Im having trouble imagining something bad-ass for the Fifth-Character.
It should be something somewhat sinister imo.
Ranger? King of the forest? Then again...maybe not.
I don't remember any class having a sinister background in the previous games...maybe necro, but... well, he had good intentions. Anyways, any chance of having a sinister class probably evaporated when Blizz North left... the current dev team is Warcraft guys now, right?
Except that a druid has the ability to summon multiple entities, that isn't going to be the case on any class save those that are "summoning classes". I don't think anyone would call the amazon a summoning class for it's ability to conjure a Valkyrie. "Why not have a companion?" I'm not against it, I just don't think it's going to be the case, if you think so then by all means have fun with that. Hell, you can think D3 is gonna be released this year if you want to, if anyone tries to stop you it won't be me.
The ranger will not be identical to the Amazon. The Amazon had one summon: a Valkyrie. That doesn't mean that the Ranger will be limited to one summon; anything but! The current classes of Diablo 3 are so far either remixes of previous Diablo 2 classes (the Barbarian and Wizard), or are entirely new classes created from new arrangements of the basic skill trees from Diablo 2. Take the monk for example: he has skills from the Paladin and Assasin classes of Diablo 2.
This is likely to be the case with the ranger: the bow and the passive tree from the Amazon, and the summoning tree from the Druid. What does that mean? That the ranger might have a druid like summoning tree: calling wolves, bears, etc. to the ranger's aid.
On another topic:
Why are we calling it a she when all the classes are going to have alternate sexes?
I was wondering that myself at first. After all, each class can have alternate sexes. However, the iconic Barbarian, Witch Doctor, and Monk are all male. The Wizard is female. There are five classes. Therefore, for balance purposes, it could be assumed that the last class would be female in trailers, marketing, etc.
The class won't use traps and will likely avoid a "companion" (psh) type to avoid similarities to the Valkyrie the amazon summons.
Why not have a companion? I do believe that Rangers are commonly depicted as having an animal companion... And what's wrong with having similarities to the Amazon's Valkyrie? (Not that there are any) If the ranger has summoning skills, I would believe that they would be more similar to the Druid's summoning skills than anything else.
I suppose that what I said did sound like more of a hunter, didn't it? I didn't really mean a pet; I suppose, an animal companion would be a more fitting term, and, well, the traps... hmm. Well, I suppose I just threw in the traps because it was a currently unused skill tree from LoD that was more or less compatible with the ranger concept. There is some overlap between the ranger and hunter, however, so similarities are inevitable.
What really makes them distinct is the class's respective motivation and goals. The ranger preserves the natural world; the hunter, well, kills things.
I like the idea of the bow user with summons (one guy pointed out a holding vine). That would be really fun to play, just sitting back and sniping people while your massive amount of pets run around.
The only thing though is that you kill monsters really fast in Diablo 2, so a kind of ensnaring vine wouldn't work as well as in some other games, because you'd kill the monster in just a couple of seconds... It could still be useful though, like the sorceress's freezing spells in Diablo 2.
The only thing is that rangers aren't spellcasters: unlike a druid, a ranger couldn't summon magical vines to ensnare their foes. A ranger is a skilled archer and woodsman, nothing more.
Do we really need traps? Traps... uggh. They're why I never used the assassin.
Well, no, we don't really need traps. It's kind of likely that Blizzard would implement them though, as it is only logical that blizzard would incorporate the unused skill trees from Diablo 2 and LoD: The Amazon's bow and passive tree, the assassin's traps tree, and the Druid's summon tree. The Amazon's javelin and spear tree, and the Druid's shapeshifting abilities would be unlikely to make an appearance though. And of course, the archery, nature based pet summoning, and traps fit with the whole ranger concept.
The traps would likely not work the same as the Assassin's traps, though; they'd probably function just as a support mechanism for the ranger's bow skills; not a damage dealing playstyle all of their own. I did actually like the Assassin's traps, though...
The fifth class is going to be ranged. Not only just ranged, it will be a bow user. Essentially an amazon but tweaked just enough that it can be called something different. I don't find this to be a problem really, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Why Hello, Mr Obvious, so nice of you to join us! Just as a little tip, it's typically a good idea to read at least a little bit of the thread you're on before posting yourself...
Yes, it will likely be a ranged class, a ranger to be more precise. Likely a bow user, with some melee skills, traps, and summoning skills.
Yes, so you could theoretically build a melee ranger class in Diablo 3 (assuming that the fifth class is a ranger, of course). With skill customization, you could make a melee ranger that does a lot of damage, like the Amazon in Diablo 2. However, because stats are auto assigned, that melee ranger wouldn't be all that more durable than a ranged build. Melee Amazon builds could have a lot of survivability in melee, but without customized stats, a ranger wouldn't be very durable.
It could still be fun though, like a melee sorceress build...
I'm just saying that it would just be a big non-archetype mess to fit 7 old classes in 5 new classes. The last class would have to use a mix between the Assassins (not the martial arts), the Druids and the Amazons skills successfully, and it must keep the same theme and style of gameplay.
I just find it unlikely. It would be more logical if they save some for the expansion.
Actually, that isn't impossible, or even difficult. A Ranger could have a bow tree (Amazon), traps tree (Assassin), and summoning tree (Druid). There might also be a melee passive tree (Similar to the Amazon). The Bow tree would be a standalone tree, but either the traps and summoning, traps and passive, or summoning and passive trees would likely be combined. Or the melee passive skills could just be evenly distributed throughout the other trees. And there, you have every skill tree from DIablo 2 and LoD covered, except for shapeshifting, which would be incompatible with a ranger anyway.
The summoning tree would be nature oriented, and cover summoning beasts to the ranger's aid. The traps tree would cover physical traps that the ranger uses to damage and incapacitate opponents. The bow tree would be more or less the same as the Amazon's bow tree, and would cover bows, crossbows (?), and possibly throwing weapons. The melee passive tree would allow melee ranger builds, similar to a sword and shield Amazon build that is possible in Diablo 2.
I wouldn't necessarily know, as I haven't really played any early rpgs, but I believe that they evolved as follows:
D&D->CRPGs that used text based graphics -> isometric rpgs -> Diablo (which was originally turn-based) -> Diablo 2. Diablo 3 is based off of Diablo 2 and WoW.
Everquest I can't account for why, is so similar to WoW. WoW's interface is simply channeled mostly from Diablo II's, and Aion, well, Aion just seemed to copy the biggest most successful MMO in history, (WoW) which is a smart move right? The best business model for them would be to take que's from the most successful competitor.
However, wasn't WoW based off of Everquest? Because at least in terms of game play, they appear to be similar, and the GUI also looks more or less similar. I'm not really sure. However, WoW's interface was not based off of Diablo 2. I really cannot see any similarities, other than the Inventory (which is common for most RPGs), and maybe the talent/skill tree, which isn't very original either. And the action bar used in WoW is not at all similar to anything used in Diablo 2. Diablo 3 maybe, but that's just because they copied it from WoW... So I don't really see what you meant about WoW evolving from Diablo 2.
yea but WoW is already available on onlive (its part of it) and so is warcraft 3 so no diablo 3 has the potential too be on OnLive....
and no onlive is not directed towards consoles the fact that you play using the internet and a browser should tell you its meant for pcs or netbooks....yes the tv with controler option is available but mostly for hardcore gamers.
Where did you find this? Could you supply a link, because I have found no evidence whatsoever that WoW or Warcraft 3 is available through onlive. I have found one thread with people speculating about WoW being available through Onlive, but that's it.
And I seriously don't see why anyone would play WoW through Onlive anyway, because of the following: requires a 5 mb/s internet connection to play through onlive, plus the fact that it also has to connect to Blizzard's servers would result in increased lag; you'd have to pay twice (once to Blizzard and once to onlive for your respective subscriptions); the requirements for WoW are very low to begin with (the game was first released in 2003); and lastly, you're limited to 720p if you play through onlive, which is lower than most gamers play with anyways.
My comment about Onlive targeting console gamers references the fact that: it's concept is similar to a console, but cheaper (with the box that you plug into your tv); apparently it's threatening to take over the console market; the games that they are hosting mostly appear to be console games.
Actually this concept is the future. It is a piracy-free platform, so in future more and more developers will be using concepts such as OnLive to distribute their games. Furthermore it's not downloading games, you play the game on their servers. This means all you need is a crapy notebook with internet conection and you can play even the most demanding games on it. It's brilliant.
However I don't think Diablo will be on OnLive. And it really isn't that neccesary since the requirements won't be that high.
The future? Maybe. And actually, I don't even think that you need a netbook... Just a TV or monitor, a decent internet connection, and their box.
However, there is no way in hell that Diablo 3 would be available through Onlive. First of all, there's Battlenet. Blizzard runs their games on their own servers; there is no way that they would allow anyone else to do that. Not to mention of course, that you would lose all multiplayer potential if you played on a service like onlive, even if you could, 'cause that would completely undermine the purpose of BattleNet! And playing a game on onlive servers that is in turn being run on Battlenet servers is just plain ridiculous.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Onlive targeted towards consoles, not PC games?
You don't customize your STATS anymore, but you still customize your SKILLS.
No such thing as runeword anymore, but the other possible item customization systems have not be revealed (yes, there are some).
Enigma was stupid. Everyone having access to teleport is stupid.
Items that gives access to other class' abilities shouldn't exist at all, in my opinion.
Yes, the stat customization is gone, unfortunately. Probably because Blizzard didn't like how you could get some very unbalanced builds in Diablo 2. People just invested in a few stats, as some were useless, like dex. Still though, if Blizzard had simply made balanced stats to begin with...
Anyways, I will miss the stat customization. I guess that we'll have to settle for WoW-like talent customization in the skill tree, plus runes of course. Once again, Diablo 3 has proved itself to be half Diablo, half WoW...for better or for worse.
Actually, that's what the current Character line up is missing. A "leadership" type character. The paladin, though holy, was also a leader. Thus the auras. The Monk, even though he is holy, he doesn't represent the Paladin's leadership abilities. He's more like a holy warrior. Actually much closer to the holy warrior aspect than the Paladin was. I hope Blizz has way less Auras if they're bringing it out. So that it does make it easier to balance out the buffs of each class. Plus a lot easier in groups too. Instead of constantly switching between other auras. You could just use one aura, of course you'll still change for diversity of enemies, but at least its easier.
Actually, I'm kind of against the "leadership" type character. I disliked paladins in Diablo 2 because of this. IMO, the leadership character unbalances gameplay: an aura specced character is in high demand in groups, but is terrible at soloing by himself.
In WoW, there are specific character classes that complement each other: there is a tank, dps, healer, cc, etc. In this setup, some characters don't do well on their own, but function effectively when combined with other specific types of characters.
But that's not true in Diablo. In diablo, each character is supposed to be balanced, and just as capable as any other class in killing monsers solo. At least ideally. But this was not true of the paladin, who was a group oriented character, unlike almost every other class in Diablo 2.
If auras return, I want to see them in every character class, not all lumped together into one. A "leadership" character would only degrade character balance; unless, of course, you want another WoW...
Technically any werewolf would only be a 50% werewolf at most
But erm... I don't think a werewolf is a broad enough character.. I mean you'd give him some fighting skills, maybe some swift dashing around, disease spreading and morphing to human/werewolf form.... and that would be it? What kind of skills would he have other than that? Also, why would he be helping the forces of good? Aren't werewolves basically half-demons, and the human half has no control over what they do when they're in werewolf form? And they can only transform during a full moon (e.g. not at will). Lastly, I don't think we need another melee class right now.
Exactly. In Diablo 2 you could get around with using just a few skills, mostly just using your basic attack. In LoD, you had to use a wider variety of skills, but it was still mostly just point and click; the game interface didn't really support using more than a few skills at once, anyways. I mean, you could always have up to something like sixteen skills saved at once, but you always had to swap them out, as all actions in game were performed by the left and right mouse button. That kind of a hack and slash fully supports the use of a werewolf that just runs around hitting things with a basic attack, but Diablo 3 is completely different.
Diablo 3 seems to encourage use of multiple spells and abilities, and now you have a skill hotbar similar to WoW. Strategic use of a wide variety of skills would be necessary, and I just can't think of several dozen different abilities that you could use in werewolf form, and the set of abilities, spells, etc. would have to be completely different from those used when not in werewolf form.
And, of course, not to mention the fact that one has no control over their own actions as a werewolf, or so I've heard...
0
Ranger? King of the forest? Then again...maybe not.
I don't remember any class having a sinister background in the previous games...maybe necro, but... well, he had good intentions. Anyways, any chance of having a sinister class probably evaporated when Blizz North left... the current dev team is Warcraft guys now, right?
0
The ranger will not be identical to the Amazon. The Amazon had one summon: a Valkyrie. That doesn't mean that the Ranger will be limited to one summon; anything but! The current classes of Diablo 3 are so far either remixes of previous Diablo 2 classes (the Barbarian and Wizard), or are entirely new classes created from new arrangements of the basic skill trees from Diablo 2. Take the monk for example: he has skills from the Paladin and Assasin classes of Diablo 2.
This is likely to be the case with the ranger: the bow and the passive tree from the Amazon, and the summoning tree from the Druid. What does that mean? That the ranger might have a druid like summoning tree: calling wolves, bears, etc. to the ranger's aid.
On another topic:
I was wondering that myself at first. After all, each class can have alternate sexes. However, the iconic Barbarian, Witch Doctor, and Monk are all male. The Wizard is female. There are five classes. Therefore, for balance purposes, it could be assumed that the last class would be female in trailers, marketing, etc.
0
Why not have a companion? I do believe that Rangers are commonly depicted as having an animal companion... And what's wrong with having similarities to the Amazon's Valkyrie? (Not that there are any) If the ranger has summoning skills, I would believe that they would be more similar to the Druid's summoning skills than anything else.
0
I suppose that what I said did sound like more of a hunter, didn't it? I didn't really mean a pet; I suppose, an animal companion would be a more fitting term, and, well, the traps... hmm. Well, I suppose I just threw in the traps because it was a currently unused skill tree from LoD that was more or less compatible with the ranger concept. There is some overlap between the ranger and hunter, however, so similarities are inevitable.
What really makes them distinct is the class's respective motivation and goals. The ranger preserves the natural world; the hunter, well, kills things.
0
The only thing though is that you kill monsters really fast in Diablo 2, so a kind of ensnaring vine wouldn't work as well as in some other games, because you'd kill the monster in just a couple of seconds... It could still be useful though, like the sorceress's freezing spells in Diablo 2.
The only thing is that rangers aren't spellcasters: unlike a druid, a ranger couldn't summon magical vines to ensnare their foes. A ranger is a skilled archer and woodsman, nothing more.
0
Well, no, we don't really need traps. It's kind of likely that Blizzard would implement them though, as it is only logical that blizzard would incorporate the unused skill trees from Diablo 2 and LoD: The Amazon's bow and passive tree, the assassin's traps tree, and the Druid's summon tree. The Amazon's javelin and spear tree, and the Druid's shapeshifting abilities would be unlikely to make an appearance though. And of course, the archery, nature based pet summoning, and traps fit with the whole ranger concept.
The traps would likely not work the same as the Assassin's traps, though; they'd probably function just as a support mechanism for the ranger's bow skills; not a damage dealing playstyle all of their own. I did actually like the Assassin's traps, though...
0
Why Hello, Mr Obvious, so nice of you to join us! Just as a little tip, it's typically a good idea to read at least a little bit of the thread you're on before posting yourself...
Yes, it will likely be a ranged class, a ranger to be more precise. Likely a bow user, with some melee skills, traps, and summoning skills.
0
It could still be fun though, like a melee sorceress build...
0
Actually, that isn't impossible, or even difficult. A Ranger could have a bow tree (Amazon), traps tree (Assassin), and summoning tree (Druid). There might also be a melee passive tree (Similar to the Amazon). The Bow tree would be a standalone tree, but either the traps and summoning, traps and passive, or summoning and passive trees would likely be combined. Or the melee passive skills could just be evenly distributed throughout the other trees. And there, you have every skill tree from DIablo 2 and LoD covered, except for shapeshifting, which would be incompatible with a ranger anyway.
The summoning tree would be nature oriented, and cover summoning beasts to the ranger's aid. The traps tree would cover physical traps that the ranger uses to damage and incapacitate opponents. The bow tree would be more or less the same as the Amazon's bow tree, and would cover bows, crossbows (?), and possibly throwing weapons. The melee passive tree would allow melee ranger builds, similar to a sword and shield Amazon build that is possible in Diablo 2.
0
D&D->CRPGs that used text based graphics -> isometric rpgs -> Diablo (which was originally turn-based) -> Diablo 2. Diablo 3 is based off of Diablo 2 and WoW.
However, wasn't WoW based off of Everquest? Because at least in terms of game play, they appear to be similar, and the GUI also looks more or less similar. I'm not really sure. However, WoW's interface was not based off of Diablo 2. I really cannot see any similarities, other than the Inventory (which is common for most RPGs), and maybe the talent/skill tree, which isn't very original either. And the action bar used in WoW is not at all similar to anything used in Diablo 2. Diablo 3 maybe, but that's just because they copied it from WoW... So I don't really see what you meant about WoW evolving from Diablo 2.
0
Where did you find this? Could you supply a link, because I have found no evidence whatsoever that WoW or Warcraft 3 is available through onlive. I have found one thread with people speculating about WoW being available through Onlive, but that's it.
And I seriously don't see why anyone would play WoW through Onlive anyway, because of the following: requires a 5 mb/s internet connection to play through onlive, plus the fact that it also has to connect to Blizzard's servers would result in increased lag; you'd have to pay twice (once to Blizzard and once to onlive for your respective subscriptions); the requirements for WoW are very low to begin with (the game was first released in 2003); and lastly, you're limited to 720p if you play through onlive, which is lower than most gamers play with anyways.
My comment about Onlive targeting console gamers references the fact that: it's concept is similar to a console, but cheaper (with the box that you plug into your tv); apparently it's threatening to take over the console market; the games that they are hosting mostly appear to be console games.
0
The future? Maybe. And actually, I don't even think that you need a netbook... Just a TV or monitor, a decent internet connection, and their box.
However, there is no way in hell that Diablo 3 would be available through Onlive. First of all, there's Battlenet. Blizzard runs their games on their own servers; there is no way that they would allow anyone else to do that. Not to mention of course, that you would lose all multiplayer potential if you played on a service like onlive, even if you could, 'cause that would completely undermine the purpose of BattleNet! And playing a game on onlive servers that is in turn being run on Battlenet servers is just plain ridiculous.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Onlive targeted towards consoles, not PC games?
0
Yes, the stat customization is gone, unfortunately. Probably because Blizzard didn't like how you could get some very unbalanced builds in Diablo 2. People just invested in a few stats, as some were useless, like dex. Still though, if Blizzard had simply made balanced stats to begin with...
Anyways, I will miss the stat customization. I guess that we'll have to settle for WoW-like talent customization in the skill tree, plus runes of course. Once again, Diablo 3 has proved itself to be half Diablo, half WoW...for better or for worse.
0
Actually, I'm kind of against the "leadership" type character. I disliked paladins in Diablo 2 because of this. IMO, the leadership character unbalances gameplay: an aura specced character is in high demand in groups, but is terrible at soloing by himself.
In WoW, there are specific character classes that complement each other: there is a tank, dps, healer, cc, etc. In this setup, some characters don't do well on their own, but function effectively when combined with other specific types of characters.
But that's not true in Diablo. In diablo, each character is supposed to be balanced, and just as capable as any other class in killing monsers solo. At least ideally. But this was not true of the paladin, who was a group oriented character, unlike almost every other class in Diablo 2.
If auras return, I want to see them in every character class, not all lumped together into one. A "leadership" character would only degrade character balance; unless, of course, you want another WoW...
0
Exactly. In Diablo 2 you could get around with using just a few skills, mostly just using your basic attack. In LoD, you had to use a wider variety of skills, but it was still mostly just point and click; the game interface didn't really support using more than a few skills at once, anyways. I mean, you could always have up to something like sixteen skills saved at once, but you always had to swap them out, as all actions in game were performed by the left and right mouse button. That kind of a hack and slash fully supports the use of a werewolf that just runs around hitting things with a basic attack, but Diablo 3 is completely different.
Diablo 3 seems to encourage use of multiple spells and abilities, and now you have a skill hotbar similar to WoW. Strategic use of a wide variety of skills would be necessary, and I just can't think of several dozen different abilities that you could use in werewolf form, and the set of abilities, spells, etc. would have to be completely different from those used when not in werewolf form.
And, of course, not to mention the fact that one has no control over their own actions as a werewolf, or so I've heard...