Alright, some of you need to understand, It's not about how the Paladin was balanced in the latest set of patches, but instead the fact that he was the holy dedicated warrior focused solely on destroying the invading evil, is the reason players want him back. He was a character that inspired you to want to cleanse the world of these demonic forces and save the ppl from their grasp. I actually stopped playing D2 regularly before synergies and the overbalances that came with them were added, and back than the Pally was a popular class too. Even with the way they have him now, it wouldn't mean they'd have to design him in the same way if he were to come back but....
Oh, there's no lack of understanding there. What I am saying is simply that, if you could read my inductive voice there, this: The Paladin is hugely popular in Diablo II because his power is unchecked and can kill anything in the game (well, besides one monster). He has massively overpowered skills which deal in the thousands of damage without any monsters being resistant. He has skills that take down a boss with no more than one point in them.
The reason he is so popular is because he is broken, and that is what I am addressing. If you argue against this, you have not played Diablo II in the last couple years.
So, inductively, what I was stating was that if anyone, since there are many out there, want the Paladin back from Diablo II because he was so "ub3r l33t", it will not happen on that basis.
And this has not purely been an issue because of patches. Smite was still insanely overpowered and still is.
Now, if you want him back based on a minority view, because of his archetypical importance to complete the characters, my only argument is that he is really too similar to the Monk in many ways and both would have to be reworked to fit him in (the Monk is a heavy mix of the Assassin and Paladin in my opinion).
I can guarantee you, however, if he was in the game, if he was no less than exactly what he was in Diablo II, in looks, skills, and power (if not greater), we will have many, many angry threads going up on this forum crying about it.
I wouldn't. It's what he gets for being the massively over-powered character in Diablo II for years. I hate Paladins just for that. Everyone makes them because their power is unchecked at all.
Now, if it was FAIRLY BALANCED in Diablo III, I wouldn't mind.
He won't be returning, though. He would be too similar to the Monk.
Oh, there's no lack of understanding there. What I am saying is simply that, if you could read my inductive voice there, this: The Paladin is hugely popular in Diablo II because his power is unchecked and can kill anything in the game (well, besides one monster). He has massively overpowered skills which deal in the thousands of damage without any monsters being resistant. He has skills that take down a boss with no more than one point in them.
The reason he is so popular is because he is broken, and that is what I am addressing. If you argue against this, you have not played Diablo II in the last couple years.
So, inductively, what I was stating was that if anyone, since there are many out there, want the Paladin back from Diablo II because he was so "ub3r l33t", it will not happen on that basis.
And this has not purely been an issue because of patches. Smite was still insanely overpowered and still is.
Now, if you want him back based on a minority view, because of his archetypical importance to complete the characters, my only argument is that he is really too similar to the Monk in many ways and both would have to be reworked to fit him in (the Monk is a heavy mix of the Assassin and Paladin in my opinion).
I can guarantee you, however, if he was in the game, if he was no less than exactly what he was in Diablo II, in looks, skills, and power (if not greater), we will have many, many angry threads going up on this forum crying about it.
That is all.
Now, if it was FAIRLY BALANCED in Diablo III, I wouldn't mind.
He won't be returning, though. He would be too similar to the Monk.