It's hard to think about new stuff, gameplay wise. This is their biggest challenge and the reason why their are professionals.
I was wondering and i think a nice mechanic to a archer would be make your would skills a target for another skill. Ex: Theres skill that you throw a oil bomb that slow down enemies in it's radius. You can shot a fire arrow in your oil and make a huge blast.
There are other possibilities, like shooting a slow and large sphere of energy that cause minor damage to enemies, but when a arrow cross this sphere it becomes a super energined arrow and deliver huge damage.
Other possibilitie is a skill that works like a assassin's lightning trap. But when you put more then one in the same screen, a lightning appear in the lane betwen those 2 traps. This lightbing would strikes enemy that cross it.
There are alot of crazy things they can do with this last class. All the crazy things i imagine involve traps, devices, etc... Thats why i think the last class will be a rogue with knowlege in tinkery.
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.
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.
"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.
If there isn't a difference between poison and disease, then burn is exactly the same, right? No, because that is a different element. There is poison resistance but there is no disease resistance.
Gameplaywise theres no difference between disease and poinson (they are both DoT/Debuff based), and no reason to separate this 2 damage types. Is Burn execly the same of poison/disease ? No.
Burn are not a element, it's a effect in Fire element attacks, so to resist burnt you have to stack Fire Resistance. However Fire are not based at DoTing/Debuffing, it's based at stable and strong burst damage.
You don't have poison spells doing instant damage out there like Fire Spirit.
Also, when asked about damage types in the B.net forums, Bashiok said:
Damage types aren't actually completely finalized. There's likely to be some additions, maybe some combinations. For instance people may have noticed that a few of the witch doctor skills refer to a damage type called "black magic". All of the monk spells seen relied purely on weapon damage as their base, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a holy damage type. What we don't want is for players to carry around a ton of different resistance sets to deal with a large number of different types of damages. There's quite a few different ways to go about solving that, but just to be clear we want damage types to serve the gameplay and not require players to have to pursue complex or item-heavy solutions to it.
They don't want to alot of different damage types. And they want every damage type represent something different to the gameplay.
Unless you gimme a point were poison and disease have truelly different gameplays and a reason to not fuse those two in just one (since they are already having trouble with holy and blackmagic) I'm not convinced.
Actually a ranged class can be fairly strong in close combat just like casters. When someone gets closer the ranged attacker have a much higher chance to hit his missiles attacks.
Also noone said the ranged class is 100% pure range class user. Again the amazon have a possible melee spec (Spear) and Shield Rogues was fairly good in D1.
When they creat classes they try to make then the most diversified possible. Why?
Because they want everyone to like at least one class. By diversing they increase the probability of this happen. And thats the main truth of why D3 will certainly have a bow class.
First because theres no archetype that have less similarities with the 4 announced class then the "bow user", so he is the best option to bring more diversification to the class pool.
Second because hes a obvious choice if you want to creat a class that people like. Just like some people are crazy about armsman and others are crazy about magic, some people are crazy about bows.
Third because every single medieval RPG ever created have a archer character. Maybe not have one is think "outside the box". Outside the box of sanity and inteligence.