

First a word of warning, the following post is seriously TL: DR. For all of you either suffering from dyslexia or general allergy to long posts, I'll summarize this entire post:
*Drumroll*
Until lately, fifth class was the reincarnation of Rogue. It was originally intended to be the class announced in Blizzcon 2009 instead of the monk. The current form of the fifth class is closely related to rogue, but the focus of the class is somewhat shifted from pure archetype of a ranger. They're trying to add some fun twists to just plain bows.
Cue the applauding.
Now for all of you not afraid of a lot of text, and not satisfied without any evidence, I'll carefully construct the necessary proof. I'll also give you some tidbits I accidentally stumbled upon when cross-examining various interviews mainly regarding the fifth class. Most of this information has been available for a long time, and every piece of credit shall be directed to those that produced the information, my part in this play has merely been the role of a collector of information, a sort of musical conductor.
I got the idea for this submarine ride to the mystery known as the unannounced class when I was reading the "
5th class known information" thread originally posted by purelog1c. At first I was bit stupefied to notice that the general consensus in the thread was that no class from D2 would be returning.
This consensus stems from the following quote from Jay Wilson from September 16 2008 which he said during a VideoGamer.com interview.
Official Blizzard Quote:
VideoGamer.com: Can you confirm that the Barbarian is the only class to return from Diablo II?
JW: Yes. Originally we were planning to have no classes return, but as we developed one of the classes essentially turned into the barbarian. We reached a point where we were going to call it some other name, and we realised that everyone else would just call it the barbarian anyway, so maybe we should just go with that.
Source.
Now, because I remembered reading somewhere where Jay Wilson clearly stated that the fifth class will most likely be a returning class, I took great effort to find the information I remembered reading a while back (well effort was mostly due to me only having vague memories of it so it was hard to find).
Eventually I found this quote by the same Jay Wilson on August 23 2009, where in an IGN interview Jay Wilson said the following:
Official Blizzard Quote:
IGN: Have you confirmed how many unrevealed classes there are, to round out the entire party?
Jay Wilson: There's one more.
IGN: You did mention that it's being revealed next year, and that it's someone from the previous games?
Jay Wilson: I did say that. I probably shouldn't have said that, because we're not sure that's going to be the case. It's just logical, that's what we tend to do. But it may or may not. I'm not gonna answer it, anyway? [laughs]
Source.
For about 20 minutes I sat staring at the wall, puzzled by the clear contradiction between these two quotes by the same person. At first I thought that after all, they're a year apart, maybe they changed their plans.
Then an epiphany hit me, like when Archimedes suddenly understood that the volume of water displaced when he sits into his bath must be equal to the volume of the part of his body he had submerged, and I, much like the said Greek genius, shouted
"Eureka!"
What is the only way the two quotes can both be true? If you carefully read both answers by Jay Wilson in relation to the questions asked, it should eventually come pretty obvious.
The fifth class is somebody from Diablo ONE!
Because in the first interview quoted he denies it is somebody from Diablo 2, and later on says it is somebody from previous games. It also made sense on more levels than one, when I started to think about this. By carefully answering both questions he seemed to make a contradiction, adding to the confusion surrounding the last class and trying to make sure it remains a secret until the date they decide to reveal it.
Now, if you read the shortened version of my post at the beginning, you already know which class I think, but I'll continue building my evidence first before going into excessive speculation.
Now, this epiphany about the Diablo one class made even more sense when I remembered an article I read yesterday on wired, which was posted on September 1 2009, bit over a week after the IGN article, where Jay Wilson said the following:
Official Blizzard Quote:
Wilson said at Blizzcon that his team doesn't yet have a final concept for the fifth class, and that they recently changed their minds about it.
But he's quick to add that doesn't mean that they've changed the character completely.
"We changed gears," he said.
"We changed our high-level idea of the class because it was actually one of the first classes that we picked, years and years ago."
The fact that the class was chosen first, he said, was part of the reason why it needs to be re-tooled.
"We've had this class for four years, and it's not as exciting to us as it used to be," he said. "It had actually become a chain around our necks."
The new class isn't a "complete departure" from the first concept, Wilson said. "Most of the skills can transfer over, but (the changes) definitely freed up our art staff to be a lot more imaginative."
Source.
I'll comment more on the implications of that Wired article (
which is a good read altogether, by the way), but I'll first stir the soup some more.
After reading the wired article I now remembered another interview, which caused much speculation at its time as well, and when put into the context of my epiphany, it makes clear sense. This was said by the same Jay Wilson on December 23 2008 in a 1up interview:
Official Blizzard Quote:
1UP: Can you talk about the state of the classes? For example, is every class -- even the two that you have yet to reveal -- playable in the game right now?
JW: No. The fourth class is playable in game but is using a placeholder model -- one of an NPC, actually. And all of the skills are what we call "programmer art" because we haven't implemented actual skill effects. So that one is just in gameplay testing for us while we determine signature skills. The fifth class, we're just about finished concepting it and are about to start building it. We can't use placeholder art, so we're now just going to build a model and start working on the first series of skills for that one. We're actually spending more time on the Witch Doctor, Wizard, and Barbarian because of a big change we made to the skill system that we wanted to [integrate them] with -- so it's mostly just artwork that's going on for the other two classes.
Source.
And to prove my point, I'll add one quote, by the same Jay Wilson, on October 27 2009, when asked about the monk by the gameinformer, he replied this (part of a longer reply, only this is relevant to my point):
Official Blizzard Quote:
JW: When you're dealing with a melee character in a game like this, they're actually some of the more challenging characters to make.
Source.
And now comes the time of my second big epiphany. What if this fifth class Jay Wilson is speaking about in the 1UP interview, in fact is the monk? And the reason they could not use a placeholder because of the complexity of his various moves?
While they refer to the un-modeled class as the "fifth", there's no reason to think that it could not have been the one they presented in Blizzcon 2009 - the Monk.
Now, when we put this idea in the context of the wired article, what if only some months before Blizzcon 2009 Blizzard decided they were not happy with the fourth class (the one being tested using a NPC placeholder model), because it was bit of a dull one. The one that originally was the reincarnation of a Diablo 1 class, and were forced to showcase the monk instead?
I mean the Monk clearly hadn't been polished excessively when it was announced, a fact which should be obvious seeing as the monk skill trees were unnamed and not even a concept photo of the female monk was published let alone a 3d model of her.
Now, I'll add some very shady evidence to the mix, but sometimes the
Freudian slips are the most giving ones.
On the official Diablo 3 site and its game features (listed on the front page behind a click of the "view game features"), reads the following:
Official Blizzard Quote:
Battle the unholy forces of the Burning Hells with all-new character classes such as the otherworldly Witch Doctor, or with re-imagined warriors from Diablo's past, like the powerful Barbarian.
"... re-imagined
warriorS from Diablo's past", is the plural perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip, seeing as they had the second recurring class undergoing various iterations since
day 1 of development?
(Credit of this goes to Murderface Cody and his idea
here: )
Now to another shady Freudian slip:
This is the original character selection screen of Diablo 2, what we have there is:
amazon - necromancer - barbarian - sorceress - paladin
Now, on the official d3 site the character classes shown are:
If you revert that order, you get:
...........- witch doctor - barbarian - wizard - monk
Now consider the archetypes:
ranger - summoner/curser - barbarian - magician - holy warrior
Is this another example of a Freudian slip?
(credit goes to watcher 83
here.)
And now, third example of shady proof:
In the same
gameinformer interview on October 27 2009 I already spoke about, this questions seems to have gotten Jay Wilson bit off guard:
Official Blizzard Quote:
GI: Before we go, are there any important Diablo III-related topics we haven't covered?
Ryan Arbogast (from background): Let's show him the fifth class!
JW: (Laughs) Sure, why not, it's, uh... I'll tell you what the fifth class is not! It's not going to be a bard.
Now, I among others took that just as a bad and hastily conceived joke. But consider the following:
It seems as if the question got him off-guard, and he just quickly replied with first thing that sprung into his mind. These kind of answers can reveal a lot more information than what is obvious.
The non-canon Hellfire expansion of the original game featured one new class, Monk, the other two were Barbarian and Bard. So because 2/3 Hellfire characters are already appearing in the game, he just quickly joked about it not being a bard.
Now stop to think about the following fact:
The "secret" bard class of Hellfire was using the Rogue model.
Is this another case of a Freudian slip?
After all, sorcerer and warrior are bit of implausible classes, because barbarian and wizard are already far too close to those archetypes.
So as a quick summary, I'll put my facts into fancy bullet points:
- It was the first class chosen for Diablo 3
- It features in Diablo 1, or is at least closely based off it
- Final concept of the class was not ready as of September '09
- The main focus of the class was shifted lately, before Blizzcon 2009, most likely because it didn't feel exciting enough
- However, most of the old skills could still be transferred over, and the class isn't a complete departure from the original concept
Now, if I could take a time machine and travel back half a year, I could say that the fifth class is Rogue, but now I'll just have to say that it is Rogue, with some sort of an interesting twist. Now you can just start thinking what the twist is.
Or continue speculating, and return reading this thread after Blizzcon 2010.
Disclaimer: DiabloFans' Rumors are not the officially recognized positions of the staff, management, and/or administration of DiabloFans.