Diablo 2 Players Are Still Waiting for a Proper Switch 2 Upgrade

Diablo II: Resurrected has spent 2026 proving that Blizzard is perfectly willing to modernize a 25-year-old game. Reign of the Warlock added an entirely new class, expanded the endgame, introduced new items and Rune Words, improved storage, added a loot filter and generally did things that would once have sounded dangerously close to sacrilege. Nintendo Switch 2 owners are therefore asking a fairly reasonable question: if Diablo II can get a Warlock in 2026, can the Switch version finally get 60 FPS?

The request has been circulating since Nintendo's newer hardware arrived, but it has become louder again in August. A current Blizzard forum thread started on August 12 with a very simple demand: 60 FPS and eight-player games on Switch 2. Players have continued bumping the topic through August 29, with others adding higher resolution, cross-play and improved graphics to the wish list. Blizzard has not announced a dedicated Diablo II: Resurrected Switch 2 upgrade, and Nintendo's current store page still lists the game as Nintendo Switch software that is compatible with Switch 2 rather than as a native Switch 2 version.

That distinction is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore when the game itself just received its biggest expansion in years.

Diablo II Works on Switch 2 — But It Is Still the Switch Version

Nintendo's current Diablo II: Resurrected listing confirms that the game is supported on Switch 2. The file size is listed identically at 8.4 GB on both systems, while the product remains categorized as Nintendo Switch software. More importantly for multiplayer players, the technical specifications still list online play as one to four players.

That is essentially the experience players have been complaining about since Switch 2 launched. The stronger hardware can run the existing Switch game through backward compatibility, but Diablo II: Resurrected does not currently expose the sort of hardware-specific enhancements players associate with a genuine Switch 2 upgrade.

The most common request is 60 FPS. Forum users consistently describe the current Switch version as locked around 30 FPS and argue that Switch 2 should be capable of a substantially smoother presentation. Higher resolution comes immediately behind it, particularly in docked mode where the visual compromises designed around the original 2017 Switch hardware become much easier to notice on a large display.

Players are not asking Blizzard to remake Diablo II again.

They mostly want the remake they already own to notice that the console underneath it changed.

The Four-Player Limit Is Becoming Just as Important as 60 FPS

Performance gets most of the attention, but the multiplayer restriction may actually be the more interesting problem. Diablo II was built around games supporting up to eight players, and that remains standard on PC, PlayStation and Xbox. Nintendo Switch has historically been the exception, limiting Battle.net games to four players.

Nintendo's current Switch listing still explicitly states online: 1–4 players. That has become particularly conspicuous because the publisher description for Diablo II: Resurrected – Infernal Edition proudly advertises “Eight Classes, Eight Players, Endless Replayability” and describes eight-player co-op in the general product copy.

Scroll down to the actual Nintendo Switch specifications and the number becomes four.

That is not necessarily a mistake. The promotional description covers Diablo II: Resurrected broadly across platforms, while the platform specifications describe what the Switch release actually supports. But it produces a slightly comic result where the same store page essentially says:

Eight players!

And then, several lines later:

Not here.

Switch 2 owners naturally want the newer hardware to remove that old limitation.

The Original Switch Is Now Part of the Complication

One argument in the August discussion is that increasing the Switch 2 player limit could create compatibility problems with the original Switch population. Diablo II: Resurrected is currently one Switch ecosystem product rather than two completely separate versions. If one machine supports four-player games while another suddenly supports eight, Blizzard would need to decide how matchmaking, lobbies and cross-generation multiplayer should behave.

That does not make an upgrade impossible. Games routinely provide enhanced graphics and frame rates on newer hardware while maintaining multiplayer compatibility with older systems. Eight-player lobbies are more complicated because they change actual game rules rather than simply how the client renders the world.

Some forum players therefore suggest separating the requests. Give Switch 2 the easier hardware-level improvements first — 60 FPS and higher resolution — while treating eight-player support and cross-play as larger networking features that may require more engineering.

That is probably the most realistic version of what players are asking for.

Unlocking a frame rate is not literally a magical one-line switch despite what every internet forum eventually claims, but it is still a very different project from rebuilding console multiplayer architecture.

Reign of the Warlock Made the Missing Upgrade More Noticeable

The timing is what makes the situation feel strange. Blizzard launched Reign of the Warlock on Nintendo Switch in February 2026 alongside the wider Diablo II expansion. The new content includes the Warlock class, expanded Terror Zones, the Colossal Ancients endgame encounter, new items and Rune Words, Chronicle progression, improved stash organization and a customizable loot filter.

That is not maintenance-mode content.

It is a substantial investment in Diablo II: Resurrected.

We have spent much of this month covering how dramatically the expansion continues to reshape the game, from Blizzard continuing to rebalance the Warlock's Bind Demon mechanics to players experimenting with the new Season 15 endgame and debating how shorter Ladder seasons fit a game still built around enormous long-term grinds.

The Switch version receives that new gameplay.

It just receives it through the same basic hardware profile designed for the original Switch.

That is why several players say they expected the expansion to be the obvious moment for a Switch 2 patch. If Blizzard was already updating the game across every platform, packaging an Infernal Edition and selling new DLC on Nintendo hardware, the absence of a hardware upgrade became much more visible.

Some Players Are Choosing Steam Deck Instead

The handheld comparison is unavoidable. One player in the current thread says they deliberately chose a Steam Deck instead of Switch 2 for Diablo II because they expected the Nintendo version to remain constrained by its original performance profile. Earlier Switch 2 discussions make the same comparison, with players saying Diablo II feels considerably smoother on Valve's handheld while still providing the portable experience they want.

That should probably concern Blizzard more than angry forum posts.

Diablo II: Resurrected is unusually well suited to portable play. Runs are short. Offline characters work beautifully on a train or sofa. Cross-progression allows Battle.net characters to move between supported platforms. The game's basic control scheme adapted surprisingly well to controllers.

The Switch was therefore one of the most natural homes Diablo II ever found.

Switch 2 should theoretically be an even better one.

Instead, some players with both options are choosing another handheld because Diablo II can actually use its hardware.

Cross-Progression Works — Cross-Play Still Does Not

Another recurring request is full cross-play. Diablo II: Resurrected already supports cross-progression through Battle.net, allowing players to access the same online characters across supported platforms when their accounts are linked. Nintendo highlighted that feature when the original Switch release launched in 2021.

Actual multiplayer remains platform-specific.

A player can level a Sorceress on PC, continue that character on Switch and then return to PC later, but the PC and Switch players cannot simply join the same game together. The four-player Switch limit further separates the platforms because PC and the other console versions support the traditional eight-player structure.

Some players now see Switch 2 as an opportunity to solve both problems at once: increase the player limit and introduce cross-play between modern platforms.

That is a significantly larger request than a performance patch, and Blizzard has announced nothing suggesting it is coming. But if Diablo II: Resurrected is going to continue receiving major paid content, the argument for bringing its fragmented multiplayer ecosystem closer together becomes stronger.

There Is No Announced Switch 2 Upgrade Yet

As of August 31, Blizzard has not announced a Switch 2-specific edition, performance patch or upgrade path for Diablo II: Resurrected. Nintendo's store currently treats the game as compatible Switch software, and Reign of the Warlock itself is likewise listed as Nintendo Switch content that can be used on Switch 2.

That is important because community discussions occasionally drift from “the hardware should be able to do this” into “Blizzard only needs to unlock it.” We do not know what internal work would actually be required. Diablo II: Resurrected's Switch renderer, memory targets, UI and networking were all built with the original hardware in mind. A stable 60 FPS target could require optimization work beyond simply changing a configuration value.

But players are not unreasonable for wondering why Blizzard has not even announced that such work is happening.

Nintendo explicitly supports developers releasing free updates or paid upgrade packs that improve existing Switch games on Switch 2. The infrastructure exists.

Diablo II simply has not used it.

BlizzCon Is Now the Obvious Place to Watch

The latest forum conversation repeatedly points toward BlizzCon, and the timing makes that speculation understandable. BlizzCon 2026 takes place September 12–13, less than two weeks after the current discussion.

Blizzard's official event page promises major announcements during the Opening Ceremony, although it does not currently promise a Diablo II presentation or a Switch 2 announcement. Diablo IV and Diablo Immortal are explicitly included among the event's hands-on games; Diablo II is not listed there.

So there is no evidence that a Switch 2 patch will be revealed at BlizzCon.

But if Blizzard intends to announce one anytime soon, the company's biggest event of the year would be the obvious stage.

That hope is also part of why players are bumping the discussion now rather than quietly accepting the current version. We are close enough to BlizzCon for “maybe they are saving it for the show” to remain believable.

For another couple of weeks, anyway.

The Minimum Upgrade Is Pretty Clear

If Blizzard does decide to revisit Diablo II on Switch 2, the community wish list has remained remarkably consistent for more than a year:

• 60 FPS support
• Higher rendering resolution
• Eight-player online games
• Optional graphical improvements
• Cross-play
• Better console UI and control options

Not all of those belong in the same category. Cross-play and eight-player networking are major feature requests. Mouse support, interface changes and local co-op would require additional design work.

But 60 FPS and a resolution bump are the things almost every Switch 2 thread agrees on.

Even players asking for nothing else generally want those two.

Console Players Have Already Had a Rough Year

The frustration is amplified because Diablo II's console versions have already gone through performance problems this year. PlayStation 5 players spent months dealing with severe offline hitching before Blizzard finally corrected it, an issue we covered when players confirmed that the long-running PS5 offline stutter had finally been fixed.

That episode demonstrated both sides of Blizzard's current relationship with console Diablo II.

The bad news: console-specific issues can remain around for a surprisingly long time.

The good news: Blizzard is still fixing them.

Switch 2 players are asking for the next step to be proactive rather than corrective. They do not want to wait for something to break. They want Blizzard to make use of hardware that is already sitting underneath the game.

Diablo II Has Become Too Active to Hide Behind “Legacy Game” Anymore

There was a period where asking for significant Diablo II: Resurrected platform work might have seemed unrealistic. The remaster had launched, received several major patches and gradually settled into predictable Ladder resets.

Reign of the Warlock changed that argument.

Blizzard added an eighth class to Diablo II.

That sentence still sounds slightly illegal.

Once the company crossed that line, a Switch 2 performance mode suddenly stopped sounding particularly radical.

Season 15 is also producing constant balance changes, new item discussions and endgame experimentation. The game is not frozen in amber. Blizzard is actively designing around it.

If Diablo II: Resurrected is important enough to receive new classes and paid expansions, it is difficult to argue that one of the largest current console platforms is too unimportant to deserve an optimized version.

For Now, Switch 2 Is the Better Hardware Running the Same Old Version

The current situation is not disastrous. Diablo II: Resurrected works on Switch 2. Reign of the Warlock is available. Cross-progression remains useful. Players can take modern Diablo II with them anywhere, which would still have sounded like witchcraft when Lord of Destruction launched.

But backward compatibility and optimization are not the same thing.

Switch 2 owners have spent more than a year asking Blizzard to close that gap. The August thread shows they have not stopped, and with BlizzCon now approaching, expectations are starting to rise again.

Maybe Blizzard has a Switch 2 patch waiting behind the curtain.

Maybe Sanctuary will remain at 30 FPS and four-player parties for another year.

Either way, the community's request is no longer complicated:

The Warlock has arrived.

Now unlock the frames.

Sources

Diablo II: Resurrected Forums: Nintendo Switch 2 Upgrade — August 2026

Diablo II: Resurrected Forums: Long-Running Nintendo Switch 2 Patch Discussion

Nintendo: Diablo II: Resurrected Switch and Switch 2 Compatibility

Nintendo: Diablo II: Resurrected – Infernal Edition

Blizzard: BlizzCon 2026 Event Information

```

Read More

Diablo 4’s 500-Reply Memory Leak Thread Is Still Hard to Ignore

Diablo IV has received new classes, expansions, seasonal systems, endgame redesigns and enough balance patches to make a spreadsheet nervous. Yet one of the most persistent PC complaints remains remarkably familiar: players launch the game, RAM usage climbs, VRAM fills up, performance begins to stutter and eventually something gives up.

One of Blizzard's largest dedicated PC bug threads for the issue now sits at 508 replies and almost 20,000 views. The thread itself dates back to May 2025, when players documented system memory jumping to 15–20 GB within minutes, VRAM increasing with town portals and zone transitions, and crashes arriving after 15–30 minutes. Blizzard acknowledged the reports at the time and asked players to submit crash IDs. More than a year later, the same thread remains one of the most viewed topics in Diablo IV's PC Bug Report section, while fresh August 2026 posts continue describing high RAM and VRAM usage, severe stuttering and performance degradation.

That does not mean every current Diablo IV crash comes from one giant unresolved memory leak. PC performance problems can involve drivers, DirectStorage, texture settings, hardware configurations, overlays and plenty of other variables. But it does mean players have been describing the same basic pattern for an awfully long time.

The Original Report Was Extremely Specific

The major thread began with a player who had already submitted a support ticket and included a crash ID. Their measurements were not particularly subtle. System RAM reportedly climbed to 15–20 GB within minutes, even while sitting at character selection. VRAM increased after town portals and zone transitions until it reached approximately 13–14 GB. Logging out did not release the accumulated memory, and the client eventually crashed with a Fenris dialog after roughly 15–30 minutes.

Other players quickly joined in with wildly different hardware. Reports included RTX 3070, RTX 4090 and RTX 5080 systems, Radeon cards, 16 GB systems, 32 GB systems, 64 GB systems and even one player with 128 GB of DDR5 memory. Some experienced complete crashes. Others reported enormous stutters, long freezes or degrading performance without the game actually closing.

One particularly useful reproduction involved simply teleporting between locations. A player with 32 GB RAM reported starting around 10 GB of system usage and watching another 500 MB to 1 GB disappear after each zone change until the system eventually crashed. That matches the original report's suspicion that old zone assets were not being fully released when new ones were loaded.

Blizzard responded on May 6, 2025, confirming that the team was investigating and specifically asking players to provide the crash IDs generated by the Fenris reporter. A second Blizzard post explained where those IDs could be found inside the Diablo IV installation folder.

So this was not merely a community theory that Blizzard never noticed.

Blizzard knew about the reports.

508 Replies Later, the Thread Is Still One of the Biggest PC Bug Reports

As of late August 2026, Blizzard's PC Bug Report category lists the memory leak thread with 508 replies and roughly 19,700 views. Its most recent activity is dated July 8, 2026, meaning the thread itself is not receiving daily replies anymore, but it survived through multiple seasons and remained active more than a year after the original report.

That longevity matters more than the raw reply count. A short-lived patch problem can produce hundreds of comments in a weekend before disappearing with the next hotfix. This discussion instead spans changes to the game, driver revisions, major content updates and entirely different hardware generations.

Players repeatedly return to the same description: Diablo IV starts normally, memory usage rises while playing, transitions make things worse, stuttering becomes more pronounced and restarting the client temporarily restores performance.

Temporary improvement after restarting is one of the classic reasons players interpret this behaviour as a memory-management issue. It does not prove the precise technical cause, but from the player's perspective the pattern is difficult to ignore. The computer has not changed. The build has not changed. Sanctuary has simply consumed enough memory for one evening and needs to be put back in its box.

Fresh August Reports Show the Broader Performance Problem Has Not Disappeared

The old mega-thread is not the only reason the subject is relevant again. On August 23, a new Technical Support post described severe stuttering and frame-time spikes in towns and crowded areas alongside high RAM and VRAM usage. The player was using an RTX 3060 with 12 GB VRAM and 16 GB system memory and specifically asked whether upgrading to 32 GB would meaningfully help or merely delay the underlying problem.

The discussion remained active through August 25.

Another July report is even more direct. A player with 32 GB RAM measured Diablo IV beginning with total system memory usage around 22 GB before steadily climbing until essentially all 32 GB were occupied. Windows eventually reported that Diablo IV had run out of memory. The player described this behaviour as returning after large content patches and expansions.

Those newer reports are not controlled proof that precisely the same bug from the 2025 thread remains untouched. They could represent related but technically distinct problems. That distinction matters. “Diablo IV has a memory leak” is a much broader claim than “multiple players continue reporting escalating memory consumption and performance degradation.”

The second statement is the one the public evidence supports.

Blizzard Has Been Making Performance and Stability Fixes

It would also be unfair to pretend Blizzard has spent the last year doing absolutely nothing about Diablo IV's PC performance. Patch notes throughout 2025 and 2026 repeatedly mention performance and stability improvements, and Blizzard has changed specific technology when it appeared connected to problems.

One particularly relevant example came in June 2025, when Blizzard disabled DirectStorage by default while investigating performance issues. Players with supported NVMe drives could manually re-enable it through a command-line argument, but Blizzard clearly considered the feature suspicious enough to remove from the default configuration during the investigation.

Later updates continued including general performance and stability improvements. The July 14, 2026 patch again listed “various performance and stability fixes.”

The problem is that broad stability notes make it difficult for players to know whether the particular RAM/VRAM behaviour they have been reporting is considered fixed, partially fixed or still under investigation.

That communication gap is part of why the memory leak discussion refuses to die.

Players Have Found Workarounds, but None Look Like a Universal Fix

Over the life of the thread, players have suggested almost every PC troubleshooting ritual imaginable: lowering texture quality, disabling Ray Tracing, rolling back NVIDIA drivers, clearing shader caches, increasing the Windows page file, disabling overlays, repairing game files, reinstalling Diablo IV and restarting the client periodically before memory usage becomes critical.

Some players report that lowering texture quality helps significantly. Others say disabling Ray Tracing reduces crashes. Some found better stability after changing NVIDIA drivers. Several report that increasing the page file allows Diablo IV to run for longer before failing.

The common problem is that these solutions are inconsistent.

A workaround that helps one RTX 3060 system may do nothing for another machine. A driver rollback can improve performance for one GPU generation while introducing completely different problems elsewhere. Increasing virtual memory can stop Windows from immediately running out of addressable memory, but if the game's memory consumption continues growing, the player may simply be buying more time before the same degradation occurs.

That is why “just add more RAM” is not a particularly satisfying answer. One contributor to the original thread reported the problem while using 128 GB of DDR5.

If Diablo IV can eventually make 128 GB feel nervous, the solution probably is not another trip to the RAM aisle.

This Is Especially Awkward for Steam Deck and Handheld Players

Memory pressure becomes even more obvious on handheld hardware, where system RAM and graphics memory effectively compete inside a much tighter budget. Earlier this year, Steam Deck owners reported Diablo IV crashing approximately every 30 minutes, with some players explicitly connecting the behaviour to the wider memory issue.

We recently covered how Diablo IV players say Steam Deck performance has become worse rather than better, despite the game having had years to mature on the platform. Memory management is particularly unforgiving there because a desktop PC with 32 or 64 GB has enormous overhead a handheld simply does not possess.

A desktop user can sometimes tolerate a leak by restarting the game every few hours.

A handheld crashing halfway through an activity every 30 minutes is considerably harder to call a workaround.

Zone Transitions Keep Appearing in Player Reports

One detail that repeatedly appears across reports is movement between areas. Town portals, entering dungeons, leaving dungeons, visiting crowded towns and moving through different zones are frequently associated with increasing memory usage or sudden performance drops.

That does not necessarily mean zone transitions themselves contain the bug. They naturally force Diablo IV to stream large amounts of textures, geometry, player cosmetics, monsters and environmental data. If a memory-management problem exists elsewhere in the pipeline, teleporting repeatedly is simply one of the fastest ways to expose it.

It also explains why a player can stand in one area for a while without obvious problems, then begin stuttering badly after an evening of Nightmare Dungeons, Helltides, boss runs and trips back to town.

Diablo IV is a game built around constant transitions.

“Stop teleporting” would be an unusual endgame strategy.

Not Every Stutter Is a Memory Leak

This is the point where terminology becomes important. Players understandably use “memory leak” as shorthand whenever RAM or VRAM usage becomes enormous, but high memory usage by itself does not prove a true software memory leak.

Modern games aggressively cache assets because unused RAM is not inherently useful RAM. A game can occupy large amounts of system memory or VRAM without anything technically being wrong, provided it releases memory when required and performance remains stable.

The suspicious behaviour begins when usage continuously increases, old memory appears not to be released, performance degrades over time and closing the application immediately restores the system.

That is why the original thread's teleport reproduction was useful. It attempted to demonstrate a pattern rather than simply posting a screenshot showing “Diablo IV uses 18 GB.”

Likewise, not every Fenris crash is proof of a memory leak. GPU driver failures, unstable overclocks, shader problems and corrupted files can produce similar symptoms. Blizzard's PC client runs across an enormous range of hardware, which makes separating engine-level problems from individual configurations genuinely difficult.

But 500 replies across dozens of different configurations are also difficult to dismiss as one person's broken PC.

Current Patch Notes Do Not Declare the Major Memory Issue Resolved

Blizzard's current Diablo IV patch notes contain multiple references to general performance and stability work, but there is no prominent entry saying that the longstanding RAM and VRAM escalation reports from the major thread have been definitively resolved.

That does not mean Blizzard has made no progress. The experience clearly varies by system, season and patch, and some contributors have reported periods where their crashes improved significantly.

It does mean players have no simple official line they can point to saying:

“Yes, this specific problem has been fixed.”

That ambiguity matters because fresh users experiencing similar symptoms naturally find the enormous old thread through search, see hundreds of matching reports and conclude that the same issue has been running continuously for years.

Maybe technically it has.

Maybe several different problems have produced similar symptoms.

From the outside, those two possibilities look remarkably similar.

Performance Bugs Are Different From Ordinary Diablo Bugs

Diablo IV can survive a Set Charm behaving incorrectly or a War Plans point refusing to unlock. Those bugs are annoying, but the player can usually continue doing something else while waiting for a fix.

Performance degradation is different.

If the game eventually stutters into single-digit frame times, freezes for several seconds or crashes to desktop, every activity becomes affected. Boss fights, Hardcore characters, timed Pit runs and long sessions all become risky.

We have spent much of Season 14 covering small systems that appear to lose track of their own state, including Talisman bonuses reportedly switching off during combat and progression counters becoming stuck. Those are frustrating because the game stops calculating one part of the character correctly.

A performance issue is the same philosophy applied to the entire client.

The build might still work.

The computer would simply like Diablo IV to leave.

The 500-Reply Thread Is Really a Communication Problem Now

Perhaps the most useful thing Blizzard could do is not another generic line about “various performance and stability improvements.” It would be a specific update explaining the status of the memory-management investigation.

Is the original issue considered fixed?

Were several separate problems identified?

Are particular GPU configurations still affected?

Is high VRAM use considered expected behaviour while the stuttering has another cause?

Is Blizzard still collecting Fenris crash reports related to escalating RAM usage?

Players can deal with complicated answers. What creates frustration is not knowing whether the thing they are troubleshooting is something Blizzard believes it already solved twelve months ago.

The original forum response showed Blizzard was looking at the reports. The 508 replies that followed show players kept looking too.

Three Years In, Diablo IV Should Not Need a Restart Ritual

Diablo IV is now a mature live-service game. Some technical problems are inevitable when major seasons add new content, new assets and new systems. PC development is messy, and a problem affecting one particular combination of hardware and drivers can be extraordinarily difficult to reproduce internally.

But memory behaviour that repeatedly becomes a community talking point across multiple seasons deserves more than folklore.

Players should not have to memorize whether this is the season where they need medium textures, Ray Tracing disabled, an old GPU driver, a giant page file and a ceremonial client restart after every third Pit run.

Maybe Diablo IV no longer has the exact memory leak documented in May 2025.

Maybe today's reports represent something different.

But with fresh complaints about high RAM and VRAM usage still appearing in August 2026, Blizzard has not yet reached the most important technical milestone:

making players stop asking.

Sources

Diablo IV Forums: Major Memory Leak — RAM + VRAM Escalation

Diablo IV Forums: Severe Stuttering and High RAM/VRAM Usage — August 2026

Diablo IV Forums: Memory Leak on PC — July 2026 Report

Blizzard: Current Diablo IV Patch Notes

Blizzard: Diablo IV Patch 2.2 — DirectStorage Performance Investigation

```

Read More

Diablo 2 Players Say Diablo Clone’s Stone of Jordan Mechanic Is Finally Too Old

Diablo II: Resurrected has changed quite a lot for a game built on machinery from the year 2000. We have Terror Zones, Sunder Charms, new Rune Words, major class changes and now an entire Warlock expansion bolted onto one of the most stubbornly preserved ARPGs ever made. Yet if you want one of the game's most famous endgame rewards, you are still participating in a ritual designed partly to solve a duping problem from more than two decades ago.

Diablo Clone still appears through the collective sale of Stone of Jordan rings. Sell enough of them within the relevant region and game type, and Uber Diablo eventually walks the Earth, allowing players already sitting in eligible Hell games to kill him for an Annihilus charm. Blizzard modernized the system in Diablo II: Resurrected Patch 2.4 by moving progression from individual server instances to regional tracking, but deliberately kept the Stone of Jordan trigger first introduced with Diablo II Patch 1.10.

Season 15 has now dragged that old design back into the spotlight. A fresh community discussion around the first reported Diablo Clone walks of the season quickly turned into the familiar question: why are we still selling one of Diablo II's rarest classic rings to trigger a world event in 2026?

Season 15 Is Already Showing the Awkward Side of DClone

A thread posted on August 30 announced what its author believed was the first Softcore Ladder Diablo Clone walk of Season 15, hosted by Korean streamer Muhangame. The event reportedly came with around five hours of notice, which was excellent if you happened to be awake, following the correct community channels and had a Hell game ready.

If not, Diablo apparently walked right past your bedroom window.

The thread immediately became confusing in a very Diablo II way. One player claimed Softcore Ladder had already seen four appearances in Asia and three in the Americas while Europe had seen none. Another insisted this was the first actual walk. Rather than trying to declare one community tracker definitively correct, the disagreement itself illustrates one of the weaknesses of the current system: players still rely heavily on external trackers, Discord communities, streamers and coordinated announcements to know when one of the game's most valuable events is about to happen.

Blizzard does provide in-game progression messages and the /uberdiablo command, but those tools tell you what is happening once regional progress is underway. They do not replace the community infrastructure that has developed around predicting, organizing and deliberately triggering walks.

An Americas Community Walk Is Trying to Collect 125 SoJs

A separate Season 15 thread makes the economic side of the mechanic even clearer. The D2R Clone Hunters community announced an Americas Softcore Ladder walk planned for September 5 and asked players to donate Stones of Jordan toward the event. When the thread was posted on August 29, the organizers were targeting 125 SoJs and had collected 31.

That number should not be mistaken for an official Blizzard-published spawn requirement. Blizzard's Patch 2.4 notes deliberately describe the trigger only as selling “enough” Stone of Jordan rings, while community groups work with their own understanding of the necessary range and organize around a target intended to guarantee the walk.

The community effort is actually rather wonderful. Players pooling valuable items so everybody in a region can fight Diablo is exactly the sort of weird emergent cooperation that makes Diablo II feel different from more tightly controlled modern games.

But it also exposes the central absurdity.

To deliberately trigger one boss, a Discord community is organizing a regional fundraiser in which the currency is 125 copies of a rare Unique ring.

Even Deckard Cain might ask whether there is a simpler administrative procedure.

The Stone of Jordan Requirement Was Created for a Very Different Diablo II

There is a historical reason for all this, and it made much more sense in the original game. Stone of Jordan became one of early Diablo II's most important trading currencies and was duplicated on an enormous scale. The economy became flooded with rings that were valuable partly because everybody agreed they were valuable and partly because there were far more of them circulating than legitimate drops alone could explain.

When Blizzard introduced Uber Diablo in Patch 1.10, selling Stones of Jordan became a giant item sink. Players could remove duplicated SoJs from the economy and, collectively, advance the hidden counter toward a Diablo Clone spawn. Killing him awarded Annihilus, giving players a reason to destroy the very currency that had become an economic problem.

It was wonderfully inelegant.

It was also aimed at a specific economy suffering from a specific historical problem.

That is the part players are questioning now. Diablo II: Resurrected is no longer trying to clean millions of old duplicated Stones of Jordan out of Battle.net's original economy. Yet the solution remains attached to one of the remake's major endgame rewards.

Blizzard Already Modernized Half of the System

The strange thing is that Blizzard clearly recognized the original implementation needed work. Patch 2.4 made a major change to Uber Diablo by moving its progression to regional databases. Previously, players hunted for specific server IPs where enough SoJs were being sold, then tried to create games on those servers before the event triggered.

That old experience was Diablo II archaeology in real time. Players were effectively reverse-engineering Battle.net infrastructure so they could stand in the correct copy of Sanctuary when a demon spawned.

D2R's regional system was a substantial improvement. Once the threshold is reached, Diablo Clone can appear for eligible players across the same region and game type rather than being tied to one particular server instance. Progress is tracked separately across combinations such as Ladder, Non-Ladder, Hardcore and Expansion, and Blizzard added six stages of in-game warning messages.

The infrastructure changed.

The currency did not.

Blizzard effectively renovated the entire house while keeping the original lock because somebody once had too many duplicated keys.

Some Players Want a Dedicated DClone Summoning Item Instead

The most common modern alternative is straightforward: stop using Stones of Jordan entirely and introduce an item whose only purpose is to summon Diablo Clone.

One player in the August 30 discussion suggested something similar to a Worldstone Shard with rarity around an Ist rune. Using it would summon Diablo Clone in that player's game, preserving Annihilus as something that requires meaningful farming without forcing players to coordinate regional SoJ sales.

The same idea appeared independently in a July discussion about adding a proper online solo or self-found mode. There, another player argued that a dedicated DClone consumable would be almost essential because a self-found character cannot reasonably participate in an economy-wide Stone of Jordan donation system in the same way as the open trading population.

The details could obviously vary. The summoning item could drop from Terror Zones, Heralds, Act bosses or another endgame activity. Blizzard could make it extraordinarily rare. It could require combining several fragments. A Cube recipe could consume an existing high-value item. The important difference is that individual gameplay would create individual access to the event.

That would also fit rather naturally with Reign of the Warlock's newer endgame structure. Season 15 already asks players to farm Heralds of Terror for some of its most desirable rewards. We have even seen players report killing more than 100 Heralds without receiving the Sunder Charm they were chasing. Diablo II clearly remains perfectly comfortable making players grind for rare things. The question is whether Diablo Clone still needs the regional economics seminar attached.

There Is Still a Good Argument for Keeping the Weird Old Mechanic

Not everybody wants it changed, and that side deserves more credit than simply calling it nostalgia. Diablo Clone's regional spawn is one of the few systems left in Diablo II where a whole trading community can collectively make something happen in everybody's games.

The Stone of Jordan requirement creates stories.

Somebody announces a walk. Communities start collecting rings. Players prepare characters capable of killing DClone. Other players rush to get a Hell game open before the final stage. The message appears:

Diablo has walked the Earth.

For a few minutes, the entire region reacts to the same event.

A personal summon token would be cleaner, fairer and dramatically easier to understand. It would also turn Diablo Clone into another boss key. Diablo II already has plenty of items that open doors to bosses. Part of DClone's identity is precisely that he does not work that way.

One response to the current criticism essentially makes that argument: if you remove the inconvenient old systems whenever they feel archaic, at some point you may be removing the things that make Diablo II feel like Diablo II.

That tension is becoming increasingly important as Blizzard adds modern content to a 25-year-old foundation.

Shorter Ladder Seasons Make the Old Mechanic More Noticeable

Season length adds another wrinkle. Players have already been debating whether Diablo II's increasingly short Ladder cycles leave enough time for ordinary players to develop characters and participate in the full economy. DClone depends directly on that economy becoming wealthy enough that players are willing to throw valuable Stones of Jordan into Akara's recycling bin for the benefit of everyone else.

Late in a mature Ladder season, that can happen frequently. Wealth accumulates. SoJs become easier to sacrifice. Organized communities have stockpiles. Annihilus charms eventually become common enough that another walk is almost routine.

Early in a fresh economy, every Stone of Jordan matters considerably more.

That makes the initial walks disproportionately dependent on wealthy players, highly organized groups, streamers and traders who can accumulate enough rings quickly. A casual player can participate simply by being online at the right moment, but they have very little agency over when that moment arrives.

The current discussion around Season 15's Ladder population makes that economic dependency worth watching. The fewer players participating in a particular region or mode, the slower a community-funded global trigger naturally becomes.

The Real Problem May Be Player Agency

That is ultimately the strongest argument for changing DClone.

It is not that Stone of Jordan is too rare.

It is not that Annihilus should be easier to obtain.

It is not even necessarily that regional walks are bad.

The problem is that a player can invest hundreds of hours in a Ladder character and still have almost no direct path toward triggering the event themselves. They can find a Stone of Jordan and sell it, but one legitimate ring represents only a tiny piece of a regional process. Their realistic options are therefore to follow external trackers, join organized communities or hope Diablo happens to walk while they are already playing.

That is an unusual design in modern ARPGs, where almost every major reward eventually has some form of targetable progression.

Diablo II does not have to become a modern ARPG.

But Blizzard has already demonstrated that it is willing to modify systems when the old implementation creates unnecessary friction. Terror Zones changed endgame farming. Sunder Charms changed immunity management. Patch 2.4 itself changed DClone's server architecture.

Questioning the remaining SoJ requirement is therefore not quite the same as asking Blizzard to redesign Diablo II from scratch.

Blizzard already redesigned half of Diablo Clone.

A Hybrid System Might Preserve the Best Part

There is an obvious compromise. Keep regional Stone of Jordan walks but add an extremely rare personal summoning method alongside them.

Community groups could continue organizing spectacular regional events. Selling SoJs would still have meaning. The familiar global progression messages would remain. Players who enjoy tracking walks would lose nothing.

Meanwhile, somebody playing largely solo could eventually farm a rare summoning item and fight DClone on their own terms. Make that item rare enough and Annihilus would remain a meaningful reward. Blizzard could even prevent the personal version from affecting regional progress, keeping the two systems completely separate.

It would not be pure Diablo II.

Neither are Terror Zones, Sunder Charms, the Warlock or regional DClone tracking.

At some point, “the original game did it this way” stopped being an absolute rule.

Twenty-Three Years Is a Good Run for an Anti-Dupe Solution

There is something deeply charming about the fact that modern Diablo II players are still sacrificing Stones of Jordan because early-2000s Battle.net had far too many duplicated Stones of Jordan.

Very few games preserve their historical accidents this faithfully.

But Season 15 is once again showing the cost. Players are watching Discord servers, debating which regions have already walked, organizing donations and scheduling community events around a mechanism whose original economic purpose mostly belongs to another era.

The argument is not that Diablo Clone should become trivial.

Quite the opposite.

Make the summon item rare. Make the fight brutal. Make Annihilus something players celebrate finding.

But after more than two decades, perhaps Diablo himself can finally stop waiting for somebody to sell enough rings to Charsi before he is allowed outside.

Sources

Diablo II: Resurrected Forums: First DClone Has Walked

Diablo II: Resurrected Forums: Season 15 Community DClone Walk

Diablo II: Resurrected Forums: Online Solo Mode and Alternative DClone Trigger Discussion

Blizzard: Diablo II: Resurrected Patch 2.4 — Uber Diablo Changes

Diablo Wiki: Stone of Jordan and the Historical SoJ Economy

```

Read More

Diablo 4 Player Tests Hallowed Ground — Two of Its Bonuses Appear Broken

Diablo IV has plenty of build interactions that are difficult to test properly. Multipliers stack on top of multipliers, Paragon nodes quietly join the calculation, equipment adds half a dozen conditional bonuses and eventually the Training Dummy is being hit by mathematics rather than a Paladin.

One player has taken a much simpler approach to a suspected Consecration problem: remove almost everything.

A fresh Diablo IV bug report posted on August 30 contains a controlled test of the Paladin's Hallowed Ground upgrade for Consecration. The player stripped the character down to a white Ancestral weapon, removed Paragon entirely, used only rank-one skills and disabled damage variance on the Training Dummy. Under those conditions, Hallowed Ground's increased Consecration area appears to work normally. Two of the upgrade's other advertised benefits do not.

Holy Bolt does exactly the same damage inside Consecration as outside it, while Divine Lance consumes exactly the same amount of Faith.

Blizzard has not yet confirmed the issue, and this is currently one player's controlled reproduction rather than a widespread confirmed Paladin bug. But unlike the usual “my damage feels lower” report, this one comes with numbers that are remarkably difficult to misunderstand.

Holy Bolt Was Supposed to Go From 310 Damage to Around 332

The tester deliberately removed as many variables as possible. The setup used rank-one Consecration with Hallowed Ground, rank-one Holy Bolt and rank-one Divine Lance. There were no additional skills, no Paragon Boards, only 79 Strength and nothing equipped except a white Ancestral Cleaver.

With damage variance disabled, Holy Bolt consistently dealt 310 damage to the Training Dummy. The player also calculated that number independently using the weapon damage, Holy Bolt multiplier, Strength bonus and the Training Dummy's damage reduction, producing the same expected result.

That established a clean baseline.

The Paladin then stepped into Consecration with Hallowed Ground active.

Expected damage: approximately 332.

Actual damage: 310.

The number did not move.

That is important because random damage rolls have been removed from the experiment. There is no question of the player simply getting an unlucky low hit inside Consecration and a high hit outside it. The same controlled Holy Bolt hit remains at 310 in both situations.

Divine Lance Still Costs 25 Faith

The second test examined resource cost rather than damage. Divine Lance normally consumed 25 Faith. With the Hallowed Ground benefit active, the player expected the cost to fall to roughly 21 Faith.

Again, nothing changed.

The displayed resource cost remained 25, and more importantly, the actual amount of Faith removed when casting Divine Lance also remained 25. That second part matters because Diablo IV tooltips do occasionally fail to update correctly even when the underlying mechanic works. Here, according to the test, both the interface and the actual resource consumption agree.

Hallowed Ground simply does not appear to be reducing the cost.

So we have two different systems producing the same uncomfortable result: one offensive bonus and one resource bonus both appear absent while standing inside Consecration.

The Area Increase Does Work

This is where the report becomes more interesting than Hallowed Ground simply being completely disabled. The player explicitly notes that the upgrade's increased Consecration size works correctly.

That means the game recognizes Hallowed Ground.

The node is selected. Consecration changes. At least one part of the upgrade activates normally. Yet the tested damage and Faith benefits appear not to be applied.

That makes a simple “the upgrade isn't active” explanation less convincing. The more likely possibilities include individual effects failing to register, an incorrect conditional check for standing inside Consecration or a disconnect between the upgrade's functional effects and what its current tooltip says they should provide.

Exactly which explanation is correct requires Blizzard's internal data. The test only tells us what happens at the Training Dummy.

A Separate Consecration Resource Upgrade Also Looks Suspicious

The tester went one step further and checked Consecration's separate Resource Generation upgrade. That test was less conclusive, but they report that taking the upgrade produced no visible change to Resource Generation on the character sheet.

By comparison, equipping gear with a Resource Generation affix does change the displayed value.

That does not prove the Consecration upgrade is broken. Some Diablo IV bonuses are conditional and therefore do not appear as permanent changes on the stat screen. But combined with the failed Hallowed Ground Faith test, it gives Paladin players another interaction worth examining under controlled conditions.

The important distinction is that the Holy Bolt and Divine Lance tests provide actual gameplay results. The Resource Generation observation currently provides a suspicious UI result. Those are not equally strong pieces of evidence.

Consecration Has Had Other Reported Problems Before

This would not be the first time players have questioned whether every part of Consecration is doing what its tooltip claims. Back in December 2025, Paladin players reported that Hallowed Ground could correctly apply its larger area and longer duration while apparently failing to apply a separate Weakened interaction. Another detailed report earlier this year examined discrepancies between Consecration's displayed duration and the actual duration created by different upgrades.

Those older reports do not prove the new damage and Faith issue shares the same cause. Diablo IV has received many patches since then, and skill behaviour changes over time. They do, however, make the current test worth taking seriously rather than dismissing it as somebody misunderstanding how Consecration works.

There is also a broader Paladin pattern this season where a build can appear correctly configured while an important effect simply fails underneath it. We recently covered how Light's Epiphany can reportedly lose its enormous 500% damage bonus after zone transitions. Players have been able to restore that effect by changing Oaths and switching back, suggesting some Paladin bonuses can become detached from the game state without the equipment itself changing.

That does not mean Light's Epiphany and Hallowed Ground are connected technically. It does mean Paladin players currently have more than one reason to distrust a perfectly normal-looking tooltip.

This Is Why Controlled Dummy Tests Matter

Diablo IV bug reports are often incredibly difficult to evaluate because normal gameplay contains too many variables. A player kills one boss quickly, kills the next slowly and assumes a skill stopped working. Maybe it did. Maybe the second boss had different modifiers. Maybe Vulnerable expired. Maybe a conditional multiplier dropped. Maybe a Talisman interaction changed. Maybe one of Diablo IV's approximately seventeen thousand invisible arithmetic goblins went for lunch.

This test removes most of that noise.

No Paragon.

No legendary equipment.

No complicated rotation.

No damage variance.

One white weapon.

One Holy Bolt.

The result outside Consecration is 310.

The result inside Hallowed Ground is still 310.

That is exactly the sort of reproduction Blizzard can potentially verify very quickly.

The Faith Test May Matter More Than the Raw Damage Loss

A modest missing damage bonus is frustrating, but depending on the build it may not completely change how a Paladin plays. The resource-cost component can be more disruptive because players build rotations around how many abilities they can cast before Faith runs dry.

If Divine Lance is expected to become cheaper while the Paladin remains inside Consecration, players can reasonably build around staying inside that holy area and converting the resource efficiency into additional casts. If the cost remains 25 instead of falling toward the expected value, the entire rotation consumes Faith faster than the skill tree implies.

The player may then compensate elsewhere with additional Resource Generation or resource-cost reduction, sacrificing an affix or passive that should not have been necessary in the first place.

That is the particularly annoying kind of ARPG bug because the character still works.

It is merely worse than the character sheet promised.

Paladin Already Has Enough Build Math to Worry About

The timing is also awkward because Blizzard is still adjusting Paladin balance heading toward Season 15. The recent PTR targeted several underperforming builds, including major improvements to Judgement. We covered how Blizzard doubled Judgement's single-target bonus under the right conditions, while players continued debating whether the class's boss damage had actually improved enough.

Those balance conversations assume the underlying skill bonuses work.

If an upgrade says standing in Consecration improves damage and resource efficiency, theorycrafters naturally put those benefits into their calculations. Build planners compare expected output. Players farm gear to support the resulting rotation. A missing modifier therefore does more than reduce one number; it makes the information used to design the build unreliable.

Diablo IV has also had a particularly busy season for effects that disappear or behave differently from their description. Talisman set bonuses have been reported simply stopping during combat, while generic Set Charms may have their own unusual progression restrictions once players reach Torment. None of these necessarily share a technical cause, but collectively they create the same player problem: it becomes increasingly difficult to know whether a disappointing build is actually weak or whether one of its bonuses quietly failed to show up for work.

Blizzard Has Not Confirmed the Hallowed Ground Bug Yet

As of August 31, the new Hallowed Ground thread has not received an official Blizzard response. It is also extremely fresh, having been posted on August 30, and there is not yet a large group of independent testers posting identical results.

That matters.

The controlled setup makes the report compelling, but one reproduction should still be described as one reproduction. There may be another mechanic affecting how Hallowed Ground is calculated. The tooltip could be misleading rather than the underlying effect being broken. There could be an interaction specific to the Training Dummy.

All of those possibilities remain open until Blizzard or more players test the same setup.

Fortunately, this is unusually easy to reproduce. Any Paladin with access to Consecration, Hallowed Ground, Holy Bolt and Divine Lance can strip away additional modifiers, turn damage variance off and repeat essentially the same experiment.

If You Use Hallowed Ground, Check the Numbers Yourself

For Paladin players currently using Hallowed Ground, the safest advice is not to immediately rebuild the character. Instead, visit the Training Dummy and test it.

Record a repeatable attack outside Consecration.

Stand inside Consecration.

Repeat the attack.

Then compare the Faith consumption of a resource spender inside and outside the area.

If more players consistently reproduce 310 becoming 310 and 25 Faith remaining 25, Blizzard will have a remarkably clean bug report to work with.

Because Sanctuary's holy ground should probably do more than make the circle slightly bigger.

At the moment, that may be the one part we can prove is working.

Sources

Diablo IV Forums: Consecration — Hallowed Ground Does Not Apply Damage Bonus or Cost Reduction

Diablo IV Forums: Earlier Hallowed Ground Weakened Report

Diablo IV Forums: Consecration Duration and Upgrade Testing

```

Read More

Diablo 4 Cataclysm Druid Bug Can Make Bosses Effectively Immune

A Diablo IV Druid player is reporting a particularly ugly endgame bug where a Cataclysm build can begin a boss fight by deleting enormous chunks of health, then suddenly stop dealing meaningful damage altogether. According to the August 30 report, the character can take a boss from full health to roughly 50% in only two hits before the damage calculation appears to freeze. From that point, the player says they can continue attacking for as long as ten minutes without visibly moving the boss's health bar.

The strangest part is that the problem may not be limited to offense. During the same frozen state, the player says Armor and Toughness also stop updating on the character sheet, Fortify generation appears to break and the Druid becomes dramatically easier to kill. In The Pit, the only reliable recovery reported so far is waiting until the Guardian teleports or transitions to another part of the arena, at which point the build's scaling suddenly returns and the boss can once again lose huge chunks of health. Blizzard has not yet confirmed the bug or its cause, so this remains one detailed player reproduction rather than evidence that every Cataclysm Druid is affected.

The Build Goes From Massive Damage to Almost Nothing

The report comes from a player running Cataclysm with Harlequin Crest, Mjölnic Ring, Locran's Talisman and a ZanEom Rune setup. At the beginning of a boss fight, everything apparently behaves normally. Damage ramps exactly as expected and the boss can lose around half its health almost immediately. Then something changes. The player describes a state where attacks continue connecting but damage falls so low that the boss effectively behaves as if it has become immune.

This is not simply a complaint that an endgame boss has too much health. The player reports an abrupt before-and-after transition inside the same encounter: enormous damage followed by virtually none, then enormous damage again after the boss undergoes a hard phase transition. That makes the behaviour considerably more suspicious than a build merely running into scaling it cannot overcome.

The Pit Guardian Can Start Taking Damage Again After Teleporting

The clearest reproduction reportedly happens against Pit Guardians. Once the boss falls below a certain health threshold, Cataclysm damage can apparently collapse. The player can continue fighting without making meaningful progress until the Guardian teleports or respawns into another section of the arena. Immediately after that transition, the character's scaling returns and the Druid may once again one- or two-shot large portions of the remaining health bar.

That phase-reset behaviour is important because it suggests the problem may involve a temporary character state rather than the boss gaining a legitimate defensive modifier. The player believes Cataclysm's damage snapshot or another part of the build's scaling becomes desynchronized during the encounter, although that explanation is their interpretation rather than a diagnosis from Blizzard.

We have seen other Season 14 bugs where important Talisman bonuses can stop functioning until something forces the character state to refresh. That does not mean the two bugs share the same cause, but the similarity is hard to miss: the gear remains equipped, the UI may still suggest the build is intact, yet part of the underlying character calculation appears to stop behaving normally.

Armor and Toughness Apparently Freeze at the Same Time

The player's later update makes the report much more interesting. When the damage failure occurs on Torment 10, they say the character sheet's Toughness and Armor values stop updating as well. During that state, the Druid becomes unusually fragile and begins taking sudden lethal hits that do not happen while the build is functioning correctly.

The player also believes background damage reduction and Fortify generation are no longer being applied correctly during the freeze. Again, those specific mechanisms have not been independently verified, but the character-sheet behaviour gives players something more concrete to reproduce than “my damage feels low.” If offense and defense both stop recalculating during the same phase, the problem may sit deeper than one broken Cataclysm multiplier.

That also connects awkwardly with the wider Diablo IV discussion around sudden one-shots and the difficulty of understanding why a character died. A legitimate endgame hit is one thing. Becoming dramatically more vulnerable because part of the character's defensive state silently stopped updating would be something else entirely.

Locked Endgame Activities Make the Bug Harder to Work Around

The player says the issue is particularly disruptive in The Pit and Kurast Undercity, where equipment changes can be restricted. Normally, one of the first community troubleshooting methods for a broken item interaction is to unequip and re-equip the relevant piece, forcing the game to recalculate the character. If the activity prevents gear swapping, that option disappears.

According to the report, the Druid can therefore become trapped in the broken state until the boss itself triggers a sufficiently large transition, the player dies or the instance state is otherwise refreshed. That turns what might have been an irritating equipment bug in the open world into a genuine endgame blocker. A Pit run is timed; spending several minutes attacking a boss whose health bar refuses to move is not merely inconvenient.

Mjölnic Ring Makes Cataclysm an Especially Complicated Skill to Debug

Cataclysm already interacts with several layers of modern Druid scaling. Mjölnic Ring is particularly important because its Unique power grants unlimited Spirit while Cataclysm is active and provides a large multiplicative damage bonus. Blizzard has repeatedly adjusted the Ring and Cataclysm itself over Diablo IV's lifetime, including increasing Mjölnic Ring's damage range and changing how frequently Cataclysm lightning can strike the same target.

Cataclysm has also received multiple technical fixes. Blizzard previously corrected an issue where its Severe Storm Variant could be interrupted by crowd control, while older patches changed its strike frequency and single-target behaviour. None of the current official patch notes identify a bug where Cataclysm loses all scaling during boss phases, but the skill has enough interacting systems that a snapshot or state-refresh problem is at least plausible.

That does not establish Mjölnic Ring, Locran's Talisman or Cataclysm itself as the culprit. The current report only tells us which pieces were present when the problem occurred.

This Is Still One Detailed Report, Not a Confirmed Widespread Bug

The most important limitation is sample size. As of August 31, the Blizzard bug thread has only the original detailed report and no large collection of players independently confirming the same reproduction. That is very different from long-running issues such as the War Plans 9/10 progression bug, where multiple players across several months have described essentially identical states.

So we should not tell every Cataclysm Druid that their build is broken. The correct conclusion is narrower: one player has documented a repeatable-looking failure in which Cataclysm damage collapses during boss encounters, defensive stats appear to freeze at the same time, and a boss phase transition restores the build.

That is specific enough to deserve investigation. It is not yet broad enough to declare a class-wide problem.

A Controlled Test Could Narrow the Cause Quickly

If more Cataclysm players want to reproduce the issue, the useful approach is fairly straightforward. Record Armor, Toughness, Fortify state and damage before the boss reaches the suspected threshold. When damage collapses, check whether those values stop changing. Note whether Cataclysm is active, whether Mjölnic Ring's buff remains visible, whether Locran's Talisman is contributing normally and exactly what event restores the character.

Testing the same build with one major component removed would help even more. If the failure disappears without Locran's Talisman, that points in one direction. If it only happens while Mjölnic Ring and Cataclysm overlap, that points somewhere else. If entirely different Cataclysm setups can trigger the same stat freeze, Blizzard suddenly has a much stronger case to investigate at the skill or character-state level.

Right now the most valuable detail is the reported recovery after a boss transition. Bugs that disappear when the game is forced to rebuild an encounter or character state tend to leave much better breadcrumbs than bugs that simply happen randomly.

If the Character Sheet Freezes, This Is Bigger Than a Damage Bug

The damage loss is what makes the report immediately noticeable, but the frozen defensive values are potentially more serious. A Cataclysm build dealing no damage is frustrating. A character simultaneously losing or failing to update Armor, Toughness, Fortify and damage reduction can die without the player understanding what changed.

That combination also explains why the original reporter describes the issue as ruining endgame progression rather than merely weakening the build. The Druid can apparently begin the encounter massively overqualified for the boss, become almost powerless midway through it and then return to full strength after a phase reset. Build power has not actually changed. The game state has.

At least, that is what the current evidence suggests.

For Now, Cataclysm Druids Should Watch Their Stats During Boss Fights

Until Blizzard responds or more players reproduce the issue, there is no universal fix to recommend. If a Cataclysm Druid suddenly stops damaging a Pit Guardian, however, it may be worth checking Armor and Toughness rather than assuming the boss has simply become much tankier. If those values also appear frozen, the current report suggests waiting for a boss phase transition may restore the character. In content where that never happens, dying or otherwise forcing an instance refresh may be the only available workaround.

Ideally, none of this should be necessary. Cataclysm is supposed to summon a massive storm that destroys everything around the Druid.

It probably should not include a hidden second phase where the storm files for administrative leave.

Sources

Diablo IV Forums: Cataclysm Druid Stops Dealing Damage

Blizzard: Current Diablo IV Patch Notes

Blizzard: Mjölnic Ring and Cataclysm Changes

```

Read More

Diablo 4’s Generic Set Charms May Stop Dropping Once You Reach Torment

Diablo IV's Talisman system has a strange little progres
sion problem hiding inside it. The game's generic, class-less Set Charms are supposed to provide useful combinations while a character is still developing, offering sets such as Practiced Technique, Slaughter and Mastery without locking the player into one particular class. The problem, according to a growing collection of player observations, is that these Charms may effectively disappear once a character reaches Torment difficulty. By the time somebody decides they would actually like to complete one of the sets, the game may already have moved them into a different loot pool.

The current bug report began with a player noticing that class-specific Set Charms continued dropping regularly while generic ones had apparently vanished. They had only seven generic pieces in total — enough for one completed set and fragments of the others — despite seeing roughly ten class-specific Set Charms per day. Other players immediately recognized the pattern. Several said they had not seen a generic Set Charm for a long time and suspected that the items only drop during the pre-Torment leveling phase. One player then performed a small but particularly interesting test with a new character and Horadric Cube rerolls, producing results that appear to support that theory.

Generic Set Charms Seem to Belong to the Leveling Game

The basic distinction is important. Diablo IV's Talisman system contains class-specific Charm sets designed around particular skills and playstyles, but it also contains generic sets that any class can theoretically use. Those class-less options are useful early because they do not require a player to already have a polished endgame build. Instead, they offer broad bonuses that can complement whatever equipment happens to drop during leveling.

Players in the current discussion mention generic sets such as Practiced Technique and Slaughter, and an earlier Season 15 PTR discussion also identifies Mastery as part of this class-less category. The problem is not necessarily that these sets are supposed to compete with optimized endgame class sets. Several players are perfectly happy with them being transitional gear. The issue is that transitional gear only works if it drops early enough for the player to assemble it while it is still transitional.

One player summarizes the experience rather well: they found one generic Set Charm at level 36, another at 59 and then nothing useful before reaching level 70. By the time a full set might realistically come together, the character has already entered the part of Diablo IV where much stronger class-specific options begin taking over.

One Player Tested the Reroll System Before and After Torment

The most useful evidence comes from a player who levelled a Necromancer alt and deliberately experimented with Charm rerolling. They gave the Necromancer unwanted Barbarian Set Charms and used the Horadric Cube's three-to-one reroll recipe while the character was still on Penitent difficulty. According to their report, the rerolls repeatedly produced generic Charms such as Practiced Technique or Slaughter.

Then they unlocked Torment I and performed the same process again.

The results changed.

Instead of producing generic Charms, the rerolls reportedly began returning Necromancer-specific Set Charms. That does not prove every relevant loot table in Diablo IV uses a hard “generic before Torment, class-specific after Torment” switch, but it is considerably more useful than simply saying the items feel rare. The same player changed one major variable — Torment access — and observed a different Charm pool afterward. The original reporter subsequently tried the idea on a fresh character and confirmed at least part of the pattern by finding a generic Set Charm at around level 40.

Blizzard has not published a statement confirming that generic Set Charms are intentionally restricted to pre-Torment progression, so we should treat the exact rule as a community finding rather than official documentation. But the available reports fit together surprisingly well.

If This Is Intentional, the Drop Window May Be Too Small

There is nothing inherently wrong with leveling-only item sets. Diablo has always contained equipment that shines for twenty levels and then gets replaced. Nobody expects Sigon's Complete Steel to remain the ultimate Diablo II endgame setup simply because it looked excellent on a level 25 Barbarian. Transitional gear can make leveling much more interesting precisely because it provides temporary power spikes.

The difference is that a set needs enough time to become a set. If generic Charms stop entering the normal pool around Torment, but their individual drop rates are low enough that many players only see one or two before level 70, the system has created equipment whose theoretical purpose and practical availability barely overlap.

An earlier PTR feedback thread raised exactly this complaint before the current bug report appeared. Players described the generic sets as “too rare” and too tightly level-windowed to reliably assemble while they matter. One player said they had never used any of the sets because the pieces simply took too long to appear, while another argued that they can work as starter sets but become irrelevant once endgame class options arrive.

That makes the current Torment observation less like a random Season 14 oddity and more like a structural weakness in the Talisman progression curve.

The Collector Problem Makes It Even Stranger

There is another group affected even if Blizzard never intended generic Set Charms to be competitive at endgame: completionists. Once a character reaches Torment and class-specific Charms dominate the drop and reroll pool, collecting the older generic sets may require deliberately creating and leveling another character below Torment just to farm equipment the account has already outgrown.

The original reporter explicitly points this out. If the only reliable way to complete the generic sets is to remain below Torment, the effort required to collect them may massively outweigh their actual usefulness. A player interested in experimenting with Practiced Technique on an established character could theoretically have a harder time acquiring the pieces than somebody who does not yet need them.

That is backwards progression. Usually Diablo lets more advanced characters farm old equipment faster. Here, becoming stronger may actually remove access to part of the loot pool.

The Talisman System Already Has Enough Complexity

This issue lands inside a system that players are still learning to trust. Talismans combine Seals, Charm slots, Set bonuses, Unique Charms and multiple layers of item quality, and Blizzard has already spent several patches fixing bugs around them. We recently covered reports of Talisman set bonuses simply stopping during combat, including Habacalva's Cauldron losing its Heat functionality and separate problems involving Light's Epiphany.

Blizzard's own patch notes also contain fixes for Charm sorting, incorrect Gold Find values, missing item power displays, Seal slots that failed to unlock correctly and Talismans behaving incorrectly when Armory loadouts changed. None of that means the entire Talisman system is fundamentally broken, but it does mean players are already dealing with enough invisible rules that another undocumented loot-pool boundary is difficult to distinguish from a bug.

If generic Set Charms are intentionally pre-Torment items, the game should probably say so. If they are supposed to remain obtainable later, the current reports deserve investigation.

Rerolling Makes the Suspected Restriction More Important

The three-to-one Charm reroll system should theoretically help smooth bad luck. Receive three class Set Charms you do not want, feed them to the Cube and take another chance. That is exactly the sort of mechanism an ARPG uses to prevent useless drops from becoming completely wasted.

But if the reroll pool itself changes after entering Torment, the Cube cannot solve the generic Set Charm shortage. An endgame player could salvage or reroll hundreds of unwanted class pieces without ever seeing the generic Charm required to finish an older set. The more advanced your character becomes, the less useful the game's bad-luck conversion system becomes for this specific collection.

This is particularly odd because Diablo IV has been moving in the opposite direction elsewhere. Season 15's PTR made Mythic crafting more deterministic, while other systems increasingly allow players to target categories rather than depend on completely uncontrolled RNG. We have also seen players recently ask whether Diablo IV needs genuinely rare chase items again. Generic leveling Charms are probably not where most people wanted Blizzard to restore impossible scarcity.

Season 15 May Make Charm Availability Even More Important

The current conversation is happening while Blizzard is already preparing another expansion of the Charm pool. The Season 15 PTR includes additional Unique Charms based on existing and Legacy Uniques, giving players more options for endgame build construction. That is good for variety, but every new Charm also makes the underlying acquisition rules more important.

Players have already raised concerns that some classes have much stronger Unique Charm pools than others, and that the gap between the best combinations and mediocre ones can materially affect build power. Generic sets could provide a useful fallback or complementary option if Blizzard allowed them to remain relevant beyond leveling. Instead, the current design appears to place them in the one part of progression where players are least likely to stop and farm a complete collection.

That does not necessarily mean Blizzard should simply make the generic sets powerful enough to replace class sets. The game already has plenty of endgame systems competing for attention. But allowing generic Charms to remain obtainable at higher difficulties would at least give players the option to experiment with them.

There Are Several Easy Ways Blizzard Could Fix the Awkwardness

If the current behaviour is unintended, the obvious solution is simply restoring generic Set Charms to the Torment loot and reroll pools. They could remain less common than class-specific pieces without becoming effectively inaccessible. If Blizzard deliberately wants them restricted to leveling, there are cleaner alternatives that preserve the intended progression role.

A vendor could sell generic Charm caches after level 70. The Horadric Cube could include a recipe specifically targeting class-less sets. Generic Charms could be added to a low-cost cache from an existing activity, or the player could choose between generic and class-specific output when rerolling. None of those changes would make the sets powerful. They would simply keep them obtainable.

Blizzard could also increase their early drop rate dramatically. If the intended fantasy is “assemble a small generic set while leveling and replace it in Torment,” then make sure players actually assemble one before Torment. Finding the third piece fifteen minutes after the character has already graduated into stronger class sets misses the point.

Maybe They Are Supposed to Be Disposable — But They Still Need Time to Exist

One of the more reasonable responses to the earlier PTR feedback argues that not every item in Diablo needs to have an endgame purpose. That is true. Games become exhausting when every low-level mechanic needs a Tier 150 Tower build attached to it. Generic Charm sets can simply be useful leveling tools.

But a leveling tool that is too rare to assemble while leveling is not really a leveling tool. It is a collection of isolated orange objects with aspirations.

The distinction matters because set bonuses are inherently about completion. A single generic Set Charm may provide useful affixes, but the reason the item exists as part of Practiced Technique or Slaughter is to make the player chase the combination. If most characters naturally reach Torment before that combination becomes realistic, the progression window needs another look.

For Now, Farm Them Before Torment If You Want Them

Until Blizzard clarifies the intended drop rules, the available player testing suggests one practical piece of advice: if you specifically want to collect generic Set Charms, do it before unlocking Torment. The current reports indicate that both natural drops and three-to-one rerolls may become heavily or entirely class-specific afterward.

That advice comes with an obvious caveat. We do not have Blizzard-confirmed drop tables, and the sample size is small. RNG can create convincing patterns from very little data, particularly when the items involved are already uncommon. More players reproducing the Penitent-versus-Torment reroll test would tell us much more.

But the current evidence is good enough to make the system worth watching. One player noticed generic Charms had vanished. Others independently said the same thing. A reroll experiment produced generic sets before Torment and class sets after Torment. A fresh character then produced a generic drop around level 40.

If that is intentional design, it probably needs better communication.

If it is not intentional?

Somewhere in Sanctuary, a box of Practiced Technique Charms may have been accidentally left behind at level 69.

Sources

Diablo IV Forums: Generic Set Charms Stopped Dropping

Diablo IV PTR Forums: Generic Charm Sets and Their Leveling Window

Blizzard: Diablo IV Patch Notes — Talisman and Charm Updates

Blizzard: Season 15 PTR Charm Updates

```

Read More

Diablo 2 Warlock Players Say a 62% Bind Chance Doesn’t Feel Like 62%

Diablo II: Resurrected's Warlock has already spent much of 2026 being adjusted, rebalanced and occasionally hit with the sort of numerical correction that makes an entire build quietly put its equipment back into the stash. Now players are questioning something more fundamental about Bind Demon. One Season 15 Warlock reports showing a 62% chance to bind while repeatedly channeling the skill on Lister the Tormentor, only to spend 20–30 seconds watching attempt after attempt fail while Lister was already down to roughly 30% Life. Other Warlock players responding to the report say Bind Demon has felt noticeably less reliable since the latest updates, raising a simple question: does the percentage displayed by the skill actually represent what players think it represents?

There is not enough evidence yet to say Bind Demon is mathematically bugged. We have one detailed current report, several players saying the skill feels strange, and a mechanic that has become substantially more complicated since Reign of the Warlock launched. Missing monster health affects the bind chance, Death Mark provides a synergy, different monster types require different levels of hard-point investment, and Blizzard changed how often the game actually performs a bind check. That gives us several perfectly plausible explanations before we arrive at “the percentage is fake.” But when the interface says 62% and a player can apparently channel for half a minute without success, it is understandable that people start looking suspiciously at the number.

The Current Report Involves Lister at Around 30% Life

The new discussion was posted on August 29 by a Warlock player who says their Bind Demon tooltip showed a 62% success chance. They were trying to convert Lister the Tormentor, one of Baal's Super Unique minions, and report reducing him to around 30% Life before beginning repeated binding attempts. According to the player, Lister continued resisting Bind Demon for roughly 20–30 seconds despite continuous attempts, leaving the Warlock standing close enough to be “mauled” while waiting for the conversion to happen.

Other players immediately suggested the normal Bind Demon troubleshooting steps. Lower the demon's health further. Make sure you are holding the Bind Demon channel rather than repeatedly clicking it. Confirm that enough hard points have been invested to bind a Super Unique. The original poster says they were already channeling the skill, had 20 hard points in Bind Demon and continued seeing the same failures with Lister at roughly 30% health.

That does not give us a controlled test sample, but it does make the report harder to dismiss as somebody simply misunderstanding how the skill works.

Bind Demon No Longer Works Like It Did at Launch

Part of the confusion comes from how aggressively Blizzard has changed Bind Demon since Reign of the Warlock arrived. The original version was extraordinarily generous. A tiny investment could give Warlocks access to powerful permanent demons with exceptional affixes and auras, which quickly created balance concerns. Blizzard's later redesign made the skill much more investment-heavy: 10 hard points are required for Champions, 15 for Unique monsters and 20 for Super Uniques. Death Mark's bind-chance synergy was reduced from 1% per point to 0.5%, and the benefit gained from lowering the target's health was reduced and made dependent on monster type.

Blizzard also changed the actual bind-check timing. During the Season 14 PTR, the developer explicitly fixed Bind Demon because it was checking the conversion roll far too frequently. Instead of rolling every two frames, the game now performs the bind check on the 24th frame, effectively around once per second. That was a major mechanical change and helps explain why modern Bind Demon can feel dramatically slower than the version players first encountered.

We already covered the next stage of the problem when Patch 3.3 corrected Bind Demon's additional damage bonus. Warlock summoners immediately reported enormous damage losses from their bound demons, particularly in high-end content. Now the conversation is moving from how hard the demon hits after conversion to how reliably the player can convert it in the first place.

If 62% Means 62% Per Check, a 20-Second Failure Streak Would Be Extraordinary

This is where the tooltip becomes interesting. If the displayed 62% were literally an independent 62% success chance on every eligible once-per-second bind check, failing 20 consecutive times would be astonishingly unlikely. The probability of failing one 62% roll is 38%. Failing 20 independent rolls in a row would be roughly 0.0000004%. Thirty consecutive failures would be even more absurd.

That does not prove the skill is broken, because we do not know that the displayed percentage should be interpreted as a simple final per-second success roll. Bind Demon may have additional eligibility checks or monster-specific calculations that the interface does not communicate. Lister may behave differently because he is a Super Unique. Remaining Life may alter the actual conversion calculation in a way the tooltip does not fully expose. There may also be an attack-rating or defensive interaction involved that players are conflating with the displayed bind percentage.

But that is precisely why the report deserves attention. If “62% chance to bind” is not the final chance that players intuitively think it is, the UI needs to explain what the number actually means.

Missing Health Is Still a Major Part of the Mechanic

Players in the current thread repeatedly point toward target health. Blizzard's official Bind Demon redesign specifically says that missing health increases the chance to bind and that the benefit varies by monster type. Another experienced Warlock player responding to the report says Bind Demon still appears to scale very strongly with remaining Life and recommends damaging stubborn targets further before trying again.

That means 30% health may sound low without necessarily being the ideal binding threshold for a Super Unique. If the game heavily penalizes attempts while a high-tier demon still has substantial Life remaining, the displayed 62% may represent only one component of the calculation rather than the actual final success probability.

This design makes thematic sense. Bind Demon has increasingly become Diablo II's version of catching a dangerous monster after weakening it first. The problem is that the game needs to communicate the rules clearly enough that players can distinguish bad luck from incorrect play. A percentage is supposed to help with that. If the percentage still leaves players wondering whether they should believe it, it is not doing much work.

Death Mark Makes the Skill-Point Requirement Even Heavier

The discussion also highlights how expensive a serious Bind Demon setup has become. To bind a Super Unique at all, the Warlock needs 20 hard points in Bind Demon. Death Mark then contributes additional bind chance through its synergy, while Demonic Mastery controls how many demons the Warlock can maintain. A player building heavily around bound demons can therefore spend a very large portion of Diablo II's limited skill-point budget simply making the system function consistently.

That was intentional. Blizzard wanted to remove the old “one-point wonder” version of Bind Demon and force players to commit if they wanted powerful permanent demons. The tradeoff is that failures now feel worse. If somebody spends 20 hard points in Bind Demon, additional points supporting the mechanic and gear raising the displayed chance to 62%, standing beside Lister for 30 seconds without success does not feel like a light investment encountering normal resistance.

This same tension is why the new Warlock has generated complaints from older summon classes. In our article on Necromancer players wanting some of the Warlock's more modern summon-control tools, the interesting comparison was how much design attention Blizzard gave the new class's demon systems compared with the twenty-five-year-old skeleton army. Bind Demon shows the other side: newer does not necessarily mean simpler.

Patch 3.3 Fixed Bind Demon Damage, Not the Bind Chance

It is also important not to confuse two different changes. Season 15's Patch 3.3 contains one explicit Bind Demon bug fix: Blizzard says the skill's additional damage bonus was greater than intended. That is the correction that caused the major summoner damage complaints after the patch. Blizzard's 3.3 notes do not list a change to the actual conversion-success formula.

The major binding-mechanic changes happened earlier during Patch 3.2 development: hard-point requirements, weaker Death Mark synergy, reduced missing-health benefit and slower check frequency. If Bind Demon genuinely feels different again after 3.3, either the damage fix affected something unexpected, another undocumented interaction changed, or players are simply noticing the already harsher binding system more now that the class has entered another fresh Ladder season.

At the moment, there is no Blizzard acknowledgement confirming a new Bind Demon success-rate bug in Season 15.

The Skill Has Been Controversial Since the PTR

What makes the current complaint less surprising is that players raised almost exactly the same issue during the April PTR. Testers with 20 hard points in Bind Demon reported struggling to convert high-tier demons even after lowering their health. One player described the new system as tedious because the player has to carefully reduce the target's Life without killing it, then stand still channeling Bind Demon while hoping the conversion occurs before either the demon or Warlock dies.

Another PTR feedback post argued that random conversion chance itself was the wrong design. The suggested alternative was a fixed bind probability with Death Mark instead controlling how early in the target's health bar the conversion became possible. That would preserve investment without creating prolonged streaks where the player simply holds a button and waits for probability to cooperate.

Blizzard ultimately kept the random system, although it adjusted other parts of Bind Demon before release. Season 15 is now providing the first longer-term test of what that system feels like after multiple rounds of balance changes.

Lister Is Also About the Worst Demon to Stand Beside While Testing Probability

There is a practical reason this particular report sounds so painful. Lister the Tormentor is not a passive training dummy patiently waiting while the player studies the UI. He is the leader of Baal's final minion wave and is perfectly capable of making a stationary Warlock regret their statistical curiosity.

Bind Demon therefore creates a strange gameplay loop against valuable Super Unique targets. First, the Warlock needs to reduce the demon's Life enough to improve conversion odds without accidentally killing it. Then the player must channel near a dangerous enemy while waiting for a periodic success check. If the roll fails repeatedly, continuing to damage the demon increases the chance but simultaneously increases the possibility that it dies before being captured.

That can be an interesting risk/reward mechanic when it works cleanly. When the tooltip says 62% and the target still refuses to cooperate for half a minute, it starts feeling less like demon binding and more like trying to get a cat into a carrier.

A Larger Sample Would Tell Us Much More

The next useful step is not another forum post saying “same.” Warlock players need data. Take an eligible Super Unique, record its remaining Life, record Bind Demon and Death Mark hard points, note the displayed bind chance and count how many valid once-per-second checks occur before success. Repeat that across dozens or hundreds of attempts.

If a displayed 62% chance consistently produces something much closer to 10–20% success under identical conditions, Blizzard has a reproducible problem to investigate. If most attempts succeed quickly and the 30-second Lister incident turns out to be an extreme outlier, then the skill may simply have produced one spectacularly ugly RNG streak — or the tooltip may be presenting a value that is modified elsewhere in the process.

That distinction matters. Diablo II players are extremely familiar with bad luck looking like a bug. Yesterday we covered a player going more than 100 Herald kills without receiving a Sunder Charm, while another player's larger sample showed how wildly legitimate RNG streaks can vary. Bind Demon is different because the game displays an explicit percentage, but the lesson remains useful: anecdotal pain is evidence worth investigating, not automatically proof of broken mathematics.

The Bigger Problem May Be That the Tooltip Does Not Explain Enough

Even if Bind Demon is working exactly as Blizzard intended, the current discussion exposes a usability problem. Players see 62% and understandably assume the next eligible binding attempt has approximately a 62% chance to succeed. If that number is then modified by monster Life, monster tier, Death Mark investment, hidden defense interactions or some other internal rule, Diablo II needs to make that clearer.

A more useful tooltip could display the actual current final bind chance against the targeted monster rather than a generalized skill number. If Lister at 30% Life only has a 15% effective chance to bind despite the character sheet showing 62%, show 15% while the player targets him. If 62% really is the final per-check chance, then repeated 20–30 second failures become much more suspicious and easier for Blizzard to reproduce.

The worst outcome is the current one, where players cannot tell whether the skill failed because of bad RNG, insufficient target damage, an undocumented calculation or a bug.

Bind Demon Has Already Been Nerfed Enough That Reliability Matters

Before Patch 3.3, Warlock summoners could at least justify an awkward binding process with the extraordinary power of the demon they eventually captured. Blizzard has now corrected the unintended additional damage bonus, and summoner players say their bound demons are dramatically weaker in pinnacle content. That makes the acquisition experience more important, not less.

If the reward is weaker while the process of obtaining it remains unreliable and skill-point intensive, Bind Demon risks sliding from one of Warlock's defining fantasy mechanics into something players decide is simply not worth building around. Several post-3.3 Warlock threads are already moving toward pure Goatman/Tainted summons rather than relying on a bound Super Unique for the hardest content.

That would be an unfortunate outcome for the skill Blizzard literally named Bind Demon. Warlock should probably still want to bind demons.

For Now, 62% Is a Question Mark

There is not enough evidence to write “Bind Demon is bugged.” Blizzard has not acknowledged a success-rate problem, the skill has multiple variables that are poorly communicated, and one awful Lister encounter does not establish the true probability distribution.

But the report is specific enough to watch. Twenty hard points. Around level 40 Bind Demon after bonuses. A displayed 62% chance. Lister at roughly 30% Life. Continuous attempts for something approaching 30 seconds.

If the game is working correctly, Blizzard may need to explain what that 62% actually means.

If it really means what players think it means?

Lister has apparently discovered his own passive skill.

Statistical Immunity.

Sources

Diablo II: Resurrected Forums: 62% Bind Demon Chance Repeatedly Failing

Blizzard: Diablo II: Resurrected Season 15 and Patch 3.3

Blizzard: Patch 3.2 Bind Demon Changes

Diablo II: Resurrected PTR: Earlier Bind Demon Reliability Feedback

```

Read More