Diablo IV Classes[speculation]

[Gallahadd]

There's not a ton of weapon support to begin with.

Don't forget, Barb is based around their weapon swap system. Two 2h and two 1hs. There was no mention anywhere of shields, I think Barbs are going back to their berserker roots.

Druids, on the other hand, I can totally see using shields. Frankly, if they can, I probably will...

[Coldkil]

If we do get a crusader/paladin for our shield bearing melee, I really wish they keep the flails as well.

That would be awesome. Flails are a great weapon type imho and having the paladin as a slower character but with more range sounds pretty good. In contrast with the Barb, which is a melee/weapon master and is way more mobile than a tank in shield and iron armor.

- - - Updated - - -

If it is F2P ok, but Diablo 4 is a full price game, probably around 99.99 with Season Pass.

So, expansions are also out of question because they added new classes? Or LoD/RoS were bad?

If they add new classes, they'll do it as part of an xpack. MTX will be about cosmetics and probably stash tabs.

Hell, they're likely going to be an exact copy of PoE shop and i'm not even mad.

- - - Updated - - -

I can only hope that D4 itemization won't be as bland as D3's was, so hopefully all classes can use it? At the very least it fits the Barbarian quite well.

I think some detail is needed here.

I see people complaining about attack/defense. Which is literally complaining about items having mainstat and stamina. They just called the mainstat what they actually are.

What makes itemization interesting are the affixes and set bonuses. The problem in D3 was that a) all the affixes had to be a trifecta of stats because eveything else was useless and b) set bonuses were designed in a way that they trumped over everything else and locked you into a specific build/playstyle.

From what we've seen, affixes are going to be more interesting. Do you want +1 to X skill so you can unlock the additional power or do you want more AS to have more procs? It's stuff like that that makes thing interesting.

I can see however how people is afraid of the linear item progression, compared for example with PoE where Uniques and Rares contend very well in gear slots. the idea however in D4 is that they're going to make so many Legendary, Sets and Mythics that there will be many options on how to play a character. From skillset to talents to gear, should be better for customizing our characters.

Though we won't know until we'll play the game.

[Velerios]

Since when does Blizzard doe season passes? Buying a class even in a B2P game is fine if there is a content drought or no more planned expansions.

Ok, it's gold edition for blizzard, but even then they want mroe monäääh. And no, it's not ok, since then the playerbase will be split between the whales and does who aren't. Sorry, but exactly this makes blizzard simply do less content and then sell things for an extra buck.

[Coldkil]

Ok, it's gold edition for blizzard, but even then they want mroe monäääh. And no, it's not ok, since then the playerbase will be split between the whales and does who aren't. Sorry, but exactly this makes blizzard simply do less content and then sell things for an extra buck.

Apart the fact it's not the case. It's not like you cannot do the content with the extra class. I suppose that competitive/ladders/PvP may be hurt especially if one DLC class is terribly OP, the whole game is a PvE dungeon crawler you play alone or with random people. Where you you need a playerbase first of all.

You're climbing mirrors here. Being worried about how MTX will be implemented is fine, assuming that everything is automatically shit and it will be a cashgrab is not. Even is we have multiple reasons to do so.

[Daronokk]

Confirmed:
- Barbarian
- Sorceress
- Druid

My speculation:
- Amazone / Archer type. Maybe incorporate traps, but not sure. Style of class not like the Demon Hunter. More like Diablo 1 and 2.

- Paladin / Warrior with shield type. Best parts of the Warrior from D1, Paladin from D2 (and perhaps Crusader from D3).

- Necromancer, a must for the game.

6 classes at launch. Basically it would be largely the same as Diablo 2. Then they can be creative in updates and add a few new classes. 2 or 3?

No Demon Hunter, no Monk, no Wizard, no Witch Doctor.

[ophion1990]

Don't forget, Barb is based around their weapon swap system. Two 2h and two 1hs. There was no mention anywhere of shields, I think Barbs are going back to their berserker roots.

Druids, on the other hand, I can totally see using shields. Frankly, if they can, I probably will...

The D2 barb starts with a shield, I don't think them being able to use one is going away from their roots too much. I agree that the 4 weapon system might be problematic. Though, IIRC, only certain skills swap weapons. I'm not sure if the current system is set in stone either, I wouldn't mind if barbs just got the manual weapon swap like D2, PoE, TL2, etc have. Which, and I am definitely biased in saying this, makes for more interesting gameplay.

I think some detail is needed here.

I see people complaining about attack/defense. Which is literally complaining about items having mainstat and stamina. They just called the mainstat what they actually are.

What makes itemization interesting are the affixes and set bonuses. The problem in D3 was that a) all the affixes had to be a trifecta of stats because eveything else was useless and b) set bonuses were designed in a way that they trumped over everything else and locked you into a specific build/playstyle.

From what we've seen, affixes are going to be more interesting. Do you want +1 to X skill so you can unlock the additional power or do you want more AS to have more procs? It's stuff like that that makes thing interesting.

I can see however how people is afraid of the linear item progression, compared for example with PoE where Uniques and Rares contend very well in gear slots. the idea however in D4 is that they're going to make so many Legendary, Sets and Mythics that there will be many options on how to play a character. From skillset to talents to gear, should be better for customizing our characters.

Though we won't know until we'll play the game.

I wasn't complaining about attack/defense, I would just prefer if people can choose what weapons they equip, unlike in D3 where, as you mentioned, you are shoehorned into using specific items due to the nature of sets and leg bonuses. Like, if I'm playing HotA IK, equiping a shield messes up my damage... and my toughness, which is just nonsense.

That said I am skeptical about attack/defense, just like I think vit/mainstat makes D3 less interesting. Make different defensive stats that accomplish different goals so I have to decide for myself if an item with a lot of armor actually has value on my ranged toon, for example. Putting those stats on every piece of gear takes away choice, which I'm not nescessarily a fan of. Same thing with attack, an axe with attack is as good for a sorc as it is for a barb, I'd rather see different weapons roll stuff like weapons damage or spell damage, so I actually have to look at the item, rather than just seeing a big attack number and equiping it. I get that there are a lot of other stats planned for D4 aswell, I genuinly just don't see the reason for those 2 stats to even exist since.

[PaladinBash]

Paladin 100% because shit, this was my fucking name in Diablo 2 for years before playing WoW. Give me that massive utility and aura power so everyone wants me around, especially if it's a group MMO type deal. Call it a Crusader or Templar or whatever if you must but give me my Paladin back.

[Cairhiin]

I think some detail is needed here.

I see people complaining about attack/defense. Which is literally complaining about items having mainstat and stamina. They just called the mainstat what they actually are.

What makes itemization interesting are the affixes and set bonuses. The problem in D3 was that a) all the affixes had to be a trifecta of stats because eveything else was useless and b) set bonuses were designed in a way that they trumped over everything else and locked you into a specific build/playstyle.

From what we've seen, affixes are going to be more interesting. Do you want +1 to X skill so you can unlock the additional power or do you want more AS to have more procs? It's stuff like that that makes thing interesting.

I can see however how people is afraid of the linear item progression, compared for example with PoE where Uniques and Rares contend very well in gear slots. the idea however in D4 is that they're going to make so many Legendary, Sets and Mythics that there will be many options on how to play a character. From skillset to talents to gear, should be better for customizing our characters.

Though we won't know until we'll play the game.

The problem I have with the current itemization is that the focus of the game is once again on legendaries. What Diablo 2 and PoE (Diablo 2 more than PoE - PoE has too much tier madness) did well is that they created rares that could be better than uniques if you hit the jackpot. From what I saw in the demo, magic had 1 affix/suffix which is alright but rares had only 2 affixes/suffixes. Consider PoE where a rare can roll with 3 Affixes and 3 Suffixes, if rares in D4 only roll 2 (total) then the items won't be very powerful and itemization will follow a clear path from white to blue to yellow to legendary. With an endgame character having 1 mythic item and the rest legendaries. Part of the charm of D2 was finding insane rares with +2 class bonuses etc.

The problem I have with this, is that legendaries are kinda fixed besides some variance in their rolls. If you make rares powerful you also get a healthy trading scene as people will trade in rares. However, I understand that because Blizzard is aiming at build changing legendaries, it's unlikely rares will ever be powerful enough to compete with those. This is exactly also what you point out in your post, the linear item progression.

[Beefhammer]

Ok, it's gold edition for blizzard, but even then they want mroe monäääh. And no, it's not ok, since then the playerbase will be split between the whales and does who aren't. Sorry, but exactly this makes blizzard simply do less content and then sell things for an extra buck.

Split how? Everyone who buys the game will have access to all content. Some with have, possibly additional cosmetic options that you all assume will only be available through a shop and it through in game means. Those cosmetics will probably only be in the shop, but we have on definitive answer as well as not knowing what the cosmetics are. Will it include armor, weapons, effects, pets, and mountsm Or will it e things like banners, wings, portrait frames, stash tabs, and character slots. Or a ix or all the above?

None of these splits the playerbase, none if this is content. You are just chicken bottling this while thing.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem I have with the current itemization is that the focus of the game is once again on legendaries. What Diablo 2 and PoE (Diablo 2 more than PoE - PoE has too much tier madness) did well is that they created rares that could be better than uniques if you hit the jackpot. From what I saw in the demo, magic had 1 affix/suffix which is alright but rares had only 2 affixes/suffixes. Consider PoE where a rare can roll with 3 Affixes and 3 Suffixes, if rares in D4 only roll 2 (total) then the items won't be very powerful and itemization will follow a clear path from white to blue to yellow to legendary. With an endgame character having 1 mythic item and the rest legendaries. Part of the charm of D2 was finding insane rares with +2 class bonuses etc.

The problem I have with this, is that legendaries are kinda fixed besides some variance in their rolls. If you make rares powerful you also get a healthy trading scene as people will trade in rares. However, I understand that because Blizzard is aiming at build changing legendaries, it's unlikely rares will ever be powerful enough to compete with those. This is exactly also what you point out in your post, the linear item progression.

I don't see the issue really. You take the best gear for what you are trying to build. Why does what rarity it is really matter. If you want to make a build without specific skill modifiers take your rates and have fun. Nothing is stopping anyone from making unique builds that way.

Maybe I'm too old to get it, but I didn't get this argument back in the day either. Use the best gear, which in most cases was not rares.

[Cairhiin]

I don't see the issue really. You take the best gear for what you are trying to build. Why does what rarity it is really matter. If you want to make a build without specific skill modifiers take your rates and have fun. Nothing is stopping anyone from making unique builds that way.

Maybe I'm too old to get it, but I didn't get this argument back in the day either. Use the best gear, which in most cases was not rares.

The problem is that rares should be able to compete with legendaries/uniques. It leads to much more interesting gearing than every season rolling with the same legendaries. It is the same as gambling in D2, it's that rush of getting a great item. The same with a rare. But if rares just aren't viable in the first place then builds will only be viable if they have supporting legendaries. rares simply add an extra level of options where gearing is concerned. The absolute best rares should be able to compete, and in some cases, be better than legendaries. I understand that opinions differ on this, and I also agree PoE rares are way over the top but there's a healthy middle ground somewhere there.

[Coldkil]

That said I am skeptical about attack/defense, just like I think vit/mainstat makes D3 less interesting. Make different defensive stats that accomplish different goals so I have to decide for myself if an item with a lot of armor actually has value on my ranged toon, for example. Putting those stats on every piece of gear takes away choice, which I'm not nescessarily a fan of. Same thing with attack, an axe with attack is as good for a sorc as it is for a barb, I'd rather see different weapons roll stuff like weapons damage or spell damage, so I actually have to look at the item, rather than just seeing a big attack number and equiping it. I get that there are a lot of other stats planned for D4 aswell, I genuinly just don't see the reason for those 2 stats to even exist since.

That makes sense. I think however they need to exist because they give you the base damage/defense needed to tackle higher difficulties. They give an immediate idea of what's probably best for me.

And what i have bolded, it's actually what's going to happen, and what i'm trying to say. People are focusing wrongly on attack/defense like they are the thing that matter most in an item. Even in D3, even with all the issues, mainstats were basically ignored in favour of the actual affixes on the items.

In D4 terms, sorc can equip everything and you're hunting for the spell damage rolls for example on a weapon. Barb has to have 2 1hand, 1blunt 2h and 1 slash 2h. What actual type of weapons is equipped is up to the player and will largely depend on what skills you're using and what rolls are actually supporting them.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem I have with this, is that legendaries are kinda fixed besides some variance in their rolls. If you make rares powerful you also get a healthy trading scene as people will trade in rares. However, I understand that because Blizzard is aiming at build changing legendaries, it's unlikely rares will ever be powerful enough to compete with those. This is exactly also what you point out in your post, the linear item progression.

I disagree. I couldn't care less what color or how you get the items. What i want is options for builds. I think we're still in a very preliminary stage since i doin't think we'll end with 2 rolls rares or even with prefixed legendaries (they'll have the fixed unique stat and then some random affixes). Mythic are the only exception but it's not a problem since you can equip only one and they won't be tradable anyway.

Agree however that a too linear system isn't good. Rares should be more powerful, but i'm fine also having lots of legendaries and sets to mix up so i have the options i look for. Like you said in the following post, there can be some kind of middle ground where rares have a place.

Hell, maybe even Legendaries and Sets won't be tradable.

[Cairhiin]

I disagree. I couldn't care less what color or how you get the items. What i want is options for builds. I think we're still in a very preliminary stage since i doin't think we'll end with 2 rolls rares or even with prefixed legendaries (they'll have the fixed unique stat and then some random affixes). Mythic are the only exception but it's not a problem since you can equip only one and they won't be tradable anyway.

Agree however that a too linear system isn't good. Rares should be more powerful, but i'm fine also having lots of legendaries and sets to mix up so i have the options i look for. Like you said in the following post, there can be some kind of middle ground where rares have a place.

Hell, maybe even Legendaries and Sets won't be tradable.

If legendaries roll with random affixes/suffixes it is fine. If they are like in D3, then it is not, and they will limit build options. I don't necessarily care about the color of an item either but there should be random rolled powerful items as it simply increases diversity, replayability and the option to trade (while I don't care for trading myself - I do think that a lot of people care). That is if legendaries can be traded (my guess is they can).

I really hope we see more gear diversity than in D3. The items that dropped in the demo were a promising start however.

[Beefhammer]

If legendaries roll with random affixes/suffixes it is fine. If they are like in D3, then it is not, and they will limit build options. I don't necessarily care about the color of an item either but there should be random rolled powerful items as it simply increases diversity, replayability and the option to trade (while I don't care for trading myself - I do think that a lot of people care). That is if legendaries can be traded (my guess is they can).

I really hope we see more gear diversity than in D3. The items that dropped in the demo were a promising start however.

I'd have to go back and look, but I would like to believe outside of the effect and or skill modifier the additional affixes might be random. Of course the demo dropping specific legendaries might not be representative of the final result.

[Cairhiin]

I'd have to go back and look, but I would like to believe outside of the effect and or skill modifier the additional affixes might be random. Of course the demo dropping specific legendaries might not be representative of the final result.

Ye exactly, really hard to say if the legendaries are representative. I'd like to believe they are really early implementations, and possibly really generic legendaries in general, just for the demo.

[Coldkil]

If legendaries roll with random affixes/suffixes it is fine. If they are like in D3, then it is not, and they will limit build options. I don't necessarily care about the color of an item either but there should be random rolled powerful items as it simply increases diversity, replayability and the option to trade (while I don't care for trading myself - I do think that a lot of people care). That is if legendaries can be traded (my guess is they can).

I really hope we see more gear diversity than in D3. The items that dropped in the demo were a promising start however.

Fully agree here. I got a screenshot from the D4 panel from last Blizzcon and here's one Legendary that's been shown.



The legendary item has its own fixed ability (that rolls in a range) plus 2 random ones. Also, as number of affixes goes, it has 2 of them as the rares - so they're comparable in power while being more powerful due to the special one. Though i think we're going to see something like 2 rolls for magic, 4 rolls for rares, 5 for legendaries (because of the specials) and 4 for set items (due to the unlockable bonuses). Makes up for more possibilities and it isn't too much complex to the point most stuff that drops is useless.

I think overall we're on the same page.

[Morae]

Was the number of classes at release confirmed to be 5?

Because, the more I think about classes, something is going to be missing, if its 5. With 6, all "basic" roles should be in game, but difficult to do so with 5. Are they just saving interesting role for future expansion?

[ParanoiD84]

Was the number of classes at release confirmed to be 5?

Because, the more I think about classes, something is going to be missing, if its 5. With 6, all "basic" roles should be in game, but difficult to do so with 5. Are they just saving interesting role for future expansion?

Yeah 5 and yeah it's missing a ranger and a shield/heavy armor type character so one of those at release or most likely both, some people think one and the other Necromancer I think they save necro for the first expansion though and put paladin and amazon/ranger type at launch.

Seeing as this is a bit more on the mmo side I suspect it will have a much longer life cycle and a ton of added content like expansions and alot of added classes, perhaps we will even have all classes and some new ones at the end. I sure hope so.

[Coldkil]

Seeing as this is a bit more on the mmo side I suspect it will have a much longer life cycle and a ton of added content like expansions and alot of added classes, perhaps we will even have all classes and some new ones at the end. I sure hope so.

Yeah, that's likely the plan. You can see it in the game structure - much more content, world exploration and generally something that's going to make you play consistently over time. Plus it's basically modular and they can add infinite stuff if they want - Hell and Heavens, the Void (since Lilith comes from there) etc.

[Mendzia]

Amazon/Assasin/Rogue or any other similar class that is based on ranged physical dmg weapon.

and...

probably Paladin or Necro.

[ophion1990]

That makes sense. I think however they need to exist because they give you the base damage/defense needed to tackle higher difficulties. They give an immediate idea of what's probably best for me.

And what i have bolded, it's actually what's going to happen, and what i'm trying to say. People are focusing wrongly on attack/defense like they are the thing that matter most in an item. Even in D3, even with all the issues, mainstats were basically ignored in favour of the actual affixes on the items.

In D4 terms, sorc can equip everything and you're hunting for the spell damage rolls for example on a weapon. Barb has to have 2 1hand, 1blunt 2h and 1 slash 2h. What actual type of weapons is equipped is up to the player and will largely depend on what skills you're using and what rolls are actually supporting them.

Fair enough, I still prefer the slow scaling difficulty where you know once you start taking big hits, you might wanna invest in defensive stats. That said, the items I saw drop all rolled with attack/defense, I didn't see purely defensive ones like the items you linked below, so that's actually quite nice to see. As for mainstat, it's so good that you actively aim for a set amount of it before you start pushing higher GRs, granted that this has more to do with endless scaling and paragon, which is a whole other can of worms.