"to resist burnt you have to stack Fire Resistance"
Exactly, and why should disease be any different? .
Because disease already works like poison (in gameplay terms), unlike fire and all the other elements.
See.. my points is: They already have too much elements in the game. Creat another that can easilly be covered by a existing one is no sense. Don't tell me the difference between Poison and Disease is the same as between Poison and Fire because it isn't and you know that.
Maybe it's an idea to instead of trying to seperate them gameplaywize, maybe they should combine it?
Creatures affected by poison also getting affected with a disease, maybe lower attackdmg, less armor, slower attackspeed etc. Realisticly, people who get poisoned with any kind, gets weakened of some sort, don't they?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If we are to defeat the flames of hell, it sure can't be done with fire..
(...)
Disease becomes a bit like curses but with damage, and poison would be poison, but with a hint of weakening/slowing.
But this would be way too complicated
Hey, don't forget we're talking about a CLASS here.
So are you suggesting a class based at long duration dots ?! "Everyone instantly kill stuff, the poison WD have to wait colossal 3 or 4 seconds, but i wait even more. BUAHAHAHA.". Really, who would play something like that ? The Poison DoTs are on the limit dot duration if you ask me.
This kind of stuff in a monster skill ? Bring it on ! Expecially it having a cool visual effect and well ambientalized (like get some desease debuff in a jungle enviorment). But we don't need a new kind of damage for that and i agree those debuffs should not be resisted by poison resistance.
Yeah, but all this Poison/Disease discussion started when you said they should add a nature class with disease skills in the game and people started to say that it would overlap with the WD because he have poison damage.
By defending disease damage being a long dot damage you're automatically suggesting a inviable class.
By droping your suggestion of disease damage class the disease damage no longer have to exist since the reason of existance of those different kind of elements is to diversify every class.
I have NEVER said this. I would hate a class like that...
omfg you're right, other person said that i though it was you D:
Sorry dude.
Anyway I remain with my point. Anythnig called disease damage would only bring confusion to the gameplay because people would be confused about wich resistance effect that.
bows and other ranged weapons are dropped in teh gameplay videos. either yes its a ranged class or other characters can use ranged weapons. i hope both.
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.
So, now that I've finally laid my claim, I challenge you all to an honest debate as to why I'm wrong.
Well, it was mentioned that the last class was the most developed and re-imagined class. It could be a class that's mainly about ranged weaponry but has melee abilities to balance him out with the rest.
But there's a draw back to that. At least something that maybe no one else except Blizzard can pull off. Creating such a class into a magnificent, creative and powerful class that can match up or go above the other classes.
So it could also hold its own in melee fights. I agree with your logic. Every class is capable of holding their own in any fight, but they still have weaknesses. There's already a speed powerhouse, though you're forgetting that the monk isn't weak in damage. He's powerful and deals a lot of damage, but he can't take as much as the Barb. Just to point out. If you watch the interview videos about the Monk they'll mention he's powerful but he just can't take that many hits.
With that down I would go with the hunter, but not so much into speed. Possibly a class that also uses heavy armor. I think that's what's lacking. Maybe leather armor. But is proficient in bows, etc. The standard ranged weapons. But also using a unique melee weapon.
A name? The warden would suit that class. If its all leather then a Bard or a Hunter. Maybe a Bounty Hunter kind of name. We already have a tank so I wouldn't think the 5th class would take the tank role. Blizzard mentioned that the Barb is the tank.
Seems that they're also lacking the Ice Element and Earth Element, based on your info. This new class could use those two elements. The WD uses Fire and Disease (Poison), the Wizard uses Lightning and Arcane, the Monk uses Holy, Strength and Speed, the Barb uses Brute Strength. If not Earth could also be nature. Since the Barb's attack closely resemble earth quality elements. So it may look similar and Blizzard doesn't want that, they want them all to be unique and if they give you the Archetype name you can easily know what they can do.
Your logic is sound I will give you that. Yes all the classes seem to be able to work in both ranged/in your face beat downs. With that logic I still say that the next class will to still be an ranged class but not pure ranged. If you take into account DnD you will find the class "Seeker" which is a Ranger with melee. This means
Damage type
Ranged Bows,Cross Bows..ect
Melee, Swords,axes..ect
Tho he will be better at ranged than in standard combat. They will have to implement some kind of class that utilizes bows as they are in the game and would be a waste of dev time to create bows just so some one could put it on a barb and never use it.
As for the gameplay vids I could have sworn I saw a staff drop.
Well I just think it would be odd not to include at least one ranged type class. My guess it they may introduce guns in a character class such as a engineer or something of that nature. Not like machine guns or anything but like old musket type gun or something weird like that.
Well I just think it would be odd not to include at least one ranged type class. My guess it they may introduce guns in a character class such as a engineer or something of that nature. Not like machine guns or anything but like old musket type gun or something weird like that.
Its has been confirmed that there will be no guns / old muskets in diablo 3.
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.
So, now that I've finally laid my claim, I challenge you all to an honest debate as to why I'm wrong.
Imagine for a moment that the Barbarian was the last class released by Blizzard. Then, by your logic, you'd probably be claiming that the last class can't possibly be a melee class because all the previously announced classes were also good at ranged fighting.
Conclusion: you are right that whatever class they release will likely be able to fight at any range, but that does not mean they will fight equally well at all ranges, and it doesn't mean that the name and inspiration of the character cannot be based on something ranged.
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
What an amazing thought you had...... A ranger that uses pets as a tank. Hrmmm let me think of where i have seen that before..... Bah go and play WoW. Damn wow fanboys
The class mods that give skill bonuses should be working as long as you have at least a point in the skill as you described.
If thats not the case, please post a thread in the Technical Support forum with as many details as possible character, skill tree, item names, platform, and etc..
To everyone saying its going to be a druid i strongly disagree first of all i doubt they will introduce healing into diablo. secondly the witchdoctor and sorceress already has similar moves to what a druid might have such as locus swarm and other magical spells. If you argue that there will be a feral type druid i think everyone will agree that a rogue is far more possible then this (i'm not saying that a rogue will be the 5th class just pointing out that blizzard would make a rogue rather then a feral type druid).
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.
You're forgetting that there was somewhat of a big deal about the new ranged weapons not requiring ammo, which essentially confirms they're in the game, and necessitates that the final class has at least some bow sills.
If the final class won't be a ranged type class, whatever it will be called, Blizzard will lose most of the archer fan players, because none of the released classes can replace the feeling, the way and the style of playing a pure ranged class even though the current classes have any ranged skills. Exrperiments with the current classes are enough. Witch Doctor (what a class...!) is enough for us to say "Wow!Blizzard amazed us another time!". It doesn't need something extra weird...The absence of a bow type class will be Blizzard's "fatal error" in Diablo 3.Some things are more than standards in role playing games and we shouldn't change them in favor of impact.
archer fans? lawl
i think it would be better if blizzard didnt do a cut n paste archer class. and who are you to decide what the standards of role playing games are?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because disease already works like poison (in gameplay terms), unlike fire and all the other elements.
See.. my points is: They already have too much elements in the game. Creat another that can easilly be covered by a existing one is no sense. Don't tell me the difference between Poison and Disease is the same as between Poison and Fire because it isn't and you know that.
Creatures affected by poison also getting affected with a disease, maybe lower attackdmg, less armor, slower attackspeed etc. Realisticly, people who get poisoned with any kind, gets weakened of some sort, don't they?
Hey, don't forget we're talking about a CLASS here.
So are you suggesting a class based at long duration dots ?! "Everyone instantly kill stuff, the poison WD have to wait colossal 3 or 4 seconds, but i wait even more. BUAHAHAHA.". Really, who would play something like that ? The Poison DoTs are on the limit dot duration if you ask me.
This kind of stuff in a monster skill ? Bring it on ! Expecially it having a cool visual effect and well ambientalized (like get some desease debuff in a jungle enviorment). But we don't need a new kind of damage for that and i agree those debuffs should not be resisted by poison resistance.
Yeah, but all this Poison/Disease discussion started when you said they should add a nature class with disease skills in the game and people started to say that it would overlap with the WD because he have poison damage.
By defending disease damage being a long dot damage you're automatically suggesting a inviable class.
By droping your suggestion of disease damage class the disease damage no longer have to exist since the reason of existance of those different kind of elements is to diversify every class.
omfg you're right, other person said that i though it was you D:
Sorry dude.
Anyway I remain with my point. Anythnig called disease damage would only bring confusion to the gameplay because people would be confused about wich resistance effect that.
By they way, disease could have this color.
[SIGPIC][url=http://www.diii.net/signature][img=http://www.diii.net/sig/983.png[/SIGPIC]
Well, it was mentioned that the last class was the most developed and re-imagined class. It could be a class that's mainly about ranged weaponry but has melee abilities to balance him out with the rest.
But there's a draw back to that. At least something that maybe no one else except Blizzard can pull off. Creating such a class into a magnificent, creative and powerful class that can match up or go above the other classes.
So it could also hold its own in melee fights. I agree with your logic. Every class is capable of holding their own in any fight, but they still have weaknesses. There's already a speed powerhouse, though you're forgetting that the monk isn't weak in damage. He's powerful and deals a lot of damage, but he can't take as much as the Barb. Just to point out. If you watch the interview videos about the Monk they'll mention he's powerful but he just can't take that many hits.
With that down I would go with the hunter, but not so much into speed. Possibly a class that also uses heavy armor. I think that's what's lacking. Maybe leather armor. But is proficient in bows, etc. The standard ranged weapons. But also using a unique melee weapon.
A name? The warden would suit that class. If its all leather then a Bard or a Hunter. Maybe a Bounty Hunter kind of name. We already have a tank so I wouldn't think the 5th class would take the tank role. Blizzard mentioned that the Barb is the tank.
Seems that they're also lacking the Ice Element and Earth Element, based on your info. This new class could use those two elements. The WD uses Fire and Disease (Poison), the Wizard uses Lightning and Arcane, the Monk uses Holy, Strength and Speed, the Barb uses Brute Strength. If not Earth could also be nature. Since the Barb's attack closely resemble earth quality elements. So it may look similar and Blizzard doesn't want that, they want them all to be unique and if they give you the Archetype name you can easily know what they can do.
Damage type
Ranged Bows,Cross Bows..ect
Melee, Swords,axes..ect
Tho he will be better at ranged than in standard combat. They will have to implement some kind of class that utilizes bows as they are in the game and would be a waste of dev time to create bows just so some one could put it on a barb and never use it.
As for the gameplay vids I could have sworn I saw a staff drop.
Its has been confirmed that there will be no guns / old muskets in diablo 3.
Thank the lord.....
If there were guns...I'd be so pissed. :mad:
Or else!!! ̿ ̿̿’̿’\̵͇̿̿\з==(•̪●)==ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿
Imagine for a moment that the Barbarian was the last class released by Blizzard. Then, by your logic, you'd probably be claiming that the last class can't possibly be a melee class because all the previously announced classes were also good at ranged fighting.
Conclusion: you are right that whatever class they release will likely be able to fight at any range, but that does not mean they will fight equally well at all ranges, and it doesn't mean that the name and inspiration of the character cannot be based on something ranged.
What an amazing thought you had...... A ranger that uses pets as a tank. Hrmmm let me think of where i have seen that before..... Bah go and play WoW. Damn wow fanboys
If thats not the case, please post a thread in the Technical Support forum with as many details as possible character, skill tree, item names, platform, and etc..
You're forgetting that there was somewhat of a big deal about the new ranged weapons not requiring ammo, which essentially confirms they're in the game, and necessitates that the final class has at least some bow sills.
archer fans? lawl
i think it would be better if blizzard didnt do a cut n paste archer class. and who are you to decide what the standards of role playing games are?