---

Q u o t e:
We don't really like the idea of a class having access to other class' abilities and have no plans to implement it.

---

This is definitely the right direction in my opinion!

Diablo1 --> All Classes had the same spells throughout, the only real difference in the chars was in some the attributelimits and some hardcoded values for IAS, FHR, etc

Diablo2 --> Classes were more unique due to the custom designed skilltrees for each, however they could use many skills from other classes...enigma *cough*

Diablo3 --> I hope it'll go further into making each class more unique, e.g. a Barbarian shouldn't be a WitchDoctor due to skills on items, etc...

Now, there's one thing about this subject that keeps bothering me. When you say "the Witch Doctor is the only one that uses Mana", you mean "the Witch Doctor is the only one that uses the standard Mana mechanic", right? Because if he's going to be the only class using that energy type, it should really have a more class-specific name than "Mana", like "Voodoo" or something. I think this is what makes many people say "The Wizard should be the one who uses Mana!", because the name itself is more appropriate to a generic Western style of magic.

Having a unique resource type implies that cross skills will not be included in the game. IE enimga teleport thing.

Can we stop this off-topic flame and come back to Monk energy type and mechanics discussion? =_=

---

Q u o t e:
Can we stop this off-topic flame and come back to Monk energy type and mechanics discussion? =_=

---

No one knows what exactly will be the Monk energy type or mechanics, and Bashiok won't tell us now. But I bet it will be something like wow rogue's energy and combos, but with a 'holy' theme.

And I don't know why Bashiok loses so much time explaining obvious things. The argument that incompatibility kills flexibility is completely unfounded. It's obvious that different mechanics doesn't mean incompatibility.

But [yell] PLEASE DON'T LET OUR VOODOO WITCH WITH THAT STUPID BLUE BALL!!! [/yell]


[calm down]

Please, reconsider the blue.

---

Q u o t e:
Now, there's one thing about this subject that keeps bothering me. When you say "the Witch Doctor is the only one that uses Mana", you mean "the Witch Doctor is the only one that uses the standard Mana mechanic", right? Because if he's going to be the only class using that energy type, it should really have a more class-specific name than "Mana", like "Voodoo" or something. I think this is what makes many people say "The Wizard should be the one who uses Mana!", because the name itself is more appropriate to a generic Western style of magic.

---

The word mana isn't a native English word. It's not even European, it comes from the South Pacific and entered English through Maori.

---

Q u o t e:
The word mana isn't a native English word. It's not even European, it comes from the South Pacific and entered English through Maori.

---

Irregardless of the word's true linguistic heritage, the way the word "mana" is used for English speakers has a strong association with the idea of magic. This is the reason why mana is a common resource pool for the purpose of casting magic in games (along with the generic "magic point" system of course).

I can only assume that Blizzard believes they've thought of something really brilliant to substitute for the Wizard's resource pool that they'd not only replace it for her, but shove it off onto the Witch Doctor who would seem to be a much more likely candidate for an alternative resource pool.

---

Q u o t e:
Please, reconsider the blue.

---

How about purple? It's got a semi sinister feel if it's bubbling, plus the Witch Doctor is wearing purple on the D3 website.

---

Q u o t e:
Irregardless of the word's true linguistic heritage, the way the word "mana" is used for English speakers has a strong association with the idea of magic. This is the reason why mana is a common resource pool for the purpose of casting magic in games (along with the generic "magic point" system of course).

I can only assume that Blizzard believes they've thought of something really brilliant to substitute for the Wizard's resource pool that they'd not only replace it for her, but shove it off onto the Witch Doctor who would seem to be a much more likely candidate for an alternative resource pool.

---

Oh, I agree on that point to an extent, it's certainly more commonly associated with standard D&D-esque magic than with shamanistic practices. Though what the witch doctor does is no less magic than what the wizard does - merely focused towards different effects.

Perhaps the wizard will draw power from ley lines, like in the Robert Asprin books

---

Q u o t e:
Though what the witch doctor does is no less magic than what the wizard does - merely focused towards different effects.

---

I'm not sure I agree there; the Witch Doctor seems focused on using alchemy and other voodoo-like practices, which would seem to be less tied to the idea of mana than the Wizard. She practices the classical idea of magic: the ability to produce something from nothing by tapping into a supernatural source of power. I don't buy into the idea that because she does things like manipulating time and using raw arcane power in addition to manipulating the elements that she is somehow less tied into the concept of mana than the Sorcerer and Sorceress were in D1 and D2, respectively.

---

Q u o t e:
Perhaps the wizard will draw power from ley lines, like in the Robert Asprin books

---

Haven't read any of his books, but the concept of ley lines is an interesting one.

Thanks for taking the time to reply again, Bash.

---

Q u o t e:
There's nothing to say we can't, wherever resource bonuses exist, cover all of the resources at the same time.

---

Yes, I know +stats item will probably be more common to make up for auto-stats, and the "energy-related" stat would boost resources for each class. This is still a step back in flexibility from the D2 system, where you could either get +max mana, +max mana regen or +energy.

---

Q u o t e:
We don't really like the idea of a class having access to other class' abilities and have no plans to implement it.

---

Doesn't necessarily have to be other classes' abilities. I submitted a suggestion once for an item type called grimoire, essentially a staff-type item in the shape of a book that acted as an O-skill item for skills that none of the characters would have access to without grimoires - to get that D1 feel of finding an awesome spellbook back, but without throwing the skill system off balance. This would make all the O-skill "fixes" that D2 had to haul around unnecessary as well. I'd love to see them implemented, but this would be a lot more difficult with incompatible resource systems.

---

Q u o t e:
Look, it presents some design hurdles sure, but there are plenty of solutions. I think it's a bit early, and maybe even knee-jerk to see them as insurmountable. As I said in my previous posts, we have a lot of different solutions we can take to ensure the system works and we'll probably use some combination of all of them.

---

Yes, there are lots of possible solutions. None of them cover all the problems, but it's not impossible that the design team can cover enough of the problems that the loss of flexibility becomes insignificant in the face of the wider gameplay experience that different resource mechanics provide. However, I'd still appreciate it if you could point this thread out to the design team. Perhaps we can get some clearer answers then.

Monk is supposed to be "Holly warrior" so does that mean he will use smthg holly like "holly s...t"?
To me it looks like this topic (energy sources) is still widely discussed in Blizz itself. Not knowing the finall class i cant even guess source for Monk.
Cant even guess if Monk will have stored or "build up" or resorption/absorption source.
But im pretty certain that final outcome will be SUPERB:) and FRESH.

---

Q u o t e:
This is still a step back in flexibility from the D2 system, where you could either get +max mana, +max mana regen or +energy.

---

Forgive me if I'm being short-sighted, please.

I don't see how, given what Bashiok has pointed out, that this is something that would be restricted by class specific resources. If they can code an "energy related" stat (as you put it) that would cover all resource types equally, then there's nothing to stop them adding a new item bonus that does the same.

In fact, the notion lends itself nicely, in my opinion, to item design. Items intended for a specific class can still have those bonuses that apply only to the resource type associated with the intended class, but more universal items could carry the universal resource bonus (it could be called "Granola Bars" or something similarly idiotic for purposes of this discussion) that gives those same bonuses to whatever resource the class wearing it uses.

I simply fail to see the lack of flexibility you describe coming from unique resource pools. I think there's an argument to be made that class restrictions on items remove some flexibility, but that doesn't appear to be what you're suggesting.

---

Q u o t e:
more universal items could carry the universal resource bonus (it could be called "Granola Bars" or something similarly idiotic for purposes of this discussion) that gives those same bonuses to whatever resource the class wearing it uses.

I simply fail to see the lack of flexibility you describe coming from unique resource pools. I think there's an argument to be made that class restrictions on items remove some flexibility, but that doesn't appear to be what you're suggesting.

---

So how would you handle +mana regen? If you could have +fury regen on a Barb, you'd destroy the fury-building mechanic. With only a bit of +fury regen, you'd enter every battle fully charged. And if you'd decide to counter that by designing the Barb with the assummption that he'll have +fury regen, then there's no point in not just using mana in the first place.

---

Q u o t e:


So how would you handle +mana regen? If you could have +fury regen on a Barb, you'd destroy the fury-building mechanic. With only a bit of +fury regen, you'd enter every battle fully charged. And if you'd decide to counter that by designing the Barb with the assummption that he'll have +fury regen, then there's no point in not just using mana in the first place.

---

+fury regen doesn't necessarily mean that the gains are passive. It could be handled rather easily, in my opinion, by simply bumping (albeit very slightly) the amount of fury gained through the normal process of fury regeneration.

Say, for the sake of example only, that a full fury meter consists of 100 fury "points" (for lack of a better term). Let's also say that a normal attack adds 5 points to your fury pool. +fury regen items may bump that 5 points to 6 and still not provide passive regeneration. Of course, there would need to be a hard cap on the level of the bonus to avoid the barbarian going from empty to full in a single swing of his axe.

Giving a (re)generation bonus doesn't intrinsically mean that Blizzard would ignore the resource mechanics, in my opinion.

I'm making a caster-type Barb that doesn't fight at all and uses items intended for Wizards to pay for some weapon-independent Barb moves. Is your system that flexible?
a) No
b) But wait, I can fix that with ANOTHER work-around, leading to a needlessly complex system that is still not as flexible as just giving all characters the same resources.

---

Q u o t e:
I'm making a caster-type Barb that doesn't fight at all and uses items intended for Wizards to pay for some weapon-independent Barb moves.

---

What do you mean by "doesn't fight"? Do you mean not engaging in Melee counting on some damage reflection ability so he can stand around and let monsters kill themselves? Or do you mean using only AoE attacks like Earthquake, Seismic Slam, Leap Attack, or Hammer of the Ancients?

---

Q u o t e:
Is your system that flexible?
a) No

---

Nor should it be, in my opinion. If you want to use Barbarian attacks such as those listed above then you should be somewhat constrained to working within the barbarian system. Again, in my opinion.

---

Q u o t e:
b) But wait, I can fix that with ANOTHER work-around, leading to a needlessly complex system that is still not as flexible as just giving all characters the same resources.

---

Thus far nothing that's been stated by Bashiok or speculated on by me makes the system any more complex from a gameplay perspective. It does create a bit more programming complexity but that has little to no bearing on how complex the classes are to play for the end user. It may add a step or two for theory-crafting min/maxers, but such is the choice that they make in choosing to theorize about the game as opposed to playing it.

Different strokes, yo

Agree or disagree, I'm enjoying the discussion and not trying to play the right/wrong game. I hope you are taking it as such.

---

Q u o t e:
Or do you mean using only AoE attacks like Earthquake, Seismic Slam, Leap Attack, or Hammer of the Ancients?

---

This.

---

Q u o t e:
Nor should it be, in my opinion.

---

Blizzard doesn't share this opinion. Bashiok has stated that they're fully intending to keep oddball builds possible.

---

Q u o t e:
has little to no bearing on how complex the classes are to play for the end user.

---

Are you intending to force players to create a new char if they want to see what an item does on another class, or are you intending to clutter the screen with 5 different ability descriptions for a single affix?

---

Q u o t e:
Agree or disagree, I'm enjoying the discussion and not trying to play the right/wrong game. I hope you are taking it as such.

---

With you, no problem. It's the ones who don't listen to reason at all and don't read the thread properly that I'm growing a bit tired of.

This can be fixed easy. Just have items that have different stats for different classes.

Say Item A. When held by a WD it shows and applies +mana. When on a Barb it shows and applies a bonus to fury gain. Though I don't know if their system can do that.