Yeah, I think a knightly class would be getting closer than alchemist.
However... who says a knight class is needed? What's stopping you from getting knightly gear for your barbarian? ^^
But if there is a knight class, I could definitely see it being a melee/caster or melee/support hybrid, with either a good slant, an evil slant, or the ability to go either good or evil
Yes, they both prefer the clash of cold steel to the conjuration of deadly spells, but apart from that they could not be more distant relatives.
The barbarian is an uncivilized brute running around half-naked with bulbous muscles carrying giant axes covered in warpaint howling raping and pillaging every village in his path.
The knight, on the other hand, is a dashing silver-clad hero who lives by a strict code of honor and justice, and he only rapes and pillages people of differing religions.
I hate the barbarians guts, he has no class...I never play that shit and im sure if I put knightly armor on him his steroid pumped muscles would burst it out at the seems and not look remotely chivalrous. How am I going to be slaying demons and saving damsels then??
After thinking about it more, 1ord i3eans I think you may be right that Alchemist is too similar to witch doctor. And Dimebag, you're right, we NEED a knightly class.
Many people have suggested an evilish knightly class. I think its also possible to see an Angelic knightly class, sort of like the Tyrael brand.
So, maybe this is a more likely lineup:
Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Illusionist, Angelic or Evil Knight, Ranger
Oh, and as for the Blizzcon announcement...I'm betting that they announce the Ranger first
But, a Warlock is not a male witch. Thats just the latest 'trend' to follow. You can technically have male 'witches', and you can have female warlocks.
The definition of the word warlock is a male witch. That's not the latest trend, it's the meaning of the word. Of course, any game designer can twist that meaning around if they want to -- I know WoW has a warlock class and I bet they allow it to be female.
They didn't say not in exact function, did they? I mean, a spellcaster is a spellcaster, no matter the name or the spells they use. 'Spell-casting' is a function, so if they aren't gonna have a class that does the same functions as a previous class, then they wouldn't have a spellcaster (Sorcerer, Sorceress, Mage, Sage, Warlock, whatever).
They said that they are not remaking any of the old classes other than Barbarian in the base game. They also said that the Barbarian started out as being called something else, but the class design was basically the same as the Barbarian, and it would be pointless to name it something else if it was essentially a Barbarian, so they just called it the Barbarian. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that they are not going to remake an old character and just change its name, which rules out any new ideas for a character class that are basically the same as an old class.
Also, they said that they didn't want to remake the Necro class because they felt like they did a good job with it the first time around. The designers didnt want to simply copy old skill trees, because that isnt fun to design. All these tidbits of information give us unsight into the mind of the developers and makes it obvious that they are not going to make repeat classes.
This does not mean that, since somebody used magic in D2, nobody will use magic in D3. They have to keep the classes balanced and they have to appeal to the tactical preferences of players. There will always be some players who prefer to play ranged, up-close, spellcast, summon, etc. We can be confident that eachl of these major desires will be satisfied by some class simply to balance the game and appeal to the fanbase.
This thread is not to give my opinions but just show my logic process in guessing which other classes we will see. I know there are other threads doing this already: I don't care.
Blizzard has said that none of the other 3 classes will be repeated from previous versions.
Blizzard has also said that the name of the class will be something well recognized so that
you instantly have an idea about what types of abilities it might use just from the name. ie, some kind of a purist class, no 'dervish', because nobody knows exctly what a dervish is.
Lets look at the previous Diablo classes because we know for sure the last 3 will be none of these, not in name OR in exact function:
They've already created a brute force class and a summoner class. They are sure to add
a pure magic class and a more civilized fighter class as well.
Possible magic user classes:
Warlock. The problem with warlock is the female counterpart is a witch, and theyalready have a witch doctor. Still, they might ignore this and just allow for male/female warlocks.It would probably specialize in some dark magics. However this might conflict with the Witch Doctor a little too much.
Sage. Probably a mix between wizard and druid, but what exactly does a sage do? I'm not sure, so it's probably out.
Elementalist. Previous sorcerer was basically an elementalist already, so we can forget about seeing this one.
Illusionist. This would be a pure magic user class but focus on a different aspect of magic than the elemental stuffused previously.
Possible civilized fighter class:
Cleric. As we have never had a healer class in D2 except for "sortof" the Paladin, and the previous monk was more of a martial artist. I think this might be a good possibility.
Ranger. Also a good possibility because we all know what ranger does, and its not quire a Druid...but there are a lotof wilderness areas and its always been a popular choice among players. Could replace the rogue/amazon and fighter/paladin class simultaneously.
Samurai. Possible...but, probably not just because its not European.
Crusader. Can't see how this would be any different from the Paladin, which they aren't remaking, so it can't be this.
Knight. Well, this would be exactly like the warrior and similar to paladin. Still, how can you make a game like Diablo WITHOUT a class like a Knight? It's such a classic icon. D1's Warrior looked like a Knight but they didn't focus on skills back then. D2's Paladin focused a lot on the holy aspects of a knight. We could have a knight that was not religious oriented and had a skill tree focusing more on tactical combat without being such a brute as the barbarian. For this reason, I think the Knight is a good possibility.
Paragon/Angel-knight. I'm not exactly sure what they could call this without sounding too godly, but its a viable class. Most similar to Paladin for sure..but definitely different. The drawing on Blizzcon 2008 bg really looks like a playable class to me.
Possible third class: I think we can expect at least one more highly creative class like the witch doctor from D3. This makes it a little more difficult to predict. However, since so many things have been done already, there really aren't too many more logical choices left for different mechanics.
Artificer. These are interersting variants we havent seen before, but they aren't pure magic users.Probably would be something like a Gnome from D&D or the Engineer from Hellgate:London, only using more archaictype artifacts like from M:Tg. I'm thinking like Urza or Mishra.
Alchemist. I think this is a pretty good new possibility too. Someone who really focuses on using potions, perhaps with a lot of skills that work off of like the throwable potions from D2.
Demon Prince / Dark Knight. Someone else suggested this. My thought is no, because its too contrived, and too evil. We are fighting evil, remember? The whole concept of an evil death knight turned good is kind of ridiculous.
Shapeshifter. Has been suggested. But this is what the Druid was alredy, so forget it. Not happening.
What about the rogue-like, you say? I think this class is basically out, unless they somehow mix it with the civilized fighter -- eg, like with the Ranger. Simply because they cant do without a real fighter and magic user, and will probably want something more creative for the last class, and so many rogue options have been used already: rogue, amazon, assassin...seriously there is not much left except for like "swashbuckler" and "thief" neither of which fit in such a combat oriented setting.
To summarize, I think the most likely additional classes are narrowed down to the following (in no particular order): Warlock, Illusionist, Cleric, Ranger, Knight, Artificer, Alchemist
I think the Illusionist would be a more interesting magic user class than the warlock, who would have to specialize in dark magics...and since weve already had a witch doctor and necromancer that both specialize in dark magic already, I think illusionist is more likely. Probably would be similar to D&D illusionist mage or mesmer from GW.
Between Artificer and Alchemist, I think alchemist is more likely because artificer might quickly turn into some type of a summoner class...or even worse, some super high tech gadgety dude.
As for the remaining fighter class, the logical options remaining are cleric, ranger, or knight. cleric isn't much of a hardcore fighter and healing isnt that good because diablo isnt really that party based. I know the paladin was attempted to be a party character but its not like people used him that way. As much as I like the knight I think a ranger is more likely, becausae it also supplants the roguelike wannabe's...and is a bit newer to the diablo world than a pure knight class.
Ok, so, my final set of predictions for D3 classes are...drumroll...
Yes, they both prefer the clash of cold steel to the conjuration of deadly spells, but apart from that they could not be more distant relatives.
The barbarian is an uncivilized brute running around half-naked with bulbous muscles carrying giant axes covered in warpaint howling raping and pillaging every village in his path.
The knight, on the other hand, is a dashing silver-clad hero who lives by a strict code of honor and justice, and he only rapes and pillages people of differing religions.
I hate the barbarians guts, he has no class...I never play that shit and im sure if I put knightly armor on him his steroid pumped muscles would burst it out at the seems and not look remotely chivalrous. How am I going to be slaying demons and saving damsels then??
Many people have suggested an evilish knightly class. I think its also possible to see an Angelic knightly class, sort of like the Tyrael brand.
So, maybe this is a more likely lineup:
Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Illusionist, Angelic or Evil Knight, Ranger
Oh, and as for the Blizzcon announcement...I'm betting that they announce the Ranger first
The definition of the word warlock is a male witch. That's not the latest trend, it's the meaning of the word. Of course, any game designer can twist that meaning around if they want to -- I know WoW has a warlock class and I bet they allow it to be female.
They said that they are not remaking any of the old classes other than Barbarian in the base game. They also said that the Barbarian started out as being called something else, but the class design was basically the same as the Barbarian, and it would be pointless to name it something else if it was essentially a Barbarian, so they just called it the Barbarian. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that they are not going to remake an old character and just change its name, which rules out any new ideas for a character class that are basically the same as an old class.
Also, they said that they didn't want to remake the Necro class because they felt like they did a good job with it the first time around. The designers didnt want to simply copy old skill trees, because that isnt fun to design. All these tidbits of information give us unsight into the mind of the developers and makes it obvious that they are not going to make repeat classes.
This does not mean that, since somebody used magic in D2, nobody will use magic in D3. They have to keep the classes balanced and they have to appeal to the tactical preferences of players. There will always be some players who prefer to play ranged, up-close, spellcast, summon, etc. We can be confident that eachl of these major desires will be satisfied by some class simply to balance the game and appeal to the fanbase.
Blizzard has said that none of the other 3 classes will be repeated from previous versions.
Blizzard has also said that the name of the class will be something well recognized so that
you instantly have an idea about what types of abilities it might use just from the name. ie, some kind of a purist class, no 'dervish', because nobody knows exctly what a dervish is.
Lets look at the previous Diablo classes because we know for sure the last 3 will be none of these, not in name OR in exact function:
D1 classes---------
rogue
sorcerer
warrior
* monk
* bard
* barbarian
D2 Classes---------
amazon
barbarian
sorceress
paladin
necromancer
* assassin
* druid
D3 Classes---------
Barbarian
Witch Doctor
They've already created a brute force class and a summoner class. They are sure to add
a pure magic class and a more civilized fighter class as well.
Possible magic user classes:
I think we can expect at least one more highly creative class like the witch doctor from D3. This makes it a little more difficult to predict. However, since so many things have been done already, there really aren't too many more logical choices left for different mechanics.
To summarize, I think the most likely additional classes are narrowed down to the following (in no particular order): Warlock, Illusionist, Cleric, Ranger, Knight, Artificer, Alchemist
I think the Illusionist would be a more interesting magic user class than the warlock, who would have to specialize in dark magics...and since weve already had a witch doctor and necromancer that both specialize in dark magic already, I think illusionist is more likely. Probably would be similar to D&D illusionist mage or mesmer from GW.
Between Artificer and Alchemist, I think alchemist is more likely because artificer might quickly turn into some type of a summoner class...or even worse, some super high tech gadgety dude.
As for the remaining fighter class, the logical options remaining are cleric, ranger, or knight. cleric isn't much of a hardcore fighter and healing isnt that good because diablo isnt really that party based. I know the paladin was attempted to be a party character but its not like people used him that way. As much as I like the knight I think a ranger is more likely, becausae it also supplants the roguelike wannabe's...and is a bit newer to the diablo world than a pure knight class.
Ok, so, my final set of predictions for D3 classes are...drumroll...
Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Illusionist, Alchemist, Ranger