DiabloWikiBashiok returned to a much-debated topic from last week, and added info that most of us will take as good news. It turns out that the D3 characters will not be quite as limited in their weapon choices as previously thought. Today’s posts:

    I talked to Jay a bit more about weapon restrictions last Friday and there are actually going to be some changes over all the classes to increase the weapon types usable by each by a small bit. Reason being that it looks like we probably have the bandwidth to handle it, and people just really like being able to use a lot of different weapon types to experiment with. One example he gave of an addition people were asking for (and someone here mentioned) was 2h swords for wizards, which is planned to be added now. Work hasn’t really begun on these changes so its not set in stone, but it’s likely this will affect the monk most substantially.

    Which isn’t to say everyone can use everything, there are still some fairly specific restrictions. Most restrictions with this new plan would be for ‘flavor’ reasons. Wands will probably be wizard only because they’re very ‘magicy’ feeling, and their projectile component is somewhat unique. Wizards probably won’t be lugging around 2h maces because it just doesn’t feel like they should be smashy-smashy characters. etc.

    Most of the comments on this issue last time were fairly accepting of the narrow range of weapons each character can use. The main point several people emphasized is that it’s not so much about the weapon type, as the mods that can spawn on a given type of weapon. A class won’t choose to use a sword, or club, or spear, or whatever, if the type of mods on that item are never useful to that class. D2 intentionally mixed this up by putting, for instance, mage mods on the occasional axe or polearm, and huge damage on the occasional dagger or staff. It seems unlikely we’ll see that sort of thing in D3.

    Click through for a follow up post, if Bashiok’s slang use of the word “bandwidth” left you puzzled.

    Maybe he meant “personnel bandwidth?” That’s the most logical conclusion I could come up with.

    …Never heard it referred to like that before. And I was totally down with just pretending that I knew what you meant to sound cool and smart. Plan ruined?

    Bashiok: Hrm. I hear it and use it all the time. Thought it was pretty common. Maybe it’s just something our nerd culture here has expanded to more general use.

    “Do you have the bandwidth to take on X project?”
    “The team doesn’t have the bandwidth to finish this request by the deadline.”

    You may also like