If evil guys can corrupt good guys, why wouldn't the opposite work? Uncorrupting the bad guys to make them good again
Redemption is arealdy really rare and very difficult, but in the world of Diablo I doubt if it's even possible.
The closest to it that I know is Lachdanan and Izual. Lachdanan may not have even been corrupted in the first place, just cursed and trapped in D1's Hell- he did oppose the maddened and corrupted King Leoric. Izual was indeed corrupted. But note: to be redeemed, both had to be destroyed, and only their spirits remained.
That's a far cry from the fates of the Dark Wanderer, Blood Raven and Summoner.
I understand the fondness some people have for classes and gameplay they thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated. But it's time to move on- this is Diablo 3, not Diablo 2 or 1.
Blizzard isn't trying to make a repeat of D2 or D1, else they'd be telling us to play D2 again or making a new D2 or even D1 expansion. Rather, Blizzard is moving forward with the story, gameplay and adventure that is the Diablo series: the sheer fun of hack-and-slash RPG wherein you can crush hordes of dark baddies.
In moving forward, one of the aims of Blizzard or any other game developer is to explore the world they crafted. They're trying to show more of the world, new stuff never seen or tried out before. They showing what fits, what's actually and surprisingly there. That means moving away from the old and doing the new. No Necromancer, but Witch Doctor, no Assassin (or Paladin?), but Monk.
The only reason to keep or maintain the old is to tie the new game with the previous one- hence the Barbarian. But they have to make room for the new by getting rid of some of the old. Even the potion system of the previous games got an overhaul.
As to why the Barbarian got in and not the Paladin, I dunno... But I suspect that, as far as the Barb fills in for the Warrior-type of character, the Barb is closer to the War than the Pally. I think they picked the Barb over the Pally because the Pally gets most of his power elsewhere, nevermind that they're also plate-wearing tanks and master men-at-arms.
For paladin fans, I really think we should just wait for the announcement of the last, unrevealed class- it may just surprise and please you. I'm not a paladin fan myself, but the wait is killing me as well.
Quote from "Jamoose" »
As i said somewhere on this forum before... the last class will be a mix between a paladin and an archer / amazon
I am very, very intrigued by this idea... :cool:
D&D already has a mix of archer and mage: the Arcane Archer. It's cool enough.
I know an RPG campaign world (Iron Kingdoms by Privateer Press) where they mixed magic and guns in one class: the Gun Mage. They even have two version of it: one that favors magic over gunplay, another that uses magic to enhance natural marksmanship. It's cool too.
But what happens when you give a holy warrior a bow or crossbow? Jamoose, your idea/prediction is awesome.
Anyone who played the demo check out the inventory and armor of their characters? Did they show D3's armor system?
Frpm the lore, description, gameplay and art for the Monk, Blizz is taking Shaolin monks as their main and strongest source of inspiration with only minor additions from other cultures and traditions. If so, I really can't imagine the Monk wearing main body armor heavier than leather (and even leather is a stretch). He's a very fast and agile fighter who runs on flexibility and speed. His description in the tavern brawl fiction mentions the legend of his kind:
The monks? skin, the accounts said, was as hard as iron, impenetrable by the blade of any sword or by the point of any arrow...
I suspect D3 would have a class-based or material-based armor system that would restrict the Monk to "Monk only" or "light armor/cloth armor" only. The former would make more sense, where some of the minor pieces of his armor aren't exactly "cloth"- greaves, boots, crown, etc. A class-based armor system would have armor items that are very specific and appropriate to their respective classes.
Ultimately, even in the highest levels and wearing top-of-the-line armor, I imagine a monk still wearing something "traditional", though obviously powerful and badass. :cool:
I don't know the exact differences of a Mage (D1) and Wizard, but I'm pretty sure they are the closesly related in some way.;)
Do u reckon the Wizard will be too similar to the mage class? Except for the Time stop and disinigrate spells it may seem this way.
Mainly similar. They're all offensive caster types: glass cannon, powerful ranged attacks, access to strong Area-of-effects, poor defenses, fragile, relies on first strikes and distance from enemies to protect him/herself.
The major difference would be the Wizard's Conjuration skills. That skill tree gives physical damage and close combat options that the Sorceror (D1) and Sorceress (D2) didn't have. Spectral Blade is the basic attack spell for Conjuration, a non-projectile ranged attack that deals physical damage. Magic Weapon enchants a weapon to deal more damage. And while all the Wizard's skill trees give some form of protection and damage mitigation, Conjuration's is the closest to buffing up basic stats and defenses.
Another difference: the Sorceress's skill trees where all elemental magic in nature, while the Wizard has a more mixed set, dealing Lightning (his/her only elemental magic), Arcane (pure magic in most fanatasy world's lore), and even Physical (Conjuration) damage. That means fighting monsters resistant or immune to the various elements won't be so tough.
they would be ruining the point of diablo series as making your character stuck how it is. In none of the diablo's have they let you respec once.
Just because they didn't do it before doesn't mean they won't do it now. Change is always possible, especially if it makes the gameplay better. This is Diablo 3, not Diablo 1 or 2.
For the record, neither D1 nor D2 allowed you to bust down the walls and deform environment to let you use the terrain against your foes- but in D3 you can. That's totally new.
Blizzard tried very hard to make it so it's not same thing over and over again. That is probably the #1 reason they don't want MF in it, because it's just going to be "roll sorc, get MF, make alts, then whipe, redo" That is also why the implimented more quests into the game, they do not want the thing to be played over and over again like a broken record. That is why in diablo 3, the map changes.
Actually, the quests and maps changed in both D1 and D2 as well among different characters. Replayability. That's something Diablo bragged about, and was a big factor in giving Diablo 1 & 2 so much praise and such great reviews.
Allowing respecs will help cut down on any repetition in the game, along with Diablo series' established replayability system. More new stuff to try, less hassle, more fun.
Simplicity=easier, easier = more people being that class, like hammerdins..
And that is wrong... why?
If a "simpler" or "easier" class means a lot of people will choose it because they know they're going to have more fun with it, why stop them? It's their game.
Until now, a lot of people in WoW play Hunters because it's easy to play. But it doesn't stop skilled Hunter players from being effective and dangerous, whether in PvE or PvP.
The thing you forgot is you can't respec, and when you get a solid pvp build, you can't be leveling build either..
In D2, that is.
We don't know if Blizz will allow respecs for D3. They're putting so much versatility and variety into each class, I strongly suspect they will.
Replayability has been a key element in Diablo games- it should also be a priority for D3. If so, why not let players have the chance to respec their characters to explore each tree's abilities and as many combinations as possible?
For example, look at the Wizard's tree. While the Storm and Arcane talent trees represent the more traditional blasting mage, the Conjuration tree seems to encourage the player to get up close and personal by enhancing his weapon's damage and his defenses. Magic Weapon is a totally different style of play.
To play effectively, you have to plan out your skills in advance, concentrating points on the build you want. You can't waste points if you want an effective enough character.
But without a respec, a player wanting to experience and appreciate the Wizard completely will have to create a totally new Wizard and level 1-XX all over again just to try a new fighting style.
That may have been okay for D2, but I think Blizzard may now be more willing to make things easier for players. It may still be 2 years away before its release, but we're already seeing a TON of content to explore, from character classes to different specs within each class to more new monsters to a variety of environments to the new destructible and deformable terrain. That's a lot of stuff to cover, and it might be too overwhelming and tedious to have to level a new toon of the same class just because you want to try something different.
Quote from "agent101" »
also, the reason for people being barb is because of simplicity. Generally, all games are easier as melee, because the mana regeneration is a bitch until higher levels (usually) not sure about diablo 3 though..
I can't argue with the mana regen thing since I play a rogue main in WoW and a mage alt. However...
There is nothing wrong with simple if it's effective and fun.
I remember, in WoW i'd faceroll as a warrior / rogue at lower level, and then see higher level casters owning.. generally mana regeneration fucks up everything
That's very relative. Even where some classes simply devour other specific classes and then suck versus others in PvP, it's neither one-sided enough to piss off the WoW player base in general nor prompt massive rebalancing from Blizzard.
Warriors and Rogues are still very okay in both PvE and PvP (in fact, the Rogues are due for some minor nergs). Mana classes may have to play a careful balancing act between their mana regen and buffing up their stats and spells, but it's not hard. All the caster classes are still doing very okay.
The Monk idea sucks. What the F#@k were they thinking?
Some people think the martial arts with holy invincibility is cool. I'm prioritizing playing the Wizard (or the 5th class if he/she is a non-magical bowman), but I wouldn't mind playing the Monk.
The barbarian looks too weird... almost like a WoW class.
The Barbarian is from Diablo 2 and is the only returning class from a previous Diablo game. As for World of Warcraft, a lot of stuff WoW Warriors have is taken from D2's Barbarian.
I've been reviewing classes, over all the most commonly wanted ones are Barbarian and Wizard.
I'm not sure this is true. If it is, I'd say that the reason is because most people are already familiar with these two classes and know how powerful and fun either is. The Barbarian is making a reappearance from D2. The Wizard follows closely from both the Sorceror and Sorceress, even if most of the spells and skill tree have changed. Either way, both are easily recognizable icons from heroic fantasy.
Few people want monk because they'd rather choose an assassin not a monk
I doubt this is true either, even if some people don't want to play the Monk.
First, this would be the opposite case from the Barbarian and Wizard for me: he's new, so we're not sure how exactly the Monk plays and works, even with the skill previews out. We're not familiar enough with how powerful he is, even if the videos show how cool he is. People tend to stick to what's familiar to them, what they're used to.
Second, the assassin comparison isn't too valid. While the Monk is an agile, precise fighter in the same vein as the Assassin, from what we have seen, the focus of the Monk (martial arts mainly with holy defensive moves) is quite different from the Assassin's (a combination of martial arts, traps and tricks, mostly the latter). I'm quite sure they play very, very differently, almost to the point of making the classes incomparable.
and very few want witch doctor..
I may not be one of them, but this is not correct.
The thing for me is when I start, I would like to be a "hardcore pvper" instead of leveling fast. Whereas, diablo 2 I have thought of Necromancers(near like Witch Doctors) to level fast, more than PvP well. But I'm hoping that changes. It's kind of like a hunter in WoW IF ANY OF you play it. Fastest leveling, however, lacks in pvp. You may disagree with all of these statements, but it is what I have seen so far..
As a WoW player (Rogue) who's fought a lot of Hunters, I disagree. WoW Hunters are terrific in PvP. They have excellent control abilities, survivability and damage. They are very frustrating to fight against because they have a ton of escape, snare and root abilities.
As for leveling vs. PvP, leveling isn't the sole domain of the Hunter either. Any build from any class that deals a lot of damage quickly and frequently is a good leveler. A Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Warlock, Shaman, Druid... LMAO, any class that can inflict lots of hurt fast will level quickly enough.
Actually, in that sense, some PvP builds also work as leveling builds, and vice-versa.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure solid PvP builds will appear for all the classes once we've started playing D3.
Now why barbarian and wizard? Because even though blizzard said magic find shouldn't effect what class you should play, people tend to still stay like diablo, and pick the AoEr/Grinder class. Which is a huge mistake imo.
I think the bigger mistake is playing a class that you won't find fun because you think it's good for PvP or whatnot.
Now about barbarian, in every game, everyone knows some of the easiest things to be in the beginning is all out "HULK SMASH" and ravaging peeps.. People like the simplicity of it, and quite simple.
There's nothing wrong with simplicity. Many things in life work well and beautfully because they're so simple. When it comes to games like these, simple builds and playstyles have one strong advantage: once mastered, it's hard to screw them up.
You have to realize that D3 is a game and is about having fun. For most of us who're studying or working, games like these are for relieving stress and relaxing. When we feel choked by work and the complicated worries of life, it's nice to have something that makes you feel powerful and allows you to deal with trouble with straightforward, honest power. Whether that comes from the brute strength of the Barbarian or the arcane intellect of the Wizard, or even the dark powers of the Witch Doctor or holy discipline of the Monk, what's important is having fun and being able to unwind.
i don't get something.
it is an RPG, isn't the character of the character you play reflect what you want that character to be?
if you want the barbarian to be a shining paragon of truth and justice then he is a paragon of truth and justice
the game wouldn't crash just because you roleplay as a boy scout barbarian.
and in D2 the paladin i play rapes women and eats children in his free time.
so who says that paladins are all shiny and good
if my guild leader plays a witch doctor during an MP game, guess what?
the witch doctor is the leader.
game lore has got nothing to do with gameplay or RP elements unless you are playing something like Final Fantasy
Not completely true. As much as I'd like my Necromancer in D2 to be a dark but noble hero, his true nature remains beyond my best intentions and control. He said it with a single line while in Hell:
"Izual was weak... he squandered his infernal power." (Izual, Act IV)
Our characters' personalities are already determined by the gameplay and mechanics programmed into the game. And that was fixed by how the D3 team conceived each character's personality, gameplay, style and destiny within the D3 storyline.
For that matter, D3 was never really about roleplaying. It's a hack-and-slash game, very RP-lite. Action and tactical decision-making, not interaction and moral choice, is what the game's about. If you want that, play something like Fable or Black & White.
Quote from "Omnicia" »
I'm hoping that the game will supply enough lore to immerse us in whatever class we choose to play as. It's as simple as that.
Saw your post only now. OMG, quoted for the truth! I'll take that!
Besides roleplaying not being the point of a Diablo game, I'll be more than content if it gives me endless hours of addicting zombie/demon/evil-crushing fun and a solid, good storyline. And don't forget the beautiful cutscenes Blizz puts into its games.
All the "LG" stuff is a comparison to what the pally represents in D2 and no class do the same in D3.
And you just get where i want. Those D3 class does not 've D&D tradition at all despite their names.
What does "LG" mean? It's not confined to just the strict warrior and spiritual laws paladins from most fantasy world adhere to. It's every guy and gal who believes equally in order and altruism, whether they're in shining plate or wearing cloth. It's the person you described, the adventurer who wants to defend the innocent and defenseless- it's just that how he does that can vary, from taking vows and donning heavy armor, to entering a monastery and disciplining himself, to even sharpening his cunning and dexterity to strike at villains from the shadows.
Also the Barbarian, Wizard, Monk don't have D&D tradition? They first appeared when Gary Gygax was still running TSR.
I'm sorry, i was just stressed when i wrote your answer. It's just that the way you write bothers me... "Covers a lot of what you're hoping for, more than you think". Assume you know more about this subject then me is not good faith, expecially after you put words on my mouth and try to divinate aspects of my personality.
OMFG.
You missed 100% of my point.
I'm just to lazy and busy to respond all this totally no sense. You just put a million or more words on my mouth lololol.
That was my response to your rude reply. I didn't say anything disrespectful to you the first time I posted. You shouldn't expect people to be nice to you when you laugh at them in their face.
As for figuring out your personality- over and over and over you kept citing how gory and violent every other character class was. You showed it was a big issue for you in looking for a class you wanted- nevermind that the paladins you admire are bloodied and experienced warriors themselves.
Alot of people disagred with my OP and I respected it well because they simply voiced their opnion about the subject. It may sounds ridicolous but I felt offended by your post, not because you don't agree with me but because you twisted my opnion into something really fagy.
I responded only according to what you said and how you said it.
You said the Barbarians were a people of honor, yet went on to dismiss them simply because they're buffed up and violent. Nothing there contradicts LG or defending the weak.
As for the monk, I shared what I knew about them, from both their real world source to what's usually depicted in various fantasy media. I pointed out that indeed they are defenders of justice. And when it came to the story, you glossed over the fact that the monk didn't start the fight (they shoved aside the storyteller, while producing weapons- clearly intending to attack), and the fact that the monk saw through their leader's guise (a demon). You simply called to attention that he was fighting in tavern, nevermind that any character in epic action fantasy can (and probably will) get involved in a tavern brawl, one way or another.
@ JTE: As I said before, let's watch for the unannounced 5th class- he might still provide the nobility that's missing in the roster.
OMFG.
You missed 100% of my point.
I'm just to lazy and busy to respond all this totally no sense. You just put a million or more words on my mouth lololol. Just to point out, in my own post I said the Witch Doctor is the most "savage" character but as you can seee in my signature and in many other threads, his by FAR my favorite D3 character.
My point is, i'm missing someone like D2's Paladin. Not in terms of gameplay or background. But in terms of what the class represent to the whole group of D2 heroes.
Actual D3 character looks like a bunch of over the top rebel protagonists of a half assed action movie. I think D3 need something more traditional to balance our charcter options (tradition = dungeons and dragons).
Well, excuse me! :confused: You talked mostly about background and gameplay, citing Lawful Good, too much gore, being the fair guy, protecting innocents and virgins. And traditional D&D does include the Barbarian, Wizard and Monk (who covers a lot of what you're hoping for, more than you think)- and I'm not talking about 3.0-3.5.
Honestly, you don't have to be so snide, especially where I was responding in good faith. :mad:
My view of D3 classes:
Barbarians: though hes far from the Dungeons and Dragons barbarian archtype (primitive, instinctive, wild). He lives in cities with large walls and a mechanic gate. They wear heavy armors and are, above all things a people of honor and a ultimate battle tacticians. They are very keeperers of of the world (stone!).
However his hulking muscles, brutal fight style and somewhat violent nature makes him far from the protector of virgins.
We shouldn't equate Barbarian with "wild man" in the purest sense of the term. What were the historical barbarians to Rome anyway? Even Conan's kin and people (both by birth and bloodied adoption) lived in fortified communities, with culture, technology, laws and whatnot, however savage they were to the Romans (or us).
Monk: Though his seens to be a fair person, he's much more like a wanderer self-perfecionist then the guardian of justice. His the kind of guy that passed 25 years training in some isolated abbey and see the urban culture as a bunch of wierd habits. Thats makes him kind of savage.
I gotta point out that most martial arts heroes, like Shaolin Monks, did see moral perspective and action as being hand-in-hand with physical and mental perfection. The practice of becoming as best you can be was applied to both mastering yourself and protecting others. In some philosophies, they were the same thing.
Look at his story in D3 site (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/monk.xml). He just kicked everyone's asses in the tavern ! C'mon fight in taverns is the tradition of the brawler heroes. Not to mention the attack that explode people from inside out.
Don't forget that he didn't start the fight. And those who did attack him weren't exactly... "normal folk". As for the exploding heart trick, it's more effective in downing an opponent in single blow than a normal punch. Lastly, taverns are where you go to meet people- other adventurers who can aid you, gossips and informants who can give you knowledge to your advantage, even people who you may lead you to the baddies. There is no shame in visiting a tavern, even as a most holy and refined adventurer, if it will help you do good.
Forgive me for my quibbles, but here's my main point:
Based on what you're saying, you have to understand that violence, even of the goriest kind, is part of even the most virtuous heroes, the kind you're looking for.
First, if the bad guys really want to hurt you or other people, no amount of arguing with them is going to stop them.
Second, mercy in combat or warfare is a luxury and a gift. It's wonderful when given, but it's very hard to give in the first place.
Third, you may have the nicest, most dignified, shiny and consecrated avenging blade in the land, but put it through the torso of a foe and that foe will still be leaking blood and guts out- just like any other weapon.
Meaning no disrespect for stating something in so frank a manner, but you seem to have an issue with the gore the heroes display and produce. Any truly holy paladin or truly noble knight is a soldier and warrior by nature and at heart. They are defenders of virtue by force of arms. And that means fighting, hurting and killing. As much as the highest of ethical standards of would like such people to simply disarm or incapacitate their foes, rather than tear them apart in a shower of viscera, the harsh realities of combat or even life rarely allow such to be the case. It's very, very rarely not kill-or-be-killed.
Also, this is a Diablo game.
Think in D3 character as a whole party of heroes, they really look like a bunch of crazy dudes. Theres something anti-heroic and savage in all D3 heroes and that cool. But i wish the last class would something to counter balance that a little.
You said it yourself. Leave your eyes open- I think it's highly likely. At the least, Blizz will probably still surprise us (though we can guess that it's likely a ranged attacker class.)
Basically, my question is how would it play different from any other wizard?
italofoca got it correct, regarding spending less mana to attack.
My take on his explanation: The normal Wizard uses mana each time he attacks. The Arcane Archer, who relies on his bow or crossbow to deal damage, will only cast spells at the start of a fight (Magic Weapon, defensive buffs) and only when enemies get chances to hurt him (Slow Time, Teleport)- thus, he casts less spells and saves more mana.
The other difference would be in rate of damage dealing. Even if I were to focus a lot of talent points into buffing my Magical Weapon bow attacks, I strongly suspect it won't do as much damage as a "conventional" magic attack spell with the same or a reasonable amount of buffs for the latter.
For example: Arcane Archer build vs. Disintigrate build, same number of talents points for both, "equal" amount of buffing for their attacks. The Disintigrate build will deal more damage per spell than the Arcane Archer's arrows per attack. Result: Disintigrate will finish fights quicker, while the Arcane Archer has longer, more continuous and riskier fights.
On the other hand, by the end of the fight, the Disintigrator Wizard will have less mana left behind and perhaps spend time resting to regain it, while the Arcane Archer will probably have more and will be able to continue adventuring sooner.
I admit it's way too early to be speculating on builds, and it would all be moot if the Wizard can't use ranged weapons (I really don't want to use a wand if I were to try this build). I have no clue if this build will work or it would be too weak and gimmicky to survive Diablo 3's harsh environments. I can only hope it's fun and different enough to be worth it.
0
The closest to it that I know is Lachdanan and Izual. Lachdanan may not have even been corrupted in the first place, just cursed and trapped in D1's Hell- he did oppose the maddened and corrupted King Leoric. Izual was indeed corrupted. But note: to be redeemed, both had to be destroyed, and only their spirits remained.
That's a far cry from the fates of the Dark Wanderer, Blood Raven and Summoner.
0
I'm a big fan of good guys who are redeemed and repentant bad guys, but I don't know if it works here.
0
Blizzard isn't trying to make a repeat of D2 or D1, else they'd be telling us to play D2 again or making a new D2 or even D1 expansion. Rather, Blizzard is moving forward with the story, gameplay and adventure that is the Diablo series: the sheer fun of hack-and-slash RPG wherein you can crush hordes of dark baddies.
In moving forward, one of the aims of Blizzard or any other game developer is to explore the world they crafted. They're trying to show more of the world, new stuff never seen or tried out before. They showing what fits, what's actually and surprisingly there. That means moving away from the old and doing the new. No Necromancer, but Witch Doctor, no Assassin (or Paladin?), but Monk.
The only reason to keep or maintain the old is to tie the new game with the previous one- hence the Barbarian. But they have to make room for the new by getting rid of some of the old. Even the potion system of the previous games got an overhaul.
As to why the Barbarian got in and not the Paladin, I dunno... But I suspect that, as far as the Barb fills in for the Warrior-type of character, the Barb is closer to the War than the Pally. I think they picked the Barb over the Pally because the Pally gets most of his power elsewhere, nevermind that they're also plate-wearing tanks and master men-at-arms.
For paladin fans, I really think we should just wait for the announcement of the last, unrevealed class- it may just surprise and please you. I'm not a paladin fan myself, but the wait is killing me as well.
I am very, very intrigued by this idea... :cool:
D&D already has a mix of archer and mage: the Arcane Archer. It's cool enough.
I know an RPG campaign world (Iron Kingdoms by Privateer Press) where they mixed magic and guns in one class: the Gun Mage. They even have two version of it: one that favors magic over gunplay, another that uses magic to enhance natural marksmanship. It's cool too.
But what happens when you give a holy warrior a bow or crossbow?
0
The werewolf you imply isn't human any longer. He'd shift the focus away from what the Diablo series has established.
0
Frpm the lore, description, gameplay and art for the Monk, Blizz is taking Shaolin monks as their main and strongest source of inspiration with only minor additions from other cultures and traditions. If so, I really can't imagine the Monk wearing main body armor heavier than leather (and even leather is a stretch). He's a very fast and agile fighter who runs on flexibility and speed. His description in the tavern brawl fiction mentions the legend of his kind:
I suspect D3 would have a class-based or material-based armor system that would restrict the Monk to "Monk only" or "light armor/cloth armor" only. The former would make more sense, where some of the minor pieces of his armor aren't exactly "cloth"- greaves, boots, crown, etc. A class-based armor system would have armor items that are very specific and appropriate to their respective classes.
Ultimately, even in the highest levels and wearing top-of-the-line armor, I imagine a monk still wearing something "traditional", though obviously powerful and badass. :cool:
0
The major difference would be the Wizard's Conjuration skills. That skill tree gives physical damage and close combat options that the Sorceror (D1) and Sorceress (D2) didn't have. Spectral Blade is the basic attack spell for Conjuration, a non-projectile ranged attack that deals physical damage. Magic Weapon enchants a weapon to deal more damage. And while all the Wizard's skill trees give some form of protection and damage mitigation, Conjuration's is the closest to buffing up basic stats and defenses.
Another difference: the Sorceress's skill trees where all elemental magic in nature, while the Wizard has a more mixed set, dealing Lightning (his/her only elemental magic), Arcane (pure magic in most fanatasy world's lore), and even Physical (Conjuration) damage. That means fighting monsters resistant or immune to the various elements won't be so tough.
0
For the record, neither D1 nor D2 allowed you to bust down the walls and deform environment to let you use the terrain against your foes- but in D3 you can. That's totally new.
Actually, the quests and maps changed in both D1 and D2 as well among different characters. Replayability. That's something Diablo bragged about, and was a big factor in giving Diablo 1 & 2 so much praise and such great reviews.
Allowing respecs will help cut down on any repetition in the game, along with Diablo series' established replayability system. More new stuff to try, less hassle, more fun.
And that is wrong... why?
If a "simpler" or "easier" class means a lot of people will choose it because they know they're going to have more fun with it, why stop them? It's their game.
Until now, a lot of people in WoW play Hunters because it's easy to play. But it doesn't stop skilled Hunter players from being effective and dangerous, whether in PvE or PvP.
0
We don't know if Blizz will allow respecs for D3. They're putting so much versatility and variety into each class, I strongly suspect they will.
Replayability has been a key element in Diablo games- it should also be a priority for D3. If so, why not let players have the chance to respec their characters to explore each tree's abilities and as many combinations as possible?
For example, look at the Wizard's tree. While the Storm and Arcane talent trees represent the more traditional blasting mage, the Conjuration tree seems to encourage the player to get up close and personal by enhancing his weapon's damage and his defenses. Magic Weapon is a totally different style of play.
To play effectively, you have to plan out your skills in advance, concentrating points on the build you want. You can't waste points if you want an effective enough character.
But without a respec, a player wanting to experience and appreciate the Wizard completely will have to create a totally new Wizard and level 1-XX all over again just to try a new fighting style.
That may have been okay for D2, but I think Blizzard may now be more willing to make things easier for players. It may still be 2 years away before its release, but we're already seeing a TON of content to explore, from character classes to different specs within each class to more new monsters to a variety of environments to the new destructible and deformable terrain. That's a lot of stuff to cover, and it might be too overwhelming and tedious to have to level a new toon of the same class just because you want to try something different.
I can't argue with the mana regen thing since I play a rogue main in WoW and a mage alt. However...
There is nothing wrong with simple if it's effective and fun.
That's very relative. Even where some classes simply devour other specific classes and then suck versus others in PvP, it's neither one-sided enough to piss off the WoW player base in general nor prompt massive rebalancing from Blizzard.
Warriors and Rogues are still very okay in both PvE and PvP (in fact, the Rogues are due for some minor nergs). Mana classes may have to play a careful balancing act between their mana regen and buffing up their stats and spells, but it's not hard. All the caster classes are still doing very okay.
0
The Barbarian is from Diablo 2 and is the only returning class from a previous Diablo game. As for World of Warcraft, a lot of stuff WoW Warriors have is taken from D2's Barbarian.
0
I doubt this is true either, even if some people don't want to play the Monk.
First, this would be the opposite case from the Barbarian and Wizard for me: he's new, so we're not sure how exactly the Monk plays and works, even with the skill previews out. We're not familiar enough with how powerful he is, even if the videos show how cool he is. People tend to stick to what's familiar to them, what they're used to.
Second, the assassin comparison isn't too valid. While the Monk is an agile, precise fighter in the same vein as the Assassin, from what we have seen, the focus of the Monk (martial arts mainly with holy defensive moves) is quite different from the Assassin's (a combination of martial arts, traps and tricks, mostly the latter). I'm quite sure they play very, very differently, almost to the point of making the classes incomparable.
I may not be one of them, but this is not correct.
As a WoW player (Rogue) who's fought a lot of Hunters, I disagree. WoW Hunters are terrific in PvP. They have excellent control abilities, survivability and damage. They are very frustrating to fight against because they have a ton of escape, snare and root abilities.
As for leveling vs. PvP, leveling isn't the sole domain of the Hunter either. Any build from any class that deals a lot of damage quickly and frequently is a good leveler. A Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Warlock, Shaman, Druid... LMAO, any class that can inflict lots of hurt fast will level quickly enough.
Actually, in that sense, some PvP builds also work as leveling builds, and vice-versa.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure solid PvP builds will appear for all the classes once we've started playing D3.
I think the bigger mistake is playing a class that you won't find fun because you think it's good for PvP or whatnot.
There's nothing wrong with simplicity. Many things in life work well and beautfully because they're so simple. When it comes to games like these, simple builds and playstyles have one strong advantage: once mastered, it's hard to screw them up.
You have to realize that D3 is a game and is about having fun. For most of us who're studying or working, games like these are for relieving stress and relaxing. When we feel choked by work and the complicated worries of life, it's nice to have something that makes you feel powerful and allows you to deal with trouble with straightforward, honest power. Whether that comes from the brute strength of the Barbarian or the arcane intellect of the Wizard, or even the dark powers of the Witch Doctor or holy discipline of the Monk, what's important is having fun and being able to unwind.
0
"Izual was weak... he squandered his infernal power." (Izual, Act IV)
Our characters' personalities are already determined by the gameplay and mechanics programmed into the game. And that was fixed by how the D3 team conceived each character's personality, gameplay, style and destiny within the D3 storyline.
For that matter, D3 was never really about roleplaying. It's a hack-and-slash game, very RP-lite. Action and tactical decision-making, not interaction and moral choice, is what the game's about. If you want that, play something like Fable or Black & White.
Saw your post only now. OMG, quoted for the truth! I'll take that!
Besides roleplaying not being the point of a Diablo game, I'll be more than content if it gives me endless hours of addicting zombie/demon/evil-crushing fun and a solid, good storyline. And don't forget the beautiful cutscenes Blizz puts into its games.
0
Also the Barbarian, Wizard, Monk don't have D&D tradition? They first appeared when Gary Gygax was still running TSR.
That was my response to your rude reply. I didn't say anything disrespectful to you the first time I posted. You shouldn't expect people to be nice to you when you laugh at them in their face.
As for figuring out your personality- over and over and over you kept citing how gory and violent every other character class was. You showed it was a big issue for you in looking for a class you wanted- nevermind that the paladins you admire are bloodied and experienced warriors themselves.
I responded only according to what you said and how you said it.
You said the Barbarians were a people of honor, yet went on to dismiss them simply because they're buffed up and violent. Nothing there contradicts LG or defending the weak.
As for the monk, I shared what I knew about them, from both their real world source to what's usually depicted in various fantasy media. I pointed out that indeed they are defenders of justice. And when it came to the story, you glossed over the fact that the monk didn't start the fight (they shoved aside the storyteller, while producing weapons- clearly intending to attack), and the fact that the monk saw through their leader's guise (a demon). You simply called to attention that he was fighting in tavern, nevermind that any character in epic action fantasy can (and probably will) get involved in a tavern brawl, one way or another.
@ JTE: As I said before, let's watch for the unannounced 5th class- he might still provide the nobility that's missing in the roster.
0
Honestly, you don't have to be so snide, especially where I was responding in good faith. :mad:
0
I gotta point out that most martial arts heroes, like Shaolin Monks, did see moral perspective and action as being hand-in-hand with physical and mental perfection. The practice of becoming as best you can be was applied to both mastering yourself and protecting others. In some philosophies, they were the same thing.
Don't forget that he didn't start the fight. And those who did attack him weren't exactly... "normal folk". As for the exploding heart trick, it's more effective in downing an opponent in single blow than a normal punch. Lastly, taverns are where you go to meet people- other adventurers who can aid you, gossips and informants who can give you knowledge to your advantage, even people who you may lead you to the baddies. There is no shame in visiting a tavern, even as a most holy and refined adventurer, if it will help you do good.
Forgive me for my quibbles, but here's my main point:
Based on what you're saying, you have to understand that violence, even of the goriest kind, is part of even the most virtuous heroes, the kind you're looking for.
First, if the bad guys really want to hurt you or other people, no amount of arguing with them is going to stop them.
Second, mercy in combat or warfare is a luxury and a gift. It's wonderful when given, but it's very hard to give in the first place.
Third, you may have the nicest, most dignified, shiny and consecrated avenging blade in the land, but put it through the torso of a foe and that foe will still be leaking blood and guts out- just like any other weapon.
Meaning no disrespect for stating something in so frank a manner, but you seem to have an issue with the gore the heroes display and produce. Any truly holy paladin or truly noble knight is a soldier and warrior by nature and at heart. They are defenders of virtue by force of arms. And that means fighting, hurting and killing. As much as the highest of ethical standards of would like such people to simply disarm or incapacitate their foes, rather than tear them apart in a shower of viscera, the harsh realities of combat or even life rarely allow such to be the case. It's very, very rarely not kill-or-be-killed.
Also, this is a Diablo game.
You said it yourself.
0
My take on his explanation: The normal Wizard uses mana each time he attacks. The Arcane Archer, who relies on his bow or crossbow to deal damage, will only cast spells at the start of a fight (Magic Weapon, defensive buffs) and only when enemies get chances to hurt him (Slow Time, Teleport)- thus, he casts less spells and saves more mana.
The other difference would be in rate of damage dealing. Even if I were to focus a lot of talent points into buffing my Magical Weapon bow attacks, I strongly suspect it won't do as much damage as a "conventional" magic attack spell with the same or a reasonable amount of buffs for the latter.
For example: Arcane Archer build vs. Disintigrate build, same number of talents points for both, "equal" amount of buffing for their attacks. The Disintigrate build will deal more damage per spell than the Arcane Archer's arrows per attack. Result: Disintigrate will finish fights quicker, while the Arcane Archer has longer, more continuous and riskier fights.
On the other hand, by the end of the fight, the Disintigrator Wizard will have less mana left behind and perhaps spend time resting to regain it, while the Arcane Archer will probably have more and will be able to continue adventuring sooner.
I admit it's way too early to be speculating on builds, and it would all be moot if the Wizard can't use ranged weapons (I really don't want to use a wand if I were to try this build). I have no clue if this build will work or it would be too weak and gimmicky to survive Diablo 3's harsh environments. I can only hope it's fun and different enough to be worth it.