I'm not saying it sucks. Of course I'll enjoy those skills. But I just wasn't impressed AT ALL. Old skills (Hydra, Chain Lightning), things we've already seen before in SC2...
Firstly let me respectfully please ask Zoltrix to stop compulsively shutting down any thread mentioning the Wizard and ask them to post it here. There are many different aspects that people may be discussing and it is no more correct to force everyone to discuss on a single thread anything vaguely relating to the wizard than it is to suggest that all threads related to Diablo 3 should be discussed under the same topic.
My post now is intended to be in reference to the topic someone started concerning the limited number of attack skills vs. buff skills on the Wizard skill tree. This is not a Wizard specific topic becaus it likely relates to all characters, and I hope that the moderators here regain some sense and allow topics to be separated so that individual topics are not lost in a deluge of wizard frenzy............................
Anyway...I agree that the new trend in skill distribution does not promote diversity. Not only that, but it seems that all the damage skills are level 1 skills (almost), so all you do is use the same friggin level 1 skills throughout the entire game, and add some small percent buffs to them over time. Sounds kinda boring. Skill runes will help but its still just a modification, not a whole new way to attack, so I dont think it helps ENOUGH.
Firstly let me respectfully please ask Zoltrix to stop compulsively shutting down any thread mentioning the Wizard and ask them to post it here. There are many different aspects that people may be discussing and it is no more correct to force everyone to discuss on a single thread anything vaguely relating to the wizard than it is to suggest that all threads related to Diablo 3 should be discussed under the same topic.
I am not "shutting down" all of the threads, only ones that already exist about a certain subject. if not we would have 30 different threads saying "I don't like *Insert random wizard spell/ability here*"
Yeah, I'm still not sold on 1 level skill ideas, and from the looks of it, you'll be able to max out a larger number of spells than in D2, which reduces variety and strategy.
I know what the common response to this is. "Warden, people only got, like, the exact skills all the time in D2! There was no variety there, either!"
And that's true, but only because certain skills were outliers when it came to damage and usefulness – some skills were just to far ahead of the curve. That Blizzard has removed skill variety and leveling in certain cases seems to suggest that they gave up on trying to build a variety of balanced, yet interesting skills.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
Haha really guys? Complaining about the name? You guys sound like you are 15 at most. Lets think about it: What spellcaster name isn't cliche at this point? They have all been used in every medieval fantasy game out there. As far as being childish, lets also think about what a wizard is as opposed to other spellcasters. Sorceress- Usually has a primary focus on offensive spells, Warlock- Usually an emphasis on having an evil alignment, Enchanter/Echantress- Oh, I dunno, enchantments maybe? Shaman- Usually a summoner or focuses on naturalistic spells. I could go on. From what we have seen so far, the wizard in D3 has a widespread knowledge of all different types of magic, including elemental, time, space, anti-matterialistic, etc. A wizard is a mage that does indeed hold a knowledge of many different disciplines of magic and not a specific emphasis on any one. That is what we see here, so why is the name Wizard childish as opposed to befitting? Please don't sound like a bunch of nooblets.
A wizard is a mage that does indeed hold a knowledge of many different disciplines of magic and not a specific emphasis on any one. That is what we see here, so why is the name Wizard childish as opposed to befitting? Please don't sound like a bunch of nooblets.
Actually the word "Wizard" doesn't really fit this class and seems very much out of place to me. Let me explain why.
Firstly, the etymology of the word is not at all gender-neutral (for that matter, neither is warlock). I consider it a grammatical error to refer to a female spellcaster as a wizard, and I have never heard it used to refer to a female in any context before.
In popular use during 16th century England, "wizard' was used to denote a helpful male folk magican
Secondly, the word conveys the sense of a wise old man. For example, like Gandalf in LOTR.
During the 15th century, the term "wizard" referred to "philosopher, sage", from Middle English wysard (from wys "wise" and the ...
However, the Wizard class that we have been shown is certainly not a wize old sage. She could not be more opposite from that. She is a young, reckless and headstrong attractive "sophomore".
I do not have any problem with the word Wizard by itself, but it doesn't make sense to me to completely misuse the word as they have done. If it were a wise old man, that would be another story.
Considering what she is, I think she would be much more appropriately named the "Sorcerer/ess" (it should be a different title for male/female), or the "Mage/Magician". Sorcerers are usually used to refer to spellcasters that are not necessary wise and may be headstrong. I don't care that the name is already been used before. If they don't change the fundaments of the class (which they haven't really), then I see no reason to completely change the name simply for the sake of trying to trick people into thinking that its a new concept because its not really. The word Magician sounds slightly less male-biased then wizard and also does not contain the root for "wise" so I think that would also be a better choice.
I love the wizard!! She seems like a really cool and active hand-wizard, which is what I love. I hate using staves, and walking around slowly like an old man is boring. Though, I only wish the wizard could levitate too.
And I love that the wizard is wearing a cloaky type of cape thing. THough it would be even better with a hood. I just hope I can change the colour to black.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the male version is like.
AND, combined with the Rune Skills, the wizard will be so freaking fun to play! I can't wait to modify my own spells, thats what wizards should always be able to do.
Wizards cast their spells by using their acquired magical knowledge (augmented by their Intelligence score) and experience. In particular, they learn most new spells by seeking out magical writings and copying them into their spellbooks, a method that allows them (unlike sorcerers) to master any number of permissible spells once they find them, assembling a broad and versatile arsenal of power. Many wizards see themselves not only as spell casters but as philosophers, inventors, and scientists, studying a system of natural laws that are for the most part unknown and undiscovered.
The main thing that sets Sorcerors and Wizards apart in DnD was Sorcerors created their own spells and used Charisma stat, and Wizards learned spells and used intelligence.
I hope that ''slow time'' only applies to missiles, it is immensely powerfull as it is.. If it affects monsters/players the wizard would be virtually invencible.
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
I hope that ''slow time'' only applies to missiles, it is immensely powerfull as it is.. If it affects monsters/players the wizard would be virtually invencible.
We have no clue what other classes spells will do to combat this or if slow time will even effect players. Some skills in D2 didn't work in PvP.
Slow Time I can tell will be nerfed Big time. Do you all remember slow missle from the Zon? I'm sure they loved this skill and with D3 wanted to build upon it, what you get is beast skill.
Now what I can see them doing is
1.reduce the duration by 50%
2.Long Cooldown time.
3.only allow 5 projectiles, 2-3 Monsters
I think with that it would make it less powerful. I love the spell though a strat I have came with is
Cast it on a boss then shoot magic Missle as much as you can in the radius then when it goes then Bam get hit by alot of projectiles. Many ways to abuse it thats for sure.
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
WHO.... CARES... .?
Welp, sorry.
I like hydra and returning skills because they are classic. If you are not impressed, watch the video there http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55258
My post now is intended to be in reference to the topic someone started concerning the limited number of attack skills vs. buff skills on the Wizard skill tree. This is not a Wizard specific topic becaus it likely relates to all characters, and I hope that the moderators here regain some sense and allow topics to be separated so that individual topics are not lost in a deluge of wizard frenzy............................
Anyway...I agree that the new trend in skill distribution does not promote diversity. Not only that, but it seems that all the damage skills are level 1 skills (almost), so all you do is use the same friggin level 1 skills throughout the entire game, and add some small percent buffs to them over time. Sounds kinda boring. Skill runes will help but its still just a modification, not a whole new way to attack, so I dont think it helps ENOUGH.
I am not "shutting down" all of the threads, only ones that already exist about a certain subject. if not we would have 30 different threads saying "I don't like *Insert random wizard spell/ability here*"
I know what the common response to this is. "Warden, people only got, like, the exact skills all the time in D2! There was no variety there, either!"
And that's true, but only because certain skills were outliers when it came to damage and usefulness – some skills were just to far ahead of the curve. That Blizzard has removed skill variety and leveling in certain cases seems to suggest that they gave up on trying to build a variety of balanced, yet interesting skills.
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
Quoted for hilarity.
Actually the word "Wizard" doesn't really fit this class and seems very much out of place to me. Let me explain why.
Firstly, the etymology of the word is not at all gender-neutral (for that matter, neither is warlock). I consider it a grammatical error to refer to a female spellcaster as a wizard, and I have never heard it used to refer to a female in any context before.
Secondly, the word conveys the sense of a wise old man. For example, like Gandalf in LOTR.
However, the Wizard class that we have been shown is certainly not a wize old sage. She could not be more opposite from that. She is a young, reckless and headstrong attractive "sophomore".
I do not have any problem with the word Wizard by itself, but it doesn't make sense to me to completely misuse the word as they have done. If it were a wise old man, that would be another story.
Considering what she is, I think she would be much more appropriately named the "Sorcerer/ess" (it should be a different title for male/female), or the "Mage/Magician". Sorcerers are usually used to refer to spellcasters that are not necessary wise and may be headstrong. I don't care that the name is already been used before. If they don't change the fundaments of the class (which they haven't really), then I see no reason to completely change the name simply for the sake of trying to trick people into thinking that its a new concept because its not really. The word Magician sounds slightly less male-biased then wizard and also does not contain the root for "wise" so I think that would also be a better choice.
And I love that the wizard is wearing a cloaky type of cape thing. THough it would be even better with a hood. I just hope I can change the colour to black.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the male version is like.
AND, combined with the Rune Skills, the wizard will be so freaking fun to play! I can't wait to modify my own spells, thats what wizards should always be able to do.
Okay let assume there are 6 skill runes that means there are 7 Variety's of what your skill does. I think thats awesome.
Wizard
The main thing that sets Sorcerors and Wizards apart in DnD was Sorcerors created their own spells and used Charisma stat, and Wizards learned spells and used intelligence.
We have no clue what other classes spells will do to combat this or if slow time will even effect players. Some skills in D2 didn't work in PvP.
They won't let it be TOO powerful.
Now what I can see them doing is
1.reduce the duration by 50%
2.Long Cooldown time.
3.only allow 5 projectiles, 2-3 Monsters
I think with that it would make it less powerful. I love the spell though a strat I have came with is
Cast it on a boss then shoot magic Missle as much as you can in the radius then when it goes then Bam get hit by alot of projectiles. Many ways to abuse it thats for sure.
If it affect players then other classes can even have apocalypse lvl 50.
slow-time + skills runes + teleport = LHC.
i also noticed that the wizard can cast a like a tornado... no more druid now!