Diablo III Interview

Diablo III lead designer Jay Wilson has provided 1UP with some surprisingly detailed answers to four pages of questions about the action RPG sequel.

1UP: Someone could look at the new classes and make reductionist statements that compare them to the Diablo 2 classes. For those who claim the Wizard is just a reskinned Sorceress and that Witch Doctor is just a new name for Necromancer, what attributes would you point to that makes these new classes different and not rehashes?

JW: Well, for the Wizard versus the Sorceress, I would say that if someone makes the argument that the Wizard is just a reskinned Sorceress, I would respond, “Yeah, you’re right; the Wizard is basically a reskinned Sorceress.” What we couldn’t do with the Sorceress very well was break into what I’d call the old-school pen-and-paper magic user. You know the old magic user who could do a variety of things, like conjure up animals out of midair or create clouds of fog and acid or control time or disintegrate things or use death spells. They had this wide variety of magic that they could use compared to the more traditional elementalist — which is what the Sorceress is, meaning fire, ice, and lightning — who was just more limited. What we really wanted to do is break into this area, while if we just did the Sorceress again, we’d be like, “OK, you have to do fire, ice, and lightning, but where does disintegrate fit? Where does slow time fit in?” So we decided [that we’d] just take the same class mechanics, and [that we’d] change the basic concept and name and just have a throwback to that old-school magic user to give ourselves a broader range of magic skills. But there was never a huge desire to go away from the basic gameplay of the Sorceress; there’s a lot of repeated skills, and that’s intentional.

With the Witch Doctor, I’d say that the Witch Doctor is not a reskinned Necromancer. He has similarities, but I would say no more so than the Hunter and Warlock do in World of WarCraft. Sure, they’re both pet classes, but they don’t operate the same. For the Witch Doctor, we wanted to create a class whose pets were not his primary source of damage output. Sure, you can build a Necromancer that’s not reliant on pets, but most Necromancer builds are very pet heavy. The pets do a lot of the damage, and a lot of mechanics are built around debuffing the enemy so your pets can be better against them or taking advantage of the bodies your pets create by blowing them up with corpse explosion.

The Witch Doctor’s pets are more of a distraction — they’re his form of crowd control. They’re very transient, they don’t matter as much to him, and they aren’t really a primary source of damage. We wanted to have this general notion of a character who controlled all things slimy and gross, like zombies, bats, snakes, and spiders, but he didn’t rely on them — he just throws them out there. One of his most permanent pets is his Zombie Dogs, and we have a spell to blow them up because they’re just not that important to him. We consider Zombie Wall to almost be a pet as well; it’s a short-term pet, but it’s a pet nonetheless. Each element is like that, where it’s another distraction while the source of primary damage is the Witch Doctor himself. This makes him play very differently than the Necromancer, which was intentional.

I don’t want to close the door on bringing back classes from Diablo or Diablo 2; I just don’t want to do so with the initial release of Diablo 3. In Diablo 3, all of the classes should do something completely new. Then I’d like us to look back and figure out what gameplay gaps [exist]…. Then we’d go back and satisfy our and the fans’ nostalgia by pulling back some classes that we think really stood out.

…

1UP: So with changes to character-class design and dungeon design/scripting, did you make any significant changes to the last major aspect of Diablo: the loot/item-gain?

JW: I believe I mentioned in the past that we are considering crafting systems. But we’re not really announcing anything about that right now. But we took a few things out, like Rune Words, essentially because Rune Words is a very simple crafting system, and we’re planning to do something different there. I’d say that most of the changes are minor. We’ve made lots of statistical changes. For example, with the more magical classes, like the Sorceress, their items were in some ways less valuable to them because they didn’t have a lot of effect on their damage output, so we’ve added more attributes that control magic damage and things that allow Wizards to get items that do more damage and bolster their defenses and health. We have more [weapon name] affixes that play into the broader set of resources; the Barbarian has fury, so we added affixes that play with that. We generally tried to expand our approach to affixes to make them smarter.

Those are fairly simple, though. There’s other things, like how we’ve changed the way that gems work. In Diablo 2, gems could only go on white — or nonmagic — items, while gems are now a separate chance for a weapon, meaning that we roll the item’s base attributes, and we roll for its chance to have gem slots. So now any item, even legendary ones, can have gem slots. That plays a lot into the core of the item system […] even if you find the best item in the game, the stats on that item have some randomness to them that means there could be a better version of that item. Well, now, if you find the best item in the game but it doesn’t have any gem sockets, then it’s not the best version of that item. In terms of creating item variance, we’re looking to enhance that within Diablo 3.

There’re still a few things that we haven’t made decisions on yet — set items, for one. I didn’t like the way they worked in Diablo 2, as by the time you finally got a set together, you generally leveled beyond the use for it. So you might save them for alts, which is OK, but I’d rather that they be useful for you to begin with. We haven’t really decided how we’re going to fix that. We also have some new item types that we haven’t announced yet that are related to some systems that we’re planning. But I don’t think they vastly change the system — they mostly play into the strengths of it.