I agree Italo, the only difference would be between ranged and melee weapons, where you either would switch, or would be looking at a dramatically different style of play.
So if a class has a duel wield tree and a ranged combat tree then it should be fine.
It would be odd though, having 3 aura's on your hotkey and all 3 of them working. xD
It seems we wont have aura's, or the class that has aura's has a separate slot for one of his aura's. Either that or it might be a form of the barb shouts, but then lasting very long.
yeah that's why I think having a buff would make more sense... you could have 3 aura's bound to hotkeys, but they would be for switching to and replacing you current one when you 'cast' it on yourself. Obviously they would buff everyone near you, but as a effect you put on yourself. As for duration, just make them last until death or they get replaced with another one. Having multiples work just from sitting on your hotbar would be imba...
Alternatively having a special icon that was your aura and being able to switch it with a hotkey would be really nice to see
Well you gotta remember our hotkeys will be a lot more numerous in d3. So if I had to use one slot for a aura it wouldn't really bother me now.
It just got annoying in D2 with only 2 skills and it had to be on your right mouse.
I just can't see how having to constantly switch back to your aura after each special ability could be considered good game design.
The ability to switch your aura's in a fight would still be better with the hotkeys, but I could see aura's being in general much less effective with the new d3 style of play (where more skills are employed by each class build). Funny though, we still have no idea if aura's will even be included in the game.
...Or are you thinking that just having an aura on you hotkey bar would be all you need? that would be nice.
but maybe they could make auras like permenant warcries so you dont have to keep it highlighted to keep it on lol
Yeah I was thinking the same thing, make aura's buffs you cast on yourself (which then effects everyone), and until you cast a different one you keep that effect. That way you could use more of your other skills rather then trying to switch all the time, or not using any right button abilities.
No offence, but in real life there are no holy powers. They were just fighting for a religion. xD So it's not a valid argument that crusaders etc used [spears and bows] in their holy wars.
Because they are just common soldiers.
Yeah, I believe Daemaro was responding to my comment about the general historical culture basis for most diablo classes. I don't doubt both the weapons were used extensively throughout the crusades. No doubt those weapons would largely be used because of how easy they could be used by the peasant fodder brought along (not to suggest bows/spears don't bennefit from expert training). Personally I'd like to see a polearm/spear specialized holy warrior, I'm just not as impressed with the idea of a bow-based holy class.
He might come back in an expansion, but they stated they would not add more then 1 character from D2 into D3, weird enough the Wizard is an exact copy of the Sorceress (in a way).
So there might be hope you'll see him return in an other form just like Necro + Druid = Witch Doctor
I'd like to see something like this done with the paladin, maybe combine him + the amazon to make a polearm/spear specialized holy class that only has 1 tree of aura's, 2 seems like a lot...
Also would be nice if you always had an aura active like a passive buff 'cast' on yourself until replaced, so you would be free to use the skills in the other trees.
(off topic= The main difference between the wizard and sorceress is one is an elementalist, while the other is more of a d&d styled mage.)
Holy + bow does seem like a strange combination, not one I would be likely to play. I'm also not sure what culture in sanctuary something like that would come from. Most previous characters are based off of other real world cultures (Paladins from the Catholicism, Barbarians from the Norse, Celt and Germanic tribes, Amazons from well...) I can't personally think of any holy orders that relied heavily on archery, especially archers who were holy in orders themselves. Not to nit-pick or say it wouldn't function, just seems like a strange combination.
But bows + aura's would be a very powerful, complimentary combo. Could work it into a bard like class, party support + ranged combat. Add in a third tree for traps, melee, animal companions, illusion spells, or something else? Though I don't doubt the class would be more popular if they named it Ranger, Pathfinder or something along these lines. I'm sure someones made a post along these lines.
Personally I'd like to see some sort of a holy warrior monk, though not one which was unarmed, or had special weapons like the assassin did.
On topic: So what does everyone think about making a 'priest' class? (a lighter version of a holy spell character) Would it be one too many casters?
And if they did exist, how would they tie into the story? I know the paladins were devoted to the now destroyed Zakarum, which is connected to the light, are there other such religions a new holy character couldbe connected to? I've been scanning the wiki to get some back-story, but haven't seen anything to describe the 'Cathedral of Light', which I'm guessing is the light's equivalent to the triune, or would be connected with Inarius... Does it make sense to have a character connected to the CoL?
The Warrior in Diablo I was not like the Barb. Once you had high level armor on the warrior, he was essentially the "knight in shining armor". The Barbarian, even in high level armor, still looks brutish.
It's important to note that I'm not talking about skills or how the character acts in battle. I'm talking about appearance.
I didn't find the warrior to be either barbarian or knight like. He was, as titled, just a warrior. But I know what your saying, any character in heavy plate that's not stylized to be brutish/primitive (as the amazon and more-so barbarian were) would look to be a knight.
When I say that I don't think d3 needs a 'knight' class, I don't mean to suggest a knight wouldn't fit. I just find that at this point the game could go in just about any direction, and wouldn't feel like its missing something (though it definitely could feel like it has things that don't belong).
Personally I would have preferred 6+ character classes. It would be more work to balance, but would give them the room to explore new areas, and bring back all the favored elements from the previous games. If there was 6-7 classes then I do think that a knight would then become a necessity. Not because they are vital to a Diablo game, but with that many characters a melee warrior along those lines is bound to be one of them. I guess we'll have to wait for an expansion for that.
I think your assuming I'm talking about d3, I'm not, I was talking about paladins, and more so knights and shields in previous diablo games...
Quote from "Paladin88" »
?????
Irrelevant as well.
I was responding to the comment all Diablo games had a knight in shining armor... Its not irrelevant if you take the time to understand what I was commenting on ;), D1 had no 'knight' it simply had a melee specialist warrior.
So could and did the Amazon.
Your right, and again she's not a 'knight'.
????? Hmmmm, no.
I don't know about you but I never found a character performed better with a shield unless they were a pally speced to use one, or didn't rely on their weapons...
Again, the Barbarian wiill have a whole skill tree for use with shields. This is perhaps part of what you're basing your thoughts regarding the Paladin on. That and Blizzard's statement that the Barbarian would be the 'true warrior' class in D3. Still, in D2 the Paladin had more uses and diverse divine skills and spells. What other class 'so far' could fill up this gap?
Well obviously this Barbarian is different then the d2 barbarian, which is what I was referring to. And the fact that there is shield support for the Bbn just makes the concept of a *need* for a paladin/knight-like class void. Keep in mind I'm not talking about shields in d3, its a new game and I don't think anyone here really know just what role they will play yet.
Hammerdin with high resistances? Easiest class to play with.
I was talking about shields not paladins...
I'm not flaming you in any way really, but...
But you sure like to assume you know what I'm talking about then refute the strawman
Like what? A rogue? An assassin? An amazon? All of these using divine spells
Again I'm talking about a Knight, not some holy-roller... There could be a priest-like class, or a class based off of mental discipline and holy spells. Who knows, not you or I, but obviously theres plenty of classes they could make. They don't even need a holy spell using class, the first diablo had none, only a holybolt spell anyone could learn.
You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. D3 doesn't need a Knight (note: I'm not talking about holy magic at all), it could have one, it could have a different take on a holy ability using class, but there is nothing to suggest that another class wearing heavy armor and swing a sword is necessary. I said nothing about the holy spells because I wasn't talking about the paladin but just a vanilla character in shiny armor.... So please next time try to take the time to understand what I'm talking about before responding
I don't know if the game needs a 'knight' class. The original Diablo had the warrior, which was much more like the barbarian in so far as he was a brute that swung large weapons. The barbarian can equip armor just like the paladin could and handles the role of heavy melee class.
Shields seems to be better for caster classes, or any class not relying solely on the damage output of their weapons to perform. Paladins had some skills to make them useful, but otherwise I wouldn't have used them other then with a necro or a similar class that didn't melee.
I'm not saying that a knight won't appear... I just, in no way, feel it's a necessary addition. There's plenty of other options they could instead include class wise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So if a class has a duel wield tree and a ranged combat tree then it should be fine.
Perhaps have scythes as entry level pole arms? kind of like hatchets aren't really meant for war?
on a side note:
I don't think the Naginata would be too exotic, though there certainly are other oriental weapons that very much would be.
Alternatively having a special icon that was your aura and being able to switch it with a hotkey would be really nice to see
The ability to switch your aura's in a fight would still be better with the hotkeys, but I could see aura's being in general much less effective with the new d3 style of play (where more skills are employed by each class build). Funny though, we still have no idea if aura's will even be included in the game.
...Or are you thinking that just having an aura on you hotkey bar would be all you need? that would be nice.
Also would be nice if you always had an aura active like a passive buff 'cast' on yourself until replaced, so you would be free to use the skills in the other trees.
(off topic= The main difference between the wizard and sorceress is one is an elementalist, while the other is more of a d&d styled mage.)
But bows + aura's would be a very powerful, complimentary combo. Could work it into a bard like class, party support + ranged combat. Add in a third tree for traps, melee, animal companions, illusion spells, or something else? Though I don't doubt the class would be more popular if they named it Ranger, Pathfinder or something along these lines. I'm sure someones made a post along these lines.
Personally I'd like to see some sort of a holy warrior monk, though not one which was unarmed, or had special weapons like the assassin did.
On topic: So what does everyone think about making a 'priest' class? (a lighter version of a holy spell character) Would it be one too many casters?
And if they did exist, how would they tie into the story? I know the paladins were devoted to the now destroyed Zakarum, which is connected to the light, are there other such religions a new holy character couldbe connected to? I've been scanning the wiki to get some back-story, but haven't seen anything to describe the 'Cathedral of Light', which I'm guessing is the light's equivalent to the triune, or would be connected with Inarius... Does it make sense to have a character connected to the CoL?
When I say that I don't think d3 needs a 'knight' class, I don't mean to suggest a knight wouldn't fit. I just find that at this point the game could go in just about any direction, and wouldn't feel like its missing something (though it definitely could feel like it has things that don't belong).
Personally I would have preferred 6+ character classes. It would be more work to balance, but would give them the room to explore new areas, and bring back all the favored elements from the previous games. If there was 6-7 classes then I do think that a knight would then become a necessity. Not because they are vital to a Diablo game, but with that many characters a melee warrior along those lines is bound to be one of them. I guess we'll have to wait for an expansion for that.
I was responding to the comment all Diablo games had a knight in shining armor... Its not irrelevant if you take the time to understand what I was commenting on ;), D1 had no 'knight' it simply had a melee specialist warrior.
Your right, and again she's not a 'knight'.
I don't know about you but I never found a character performed better with a shield unless they were a pally speced to use one, or didn't rely on their weapons...
Well obviously this Barbarian is different then the d2 barbarian, which is what I was referring to. And the fact that there is shield support for the Bbn just makes the concept of a *need* for a paladin/knight-like class void. Keep in mind I'm not talking about shields in d3, its a new game and I don't think anyone here really know just what role they will play yet.
I was talking about shields not paladins...
But you sure like to assume you know what I'm talking about then refute the strawman
Again I'm talking about a Knight, not some holy-roller... There could be a priest-like class, or a class based off of mental discipline and holy spells. Who knows, not you or I, but obviously theres plenty of classes they could make. They don't even need a holy spell using class, the first diablo had none, only a holybolt spell anyone could learn.
You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. D3 doesn't need a Knight (note: I'm not talking about holy magic at all), it could have one, it could have a different take on a holy ability using class, but there is nothing to suggest that another class wearing heavy armor and swing a sword is necessary. I said nothing about the holy spells because I wasn't talking about the paladin but just a vanilla character in shiny armor.... So please next time try to take the time to understand what I'm talking about before responding
Shields seems to be better for caster classes, or any class not relying solely on the damage output of their weapons to perform. Paladins had some skills to make them useful, but otherwise I wouldn't have used them other then with a necro or a similar class that didn't melee.
I'm not saying that a knight won't appear... I just, in no way, feel it's a necessary addition. There's plenty of other options they could instead include class wise.