I too agree there needs to be a "knightly" class, and I was actually hoping the one previously revealed would have been that, but with a different twist than the Paladin. To me the "shiny armor class" is just as important to the series in being a contrast to the D man himself. I guess this new blizz team doesn't agree. It would seem that they've bumped the Barb into that armored tank role now, but he's always seemed more like a bulldozer of muscle rather than a tanking machine to me.
On topic, this last class is not going to be an exclusively ranged attacker but will definitely be PRIMARILY ranged in its attacks. Even with the promise of being innovative with class design (though the previous games didn't follow that philosophy), the devs still have to cater to an audience in which ranged classes are very popular with. In the end it's not about making a game to fit them, it's about making a game that supplies the playerbases wants, and a large portion of them want a PRIMARILY ranged class.
do you really think there is this almost sick need for a ranged class on d3?
i do understand that in Wow and other games, but i'm not sure about diablo's need for a primarily ranged class.
specially if there is going to be a more number of monsters on screen, and you won't have time to use potions and you have to run into health orbs...
I'm not one of those ranged players, but it's selfish to assume they are not needed. There are people that like to play with these ranged class and while you might never even consider one, there are people that never consider playing as a melee using class.
After all this, Blizzard is not just going to exclude a whole group of people.
It is mainly lame if you want to play ranged classes only, so just to have more buyers for the game is a reason to put them in the game.
We also have seen proof in the form of ranged weapons.
You also said that it's not needed for these kind of games, well I've seen plenty of Diablo like games that had a ranged class.
They worked fine and were fun.
Also don;t forget that mages are in a way, ranged classes. This other class just uses bows and arrows. Enhanced with maybe magic and melee weapons. Blizzard is going for unique classes and not the standard thing we would expect a class to do.
I said enough.;)
It's not being selfish, but it seems i didn't really wrote clearly what i wanted to say.
of course i know wizard are ranged(have you really read what i wrote with attention?), and even WD, in their own way. Sorcs always were.
I never said also, that i hate ranged classes, i used to play locks and hunters on wow. but that's wow. for some reason i'm not a fan of warriors/rogues/paladins in wow. Hate being in the middle in wow.
i know many people likes ranged classes. but just gettin on top of d2:LOD 1.12 ... how many bowazons are there? now? (yeah i remember when everything started... )
I don't even see a ZON as a mainly ranged class now, in the forum i see people talking about rangers, pets/hunters, and even some saying about chars with precise bows, almost a sniper. i think it's pretty much a "no no"
Anyway, if blizzard is solely worried about what people like to play, they still need a shapeshifter class, a class that controls' nature, a class with aura...
i haven't played d3, but won't it be really hard to a "bowazon" on d3 who can't rely only on potions, i mean, it has to shoot, and run, get orbs, come back, shoot ? that is what seems to me.
if you are saying it's selfish to not have a BOW based character, it's also selfish to say that Paladins are not needed, that auras are not needed, that shapeshifters are a no no, that now that they have WD there is no need for a necro...
not the point here to put a finger and saying what is better or what is worse, what is funnier or not.
if you could read it right, i stated that it appears to me that, blizzard is working with it's classes to be more and more "in" the battle, in the middle of the confusion, chaos and that stuff. So based on this assumption, also from what i understand about health orbs, and the clear perception that d3 is not just a redraw of d1/d2 (in a meaning that they cleary intend to change quite the gameplay... we already have health orbs! that's a huge impact on how it plays... and automatic status! in d1 i could have a warrior that could read the BOOK OF FIREWALL lvl 18 because of that)
based on all that, i don't see the need for the 5th class to be ranged. although nothing goes against it being able to use bows sometimes (as i many times used with a necro... on d2) i can also see blizzard going in another way, and i read the possibility of a path without a ranged class.
it's my opinion on top of what i sense diablo 3's shape appears to be defining. not just "hey i hate archers, let's flunk them"
it was all an analytical exercise, a path of thinking that found out that ranged may be ditched. there is even no place to you to use the word "selfish" on me. I' just sorry if the line-of-thought wasn't clearly explicit when i wrote.
Look at the artwork near lower left corner of the image...
Really interesting, it seems like some sort of desert thief with a hooded face, a light sword, and what looks like a bow and a carcaj on his back. Could it be the remaining fifth class?
The 5th class should be a dunpeal, or half human/half vampire. Reasoning for fighting against hell would be that its corrupting all humans into demons, therefore eliminating their food (human blood). Not good nor evil, a mercenary type character that can use both ranged and close attacks with special abilities including those of a traditional vampire or super human senses.
The 5th class should be a dunpeal, or half human/half vampire. Reasoning for fighting against hell would be that its corrupting all humans into demons, therefore eliminating their food (human blood). Not good nor evil, a mercenary type character that can use both ranged and close attacks with special abilities including those of a traditional vampire or super human senses.
considering there were vampires in d2....
and they were on the side of Diablo and Baal....
I don't think they are concerned with lack of food
and I thought vampires were 100% human, or humans were 100% vampire, idk how you can be both
I don't think they are concerned with lack of food
and I thought vampires were 100% human, or humans were 100% vampire, idk how you can be both
No idea what the end of that means....
But looking at some past references, vampire hunter d, blade, and others. The half vampire half human role. These characters possessed both strengths that traditional vampires and humans have. They also acted as independent from both sides, but often used to destroy the pure vampires. Not trying to turn d3 into a vampire game, just thought a character like this could be interesting. Would allow for more story development, a completely different character to play from any of the other diablos, and allow for a mixed of range/melee class.
Quote from "emilemil1" »
The D2 vampires were lame Their only Vampire characteristic was that they drained life on melee hits.
And they were also just monsters you were supposed to kill with no development, story, etc. Obviously one you would play would be more indepth with more skills, abilites.
I think blizzard might actually not put bows/crossbows into game at all and surprise people. There might be some kind of alternative range weaponry in which new class might specialize. Example,
Soul Summoner (shooting souls at range, colecting weapons as souls) or..
Niggerian (obvious jk, but showing possiblities, using bumerangs of some sord)
And actually in D3 it seem that every class shall specialize in certain weaponry anyway. Not that much weapon trading inbetween classess ..
Ahh but the vampires or half vampires would have have to come from somewhere which brings out the problem that there is probably no place in the world of Sanctuary that has vampires living among the population. Also yes having a creature of the night on the hero's side would be interesting but what about the feeding and stuff? most if not all half vamps need to drink blood.. which could become a problem with the hero's.
I think we are more likely to get a Paladin style dark knight possibly with demonic sides.
I just hope its not a pure range but whatever it is I'm pretty sure it will be cool.
True it would be somewhat conflicting. But then again, so is a witch doctor, necromancer, or even assassin in their own ways. Definitely not holy classes or saints by any means. And for the feeding, don't think it would be much of an issue considering the health globes and what not (resemble blood in a bottle to me). Plus you don't ever see any of the other classes sitting down for a picnic, don't think they're all anorexic
^ agree... is very unlikely that blizz take out bows, javelins and stuff like that could be teaken out, but bows are part of the game just like magic and swords
I also wonder if they do make it a ranged character that can utilize bows, would it have a multiple shot skill? I loved that skill, especially with knockback.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.
- Homer Simpson
Okay, I've read a lot of threads saying that the last class will be some sort of Rogue // Amazon type thing.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss how it won't be (or for you to prove me wrong). I will be using logic and citations to prove my case. Please be mature and discuss rationally.
We've seen several archetypes thus far in what Blizzard has released:
~Barbarian - Sword and Shield type pure Melee warrior
~Witch Doctor - Enemy Manipulation, Damage over Time, and minion creator
~Wizard - Pure caster
~Monk - Speed Powerhouse
And Damage Archetypes being;
~Pure Strong Melee (Barbarian)
~Disease and Fire (Witch Doctor)
~Lightning, Arcane, Cold (Wizard)
~Holy and Fast, Weaker Melee (Monk)
Being that each class is capable of decimating its opponent at all ranges, we can safely assume that the last class will be able to do that very same thing. Based on this strand of logic, the last class cannot be a pure ranged class.
Now, someone had pointed out to me earlier that a short bow was shown as a dropped item in the Barbarian gameplay trailer at around 3:55. That is an excellent counterpoint, but the only issue is that the game has evolved quite a bit since then. To illustrate my point, I challenge you to find a Staff, some type of Claw-type weapon, or a wizard's orb in any of the previous videos, before the class was announced. I watched each video closely and didn't find it at all. Why? The game has changed tremendously.
So, now that I've finally laid my claim, I challenge you all to an honest debate as to why I'm wrong.
Well this argument only works if you considered the Rogue or Amazon to be a only-ranged class. But this is just not true, the Rouge could use all the swords, axes, and magic she wanted to, even though she was built more around bows. Even more pronounced was the amazon's use of the spear. Thus we have a class that can use both long and short ranged weapons.
I think the next class will be similar. A character class that can choose to use bows or melee close up damage.
And you seem to also underestimate bows. The Amazon kicked more than just a little ass in Diablo 3. And the skills around the bows might not be purely shooting a single arrow at a single target and killing it with an arrow. I believe Blizzard has been fairly creative so far on bow use, it would be interesting to see a skill like an exploding arrow that grows more powerful as the target gets in closer range.
Based on logic, all the other classes are used. Magic has been used twice, melee has been used twice. How can ranged not get one character class? Wither or not that character class can do other things such as melee, that will be seen later. But undoubtedly the next class will be able to use bows effectively.
Also the sight of the bow I should think would prove that they are at least THINKING about a bow class, otherwise why would they make bows at all in the game? Would anyone use them?
I remember the devs talking about how they wanted to make every character in Diablo 3 feel unique to Diablo 3. This being said, one may point to the similarities the Witchdoctor (necro/druid), Wizard (sorc), Barbarian (...barb), Monk (asn, paladin) have with previous classes. In all fairness, I have to acknowledge the similarities.
However, that being said, the chances of the next class being a javelin-tossing, spear-wielding, guided arrow shootin' class with a new name slapped on (rogue) seems sort of like a rash assumption.
Ok, let me hurry up to my point. The beauty of the Barbarian is his ability to use essentially all melee weapons ranging from a short-range axe to a long-range lance. Sprinkle in the more varied and useable skills that are being introduced in Diablo 3 and you have an all-around fighter with room for player creativity. The hideousness of a proposed comeback of an Amazon-clone is its limitations. Three basic weapon choices were forced upon the player. Bow/Xbow (same thing, eh?), Javelin, and Spear (which shared many skills with eachother). It fits the lore and theme of the Amazon which I can only assume would mean it wouldn't change drastically if they brought back that specific class. Also, lore-wise, wouldn't it be a little iffy for there to be a male rogue?
What is the missing archetype in Diablo 3 and what could fill it in?
This "jack of all trades" theory people are talking about is sounding more and more plausible. The ability to specialize in all ranged physical weapons (which someone else has already brought up) seems like both an obvious and original concept. My personal prediction is a desert-themed raider. Someone who could use spears and pole-arms as well as throwing axes and bows.
I remember the devs talking about how they wanted to make every character in Diablo 3 feel unique to Diablo 3. This being said, one may point to the similarities the Witchdoctor (necro/druid), Wizard (sorc), Barbarian (...barb), Monk (asn, paladin) have with previous classes. In all fairness, I have to acknowledge the similarities.
However, that being said, the chances of the next class being a javelin-tossing, spear-wielding, guided arrow shootin' class with a new name slapped on (rogue) seems sort of like a rash assumption.
Ok, let me hurry up to my point. The beauty of the Barbarian is his ability to use essentially all melee weapons ranging from a short-range axe to a long-range lance. Sprinkle in the more varied and useable skills that are being introduced in Diablo 3 and you have an all-around fighter with room for player creativity. The hideousness of a proposed comeback of an Amazon-clone is its limitations. Three basic weapon choices were forced upon the player. Bow/Xbow (same thing, eh?), Javelin, and Spear (which shared many skills with eachother). It fits the lore and theme of the Amazon which I can only assume would mean it wouldn't change drastically if they brought back that specific class. Also, lore-wise, wouldn't it be a little iffy for there to be a male rogue?
What is the missing archetype in Diablo 3 and what could fill it in?
This "jack of all trades" theory people are talking about is sounding more and more plausible. The ability to specialize in all ranged physical weapons (which someone else has already brought up) seems like both an obvious and original concept. My personal prediction is a desert-themed raider. Someone who could use spears and pole-arms as well as throwing axes and bows.
I believe it will be a part magic, part archer, type class. Either an extremely dark character like the necromancer was, or a shape shifting character of some kind... or maybe both. Maybe a demon master who can transform into demons of some kind? I hope that Blizzard makes the next character unique more than anything. The Witch Doctor seems to be the only, however slight, unique character. I would really like them to experiment with this last class... but if it will be ranged or not is really the question of this thread. And I must say, yes, unless they unveil two more character classes. (In which case only one will be ranged)
Anyway, if blizzard is solely worried about what people like to play, they still need a shapeshifter class, a class that controls' nature, a class with aura...
i haven't played d3, but won't it be really hard to a "bowazon" on d3 who can't rely only on potions, i mean, it has to shoot, and run, get orbs, come back, shoot ? that is what seems to me.
if you are saying it's selfish to not have a BOW based character, it's also selfish to say that Paladins are not needed, that auras are not needed, that shapeshifters are a no no, that now that they have WD there is no need for a necro...
A primary bow user is one of the main archetypes though (melee fighter, ranged bow attacker, magic spells wielder) while shapeshifting, nature controlling, and aura usage are just supplementary abilities. These have been the main archetypes since the Gauntlet arcade days and pen and paper rpg days (which someone mentioned they're aiming to retro back to) and ppl are expecting these primary standards to be offered, each having a large audience for it. Standards that have been prevalent in this series since D1 and they're not just going to cut off that playerbase.
As I said earlier, this class is NOT going to be exclusively a ranged attacker (bow and maybe spear) but PRIMARILY a ranged attacker. This meaning he/she will excel in bow usage like the amazon did, but also supplement with skills for keeping enemies at bay, I'm betting on traps but maybe some melee abilities too. With that this primary ranged class would still fit into the D3 fast paced style of play, and at the same type offer a unique playstyle as these players would have to be very proactive.
If this archetype being one of the main three is not filled, there will be alot of ppl knocking at their (virtual) door complaining.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
do you really think there is this almost sick need for a ranged class on d3?
i do understand that in Wow and other games, but i'm not sure about diablo's need for a primarily ranged class.
specially if there is going to be a more number of monsters on screen, and you won't have time to use potions and you have to run into health orbs...
It's not being selfish, but it seems i didn't really wrote clearly what i wanted to say.
of course i know wizard are ranged(have you really read what i wrote with attention?), and even WD, in their own way. Sorcs always were.
I never said also, that i hate ranged classes, i used to play locks and hunters on wow. but that's wow. for some reason i'm not a fan of warriors/rogues/paladins in wow. Hate being in the middle in wow.
i know many people likes ranged classes. but just gettin on top of d2:LOD 1.12 ... how many bowazons are there? now? (yeah i remember when everything started... )
I don't even see a ZON as a mainly ranged class now, in the forum i see people talking about rangers, pets/hunters, and even some saying about chars with precise bows, almost a sniper. i think it's pretty much a "no no"
Anyway, if blizzard is solely worried about what people like to play, they still need a shapeshifter class, a class that controls' nature, a class with aura...
i haven't played d3, but won't it be really hard to a "bowazon" on d3 who can't rely only on potions, i mean, it has to shoot, and run, get orbs, come back, shoot ? that is what seems to me.
if you are saying it's selfish to not have a BOW based character, it's also selfish to say that Paladins are not needed, that auras are not needed, that shapeshifters are a no no, that now that they have WD there is no need for a necro...
not the point here to put a finger and saying what is better or what is worse, what is funnier or not.
if you could read it right, i stated that it appears to me that, blizzard is working with it's classes to be more and more "in" the battle, in the middle of the confusion, chaos and that stuff. So based on this assumption, also from what i understand about health orbs, and the clear perception that d3 is not just a redraw of d1/d2 (in a meaning that they cleary intend to change quite the gameplay... we already have health orbs! that's a huge impact on how it plays... and automatic status! in d1 i could have a warrior that could read the BOOK OF FIREWALL lvl 18 because of that)
based on all that, i don't see the need for the 5th class to be ranged. although nothing goes against it being able to use bows sometimes (as i many times used with a necro... on d2) i can also see blizzard going in another way, and i read the possibility of a path without a ranged class.
it's my opinion on top of what i sense diablo 3's shape appears to be defining. not just "hey i hate archers, let's flunk them"
it was all an analytical exercise, a path of thinking that found out that ranged may be ditched. there is even no place to you to use the word "selfish" on me. I' just sorry if the line-of-thought wasn't clearly explicit when i wrote.
how does that make sense?
as a rdps you will be taking less damage and you won't need to run into health orbs as often
zon wasn't bad, just, it wasn't a necro
Look at the artwork near lower left corner of the image...
Really interesting, it seems like some sort of desert thief with a hooded face, a light sword, and what looks like a bow and a carcaj on his back. Could it be the remaining fifth class?
considering there were vampires in d2....
and they were on the side of Diablo and Baal....
I don't think they are concerned with lack of food
and I thought vampires were 100% human, or humans were 100% vampire, idk how you can be both
No idea what the end of that means....
But looking at some past references, vampire hunter d, blade, and others. The half vampire half human role. These characters possessed both strengths that traditional vampires and humans have. They also acted as independent from both sides, but often used to destroy the pure vampires. Not trying to turn d3 into a vampire game, just thought a character like this could be interesting. Would allow for more story development, a completely different character to play from any of the other diablos, and allow for a mixed of range/melee class.
And they were also just monsters you were supposed to kill with no development, story, etc. Obviously one you would play would be more indepth with more skills, abilites.
bows are already in the game
True it would be somewhat conflicting. But then again, so is a witch doctor, necromancer, or even assassin in their own ways. Definitely not holy classes or saints by any means. And for the feeding, don't think it would be much of an issue considering the health globes and what not (resemble blood in a bottle to me). Plus you don't ever see any of the other classes sitting down for a picnic, don't think they're all anorexic
They can make a bow that has spears on each edge or something... You shoot, and if the enemy gets closer, you swing
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.
- Homer Simpson
hunters are amazons/rogues and druid mix
Ranged+real animal summons
The animals go and attack the enemy while the hunter stands back shoots arrows at them
I would almost bet money that this will be the last class unveiled
Well this argument only works if you considered the Rogue or Amazon to be a only-ranged class. But this is just not true, the Rouge could use all the swords, axes, and magic she wanted to, even though she was built more around bows. Even more pronounced was the amazon's use of the spear. Thus we have a class that can use both long and short ranged weapons.
I think the next class will be similar. A character class that can choose to use bows or melee close up damage.
And you seem to also underestimate bows. The Amazon kicked more than just a little ass in Diablo 3. And the skills around the bows might not be purely shooting a single arrow at a single target and killing it with an arrow. I believe Blizzard has been fairly creative so far on bow use, it would be interesting to see a skill like an exploding arrow that grows more powerful as the target gets in closer range.
Based on logic, all the other classes are used. Magic has been used twice, melee has been used twice. How can ranged not get one character class? Wither or not that character class can do other things such as melee, that will be seen later. But undoubtedly the next class will be able to use bows effectively.
Also the sight of the bow I should think would prove that they are at least THINKING about a bow class, otherwise why would they make bows at all in the game? Would anyone use them?
However, that being said, the chances of the next class being a javelin-tossing, spear-wielding, guided arrow shootin' class with a new name slapped on (rogue) seems sort of like a rash assumption.
Ok, let me hurry up to my point. The beauty of the Barbarian is his ability to use essentially all melee weapons ranging from a short-range axe to a long-range lance. Sprinkle in the more varied and useable skills that are being introduced in Diablo 3 and you have an all-around fighter with room for player creativity. The hideousness of a proposed comeback of an Amazon-clone is its limitations. Three basic weapon choices were forced upon the player. Bow/Xbow (same thing, eh?), Javelin, and Spear (which shared many skills with eachother). It fits the lore and theme of the Amazon which I can only assume would mean it wouldn't change drastically if they brought back that specific class. Also, lore-wise, wouldn't it be a little iffy for there to be a male rogue?
What is the missing archetype in Diablo 3 and what could fill it in?
This "jack of all trades" theory people are talking about is sounding more and more plausible. The ability to specialize in all ranged physical weapons (which someone else has already brought up) seems like both an obvious and original concept. My personal prediction is a desert-themed raider. Someone who could use spears and pole-arms as well as throwing axes and bows.
I believe it will be a part magic, part archer, type class. Either an extremely dark character like the necromancer was, or a shape shifting character of some kind... or maybe both. Maybe a demon master who can transform into demons of some kind? I hope that Blizzard makes the next character unique more than anything. The Witch Doctor seems to be the only, however slight, unique character. I would really like them to experiment with this last class... but if it will be ranged or not is really the question of this thread. And I must say, yes, unless they unveil two more character classes. (In which case only one will be ranged)
A primary bow user is one of the main archetypes though (melee fighter, ranged bow attacker, magic spells wielder) while shapeshifting, nature controlling, and aura usage are just supplementary abilities. These have been the main archetypes since the Gauntlet arcade days and pen and paper rpg days (which someone mentioned they're aiming to retro back to) and ppl are expecting these primary standards to be offered, each having a large audience for it. Standards that have been prevalent in this series since D1 and they're not just going to cut off that playerbase.
As I said earlier, this class is NOT going to be exclusively a ranged attacker (bow and maybe spear) but PRIMARILY a ranged attacker. This meaning he/she will excel in bow usage like the amazon did, but also supplement with skills for keeping enemies at bay, I'm betting on traps but maybe some melee abilities too. With that this primary ranged class would still fit into the D3 fast paced style of play, and at the same type offer a unique playstyle as these players would have to be very proactive.
If this archetype being one of the main three is not filled, there will be alot of ppl knocking at their (virtual) door complaining.