When you're a sorceress and can hit everything in the screen (and a little beyond that) 3 times in 2 seconds i believe your damage should be alot lower then that poor avenger pally that must kill eveything hit by hit. Even if the pally it's alot more durable - he must face the hordes of enemey everytime he wants to make attack, meaning he will ALLWAYS recieve damage, unlike ranged who can kite everything forever and ever.
In diablo ranged character are much much more durable then any melee out there. Who survives better in D1, a meleee warrior or a bow rogue ?
Who survives better in D2, a sorc with teleport, glacial spike and frozen orb or any barbarian variation ? A paladin with 15k def or a necromancer with 1 point in BP and 90+FCR ? In TQ who survives better, the stupid defender variants or anything with storm nukes and summons ? In torchlight what can possible survives better then a beam alch wiping the whole scream with one click ?
Melee character runs alot more risks then rangeds and thats the reason they are more resilient. If you give then just avarage or above avarage DPS he will just take longer to kill monsters, but when melee takes more time to kill, he automatically takes more damage. So he end up taking more damage then ranged, playing more risky and killing slower.
They have said that the monk will be a more difficult class to play but the trade off is that he is more potential to be stronger if you play him correctly.
Stronger then the other classes ?
I don't think a class are made to be better then other no matter how hard it is to master. In the end, in the hands of a elite player, all classes should be equal in power.
Though i've nothing against the monk i will not choose him as my first character.
Generaly in many games, including D2, the melee characters are too gear dependent. In D2 the difference of sorc and a zeal pally or a barb using a mid gear (exceptional/elite uniques and sets) are so freaking huge that it's not even funny.
Ofc this is not necesserely true, it's that for some reason melee character are harder to balance then ranged ones. Imo it's unbearable the fact that a ranged character will unleash more DPs then a melee one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In time the hissing of her sanity
Faded out her voice and soiled her name
And like marked pages in a diary
Everything seemed clean that is unstained
The incoherent talk of ordinary days
Why would we really need to live?
Decide what is clear and what's within a haze
What you should take and what to give" - Opeth
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When you're a sorceress and can hit everything in the screen (and a little beyond that) 3 times in 2 seconds i believe your damage should be alot lower then that poor avenger pally that must kill eveything hit by hit. Even if the pally it's alot more durable - he must face the hordes of enemey everytime he wants to make attack, meaning he will ALLWAYS recieve damage, unlike ranged who can kite everything forever and ever.
In diablo ranged character are much much more durable then any melee out there. Who survives better in D1, a meleee warrior or a bow rogue ?
Who survives better in D2, a sorc with teleport, glacial spike and frozen orb or any barbarian variation ? A paladin with 15k def or a necromancer with 1 point in BP and 90+FCR ? In TQ who survives better, the stupid defender variants or anything with storm nukes and summons ? In torchlight what can possible survives better then a beam alch wiping the whole scream with one click ?
Melee character runs alot more risks then rangeds and thats the reason they are more resilient. If you give then just avarage or above avarage DPS he will just take longer to kill monsters, but when melee takes more time to kill, he automatically takes more damage. So he end up taking more damage then ranged, playing more risky and killing slower.
Stronger then the other classes ?
I don't think a class are made to be better then other no matter how hard it is to master. In the end, in the hands of a elite player, all classes should be equal in power.
Generaly in many games, including D2, the melee characters are too gear dependent. In D2 the difference of sorc and a zeal pally or a barb using a mid gear (exceptional/elite uniques and sets) are so freaking huge that it's not even funny.
Ofc this is not necesserely true, it's that for some reason melee character are harder to balance then ranged ones. Imo it's unbearable the fact that a ranged character will unleash more DPs then a melee one.