13 replies to this topic

[andy23wdoctor]

theres always going to be a debate about what classes should have been chosen for d3,everyone has their favourites and arguments as to why they should be included.alot of classes are similar in alot of ways so it just comes down to getting the right mix of styles!i think for each style there would be a few choices of character i.e the witch doctor has the same style overall as the necromancer etc,the only class/character that i cant think has an equal in the spec/style is the barbarian,if blizzard hadnt chose the barb for d3 what character could they have chosen to take its place and still keep that play style and look?

[R3kker]

there are many other names they could have used, but i dont think there would be any point in trying to work around and recreate what isnt needed.

[ofosho89]

They could have gone with some other style of heavy close range fighter, but I think they left the barbarian in for flavor and lore reasons. The barbarians play a big role in the world of sanctuary, lore wise. I would like to see the addition of an elemental based close range fighter in one of the expansions. Something along the lines of the Druid.

[Emrys]

Could have gone with Templar being a class instead of a follower.

[Reebz]

I think you'll find Blizzard have got a few more classes up their sleeve for the first Xpac.

You can play a templar-style with the monk anyway (damage/healer).

[overneathe]

Emrys, on 27 February 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Could have gone with Templar being a class instead of a follower.

But then that's the Paladin. So meh.
Also this is more for the Class discussion forum located a bit below.

Edited by overneathe, 28 February 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[andy23wdoctor]

what i mean is if the barbarian couldnt be in the game but blizzard wanted something pretty similar what character could they use that had the size,power,force etc to match,it would have to be something along the lines of an orc lol theres nothing like a barb out there and human

[overneathe]

There's a Berserker, which is a class that is often 80% similar to a Barbarian. Also a "Warrior" though the last one sometimes covers a "Soldier". Which, depending on the game you play may be similar to a Paladin, who can often be mistaken for a Knight, who in some cases can be made purely into a physical class, resembling the Barbarian. And so on and so forth. You don't want to go into core class ideas that have gone around over the past few decades. Just leave it at a Barbarian, which is a familiar class to both veterans and newbies alike.

Edited by overneathe, 28 February 2012 - 12:38 AM.

[Nivius]

Barbarian Nuker
Barbarian Tank
Barbarian HealTank
Barbarian Crit'er
Barbarian AoEer
Barbarian buffer/tank?
Barbarian Speed runner
Barbarian Thrower
Barbarian CCer
Barbarian MFer
Barbarian Goldfinder
Barbarian Hardcore (make one build specific to "surviving" hitting the weed in HC)
Now, make a Barbarian Build you like


those i posted on the official forums, they can all be done in different ways
so what i mean whit this, there is no other class then barbarian worth mentioning.

--------------
ah you mean in games, can be allot of diffrent ones.
Berserker
Samurai (in some cases)
Warrior
Viking
Frenzied
Paladin/crusader (some cases)
Engineer (some cases)
whatever.

you can really name it almost whatever you want.
even Steampunker? why not?

Edited by Nivius, 28 February 2012 - 12:48 AM.

[overneathe]

Barbarian Nuker Berserker
Barbarian Tank Shieldman
Barbarian HealTank Knight
Barbarian Crit'er Swordsman
Barbarian AoEer Warrior
Barbarian buffer/tank? Paladin
Barbarian CCer Guardian
Barbarian Goldfinder Bandit

That's what OP meant. If there could be other names that could replace Barbarian. Either way this is what you could get. But it's pointless to just not make it a Barbarian.
Or I didn't understand OP as well?

[andy23wdoctor]

overneathe, on 28 February 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

There's a Berserker, which is a class that is often 80% similar to a Barbarian. Also a "Warrior" though the last one sometimes covers a "Soldier". Which, depending on the game you play may be similar to a Paladin, who can often be mistaken for a Knight, who in some cases can be made purely into a physical class, resembling the Barbarian. And so on and so forth. You don't want to go into core class ideas that have gone around over the past few decades. Just leave it at a Barbarian, which is a familiar class to both veterans and newbies alike.

hmmmmm berserker,didnt think of that,thats a good match,they pretty equal in all aspects!good shout

[Savages]

Official Blizzard Quote:

The Barbarian is the only returning class. Originally we actually planned to have no returning classes, but as we developed the barbarian, it essentially ended up turning into a barbarian. We sort of got to the point where we went – because we actually had a different name for him originally - I think were going to call it this other name and everyone else is just going to call it the barbarian, so maybe we should just call it the barbarian.

Edited by Savages, 28 February 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[andy23wdoctor]

Savages, on 28 February 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Official Blizzard Quote:

The Barbarian is the only returning class. Originally we actually planned to have no returning classes, but as we developed the barbarian, it essentially ended up turning into a barbarian. We sort of got to the point where we went – because we actually had a different name for him originally - I think were going to call it this other name and everyone else is just going to call it the barbarian, so maybe we should just call it the barbarian.

whyyyyyyyyyyy,you should have gone with the other name,dont suppose we will ever know what the name was?

[andy23wdoctor]

andy23wdoctor, on 28 February 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

Savages, on 28 February 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Official Blizzard Quote:

The Barbarian is the only returning class. Originally we actually planned to have no returning classes, but as we developed the barbarian, it essentially ended up turning into a barbarian. We sort of got to the point where we went – because we actually had a different name for him originally - I think were going to call it this other name and everyone else is just going to call it the barbarian, so maybe we should just call it the barbarian.

whyyyyyyyyyyy,you should have gone with the other name,dont suppose we will ever know what the name was?

lol,i know,its an edit