have as much gameplay variety as possible on the easy content - that is what I am explaining you from the start here, go re-read the posts.

77

Possible means viable to me instead of just because you can do it.

78

I’m always told the build diversity in D3 doesn’t count because most aren’t viable for high end endgame. The same would be true for PoE. Sure you could make a million different builds, only a handful are really viable.

79

It is two different topics. The amount of build diversity in the game, and the amount of viable builds in endgame.
The former depends on the depth of the game systems (amount of systems, amount of choices in those systems, amount of interaction between the systems). PoE is endlessly ahead in this category. The latter depends on game balancing more than anything. Both are bad there, but PoE still has more diversity in endgame as well, probably because of the head start it has from the former category. PoEs build diversity might be reduced to 1 in a million in endgame, while D3s is reduced to 1 in a thousand, with PoE still ending up ahead.
With POE ahead in both categories it doesnt really matter which of them we look at, if the purpose, for whatever reason, is to make it into some kind of competition.
In the end they both have horrible endgame, and horrible endgame build diversity. Winning by being slightly less terrible than your opponent is a pretty hollow victory.

Anyway, this thread seems very focused on the former build diversity; the amount of builds overall. With the discussion on which item types classes can equip, bow barbarians, combat mages, eldritch knights, fireball throwing barbarians, “designing your own spells” and what not.

80

I’d like the D4 devs to work from a mindset that every attack spell/skill in the game should be a viable end-game skill. I should be able to use that skill as a primary skill in some build if I want to whether it’s a frostbolt, a hammer slam, a throwing dagger, a backstab, whatever. If we design with every skill being a potential main, we open up tremendous build diversity and room for creativity. Given a 6-skill system, we’ll see various combinations of primary and supporting skills as well as defensive cooldowns, which would give us the kind of diversity we’re looking for where not every character is the same cookie cutter build.

The more I think about it, the more this resonates. Sets are always tricky to balance because of the difficulty of getting the full set together. There’s the argument that if you take the time to collect the full set, then give up all the other options to fill those slots, you should get some significant reward for it. The bigger the set, the bigger the reward should be. It’s sound logic, but it leads to overpowered sets where the alternative isn’t mathematically viable. We don’t want that. Rather than having large sets feel restrictive and unrewarding for all of the difficulty of collecting them, it might be best to simply make smaller ones.

Watched it. All of his favorite builds are variants of:

  • Teleport
  • Cast screen-clearing AoE
  • Energy Shield that makes him effectively untouchable unless 1-shot insta-killed

If the D4 devs enable such builds in D4, they will be the one and only option, and it will kill build diversity. The ability to move around the screen is critical. Teleport >>> faster run speed because you can move through enemies. And of course, if AoE never comes with a trade-off, there’s no reason to ever take a single-target skill which would require more casts and more time to clear the screen. These kind of builds are an object lesson in what NOT to do if you actually want build diversity.

The problem here is that we’re not seeing a low difficulty being played. This guy’s playing end-game content, and he’s using magic find gear, so he claims. In D3, we do the same. We see similar builds flying through T16, ostensibly our most difficult in the game. In fact, these builds are orders of magnitude too strong and will be seen playing this way at T110+ in some cases. You’re getting the best rewards in the game while effectively in god mode: instant travel, instantly kill everything on the screen, never take an ounce of damage. There’s no build diversity here, the game play is exactly the same: mindlessly repeating teleport, kill everything, teleport, kill everything - and we have builds in D3 that just have you hold down the right mouse button to just glide across the screen doing the same thing.

What is the point of having a “highest difficulty” if the challenge it presents to the player is the same as the easiest difficulty? The devs let these builds get too powerful and/or they didn’t make the highest difficulty hard enough.

Agree. All of us want to be able to try our hand at the hardest challenges in the game. If 90%+ of our builds are simply too squishy and we get one-shot, or simply can’t do any damage, they’re not viable. All the creativity in the world won’t fix out-of-balance numbers. And players always will seek efficient ways of getting loot. That’s how we’ll define “viable” in practice. It’s not just an objective standard of being able to do the highest difficulty, it’s a subjective standard that we can do it at relatively the same speed and efficiency as other builds. If we want a lot of “viable” builds, we simply can’t have the kind of “god mode” builds we see in this video.