Feedback: Weapon type restrictions

PC General Discussion
1

This topic has probably been discussed in the forums before, but I’ll still give it a go. Consider this being my early Season 4 PTR feedback.

During the recent Campfire Chat (March 2024) the developers mentioned that they are opening up and updating existing designs in the game to have less restrictions. An example was the Azurewrath Unique sword having the Barbarian class restriction removed. That still leaves the unfortunate fact that not all classes can wear a sword, despite of the Unique being very generic in its effect.

I think this development path going forward is good, but I think it can be expanded further. Why are the generic weapon types characters can use (swords, axes, maces, daggers and shields) class restricted? Every class should be able to use these very generic weapon types. Class specific weapon types can, and should, still exist alongside these generic ones. In addition generic weapon types can and should still have those class specific Unique items (Fields of Crimson 2-Handed sword for example).

If we take a look at usable weapon types per class, we get a list like this:

  • Barbarian: 7 (Swords, Axes, Maces, Polearms)
  • Druid: 6 (Axes, Maces, Staves, Off-hands)
  • Sorceress: 4 (Wands, Staves, Daggers, Off-hands)
  • Rogue: 4 (1-handed Swords, Daggers, Bows, Crossbows)
  • Necromancer: 7 (Swords, Scythes, Wands, Shields, Off-hands)

As the listing shows, there are 2 unfortunate classes with less options available.

How I would expand the existing system is the following: Let all classes use all the generic weapon types (swords, axes, maces, daggers, shields), and let each class have their own class specific and class “fantasy” fulfilling ones that other classes cannot use. Staves and Wands could still retain their class restrictions, as having a Barbarian with either would make little to no sense. Though I wish Druids and Sorceresses could use the same Staves, and not have two different class restricted ones.

I think opening up the system would promote variety and creativity for build crafting, especially now that the Itemization is getting a rework. Allowing classes access to all generic weapon types and shields for example is not going to break the game, but it lets players to have more options and choices for available weapon implicit stats, and shields for more defensive playstyles and legendary aspects.

Having more options and ways to build your characters gear and build is never a bad thing.

Previous Diablo games were less restrictive with the weapon types. I’m kind of curious why Diablo IV went backwards in this.

6 Likes
2

I get your point but affix’x aside the weapon in d3 was restricitve and basically stats in your hand with a skin, and i think some where still unusable per class.

I think they atleast did a better job per class with weapon types, like daggers and swords and two bow types for rogues, Sticking to class fantasty is okay imo. Since we have skills that also add weapons like grenades and traps, do i really need to subclass a rogue and have a shield and etc with skills etc. Would be cool, i do like it.

I think its still good without it though.I they can do it or do it right or some cool version great, but as is its not going to work and there are no skills for a shield on a barb of rogue etc. If they made some that would be sick though.

3

The post I made was not about adding subclasses or additional skills to already existing ones, but rather from an itemization point of view. Necromancer has no Shield related skills, but it still has access to them. By your logic, shields should be removed as there is not a single shield using skill in the game currently.

Having access to more usable items is my point. If I want to build a defensive rogue or a Barbarian for Hardcore for example, let me use a shield in place of 1-handed weapon for a defensive stat setup. Or let me use Azurewrath Unique sword on Sorceress since I play a Cold build and the unique would synergize with the build perfectly.

Variety and Creativity is my take on this.

1 Like
4

Agree with this made a post long ago for it too. More liberty is always good in arpg even if it is not the best or most powerfull way to play.

I made a bow summoning druid in d2 not because it was strong but because it was fun.

Now d2 had uniques bows with arrows firing low amazon skill on it that is good. Complementing theses low lvl skills with bonuses from generic gear was a fun puzzle.

It is one exemple more case can be made

1 Like
5

I barb, see my wand? I cast, “Smash with face”. :hamster: :popcorn:

D4 didn’t go backwards they just kept with themes on the overall fantasy genre. Sorcs won’t have the strength to wield heavy weapons like two handed axes and hammers. Rogues are about speed agility and stealth so bigger weapons don’t make sense…and so on.

1 Like
6

The 2-hander restriction for sorceresses for example makes sense, but restricting their 1-handed counterparts does not. Same applies for Rogues regarding axes and maces.

Just adding 1-handed counterparts for classes that currently cannot use either would still promote variety massively compared to how it is now.

7

the only class that can wear shield is necro :confused:

i guess we gonna see a 1h shield 2h class next (hope not i want monk !)

8

its funny cause look at azurewrath, its like the perfect sorc weapon. Now barb, necro and rogue can use it, but it is still completely useless on barb and marginally useful on rogue and probably fine on necro. So what happened here? The barb only tag was probably a typo somewhere in the development.

My guess sorc was meant to wear swords at one point in the dev cycle, and some items like azurewrath are from that cycle, and did never got an overhaul.

I hope they reconsider letting sorc wear swords too at least.

9

I find druids, been desecendants of barbarians lost the ability to wiele swds and 2h swds hilarious. Its only about 70 yrs ago, D2 druids were able to wield it. (D3 is couple decades away from D2 in story timeline and D4 is 50 yrs after D3.)

10

Yes, the idea is good. Magical classes should all be able to use staffs and wands. And shields should really be open to everyone, shields are generic, we could have small, large, battle shields, etc. I miss that, but I understand the simplification makes it easier at a certain point. But it was good to have, compound bow, longbow, quick bow, war bow. That was really cool, each one with a characteristic and a skin. Logically you won’t let a wizard use a double ax hands or a Barbaro using a staff.

1 Like
11

I’d be fine letting other classes use different types of weapons where it makes sense. Shields should be universal in my opinion, who the hell can’t wear a shield? If my scrawny Necro can wield a shield anyone can. Just strap it to your arm, it’s not difficult.

I’d have no issues with sorcs being able to use swords though, or rogues being able to use all 1 handers. Druids should be able to wield just about everything. Also who can’t shoot a crossbow? A normal bow sure, takes some finesse, but a crossbow? Load and shoot. Although I could see the Barbs just bashing enemies over the head with a crossbow after the initial shot.

Holga you need to reload your crossbow.
-Why? Perfectly good smashing weapon.
But that’s not how crossbows work.
-Works fine for me.

1 Like
13

Would be dope if they bring back quality of weapons like ethereal, and superior so white items can matter much when runewords or such are finally released. Maybe some love with Blue items? I wouldn’t mind blue items can roll magic find. Makes sense since it’s to replace blues with rares.

14

I agree that every class should be able to use shields. I found it weird that shields were exclusive to necros. I also think at the very least rogues should be able to use 1-handed maces and sorc should be able to use 1-handed swords. Though let’s be real, even if these things were enabled, shields would still have very little use, rogues would not use maces because they don’t care about overpower and sorc would use swords but that’s because swords are the best general use weapons in the game thanks to their implicit.

1 Like
15

Shields aren’t weapons so I could see all classes benefiting from having them; however, I think a caster carrying a tower shield is visually ridiculous. But hey this is fantasy whatever!

Rogues have been using maces (cudgels and saps) throughout thieving history. Sure, they don’t use overpower… but what if we as players we built a overpower rogue?

Let’s be honest. A Barb not being able to use a staff is merely a matter of pride. A true barbarian would rip off a gorilla arm and beat half a gladiatorial arena with it. They not THAT picky!

My necromancer friends should be able to use just about anything also. We are talking about a class that will use “the dead as landmines and fodder”. Do we really think their weapons selection is any different than barbarian? Oh and (WHERE ARE MY FLAILS?)

Druids…despite wands and crossbows I really wanna hear a good argument for druids not being able to use everything else. Celtic druids used shields and bows against the romans (FACT). Northern Hessian shamans (germanic druid archtype) used balls and chains which is a flail. A spear IS a type of polearm! I’m looking at you Lycander!

16

I think the current system was chosen because it increases the probability of getting drops that most benefit your build. If you opened up all classes using all weapon types than you would start getting drops that you could hypothetically use but realistically would never use. Getting more drops for other classes means getting less drops for your class.

It would be useful for people who liked building more than one class per season however.

17

yeah but by that logic swords on sorc would be equally/better fitting then daggers for example. from the implicit perspective. They both fit.

#Swords on Sorc

18

I’m very happy to see azurewrath getting usable by rogues. First you get symmetric look with doombringer and second I was dreaming of a freeze rogue.
Hope this will be something.
Always poison is boring :rofl:

19

ALL classes should be able to equip ALL items. With zero exceptions.
Whether a class will be able to get much use out of a certain item is a different matter. That should be build dependent of course. Like a Melee Rogue might never find wands useful. A pure Ranged Rogue might potentially find a use-case for wands if they dig deep enough.

Most importantly though, it is an absurdity that everyone can’t equip a shield, in a freaking A-RPG.
Totally fine if Paladins or Barbs get the most benefit from holding a shield, but everyone should be capable of doing so, and get some defensive value out of it, where it can be a sensible choice to make.

1 Like
20

I think Barbs having a list is redundant.

I’ve always thought that classes like Barbs and Warriors could pick up anything and just beat the snot out of you anyway.

Anything from 2 handed swords to 2 seater couches, matters not if you’re built like a house.

As a Sorc, staff is it for me, always and forever, amen.

I like combat Rogues from early WoW so when I play Rogue I go with swords, I’m a terrible rogue on a good day, so I don’t care if it’s the thing to do or not.

I’m new at Necro here still, coming up in LE though, who knew? So no idea what’s best.

I don’t know what weapons Diablo Druids even use.

That’s my feedback.

1 Like
21

I support this post. I never understood some of the restrictions but others I do and I think much of it is because of barbarian arsenal and them having to balance items like spear of lycander for barb and hence why they cant. There could be more of this we havent spotted as why some items just break for certain char.