Let me start with the fact that Blizzard has stated that the witch doctor is different enough to where they could still add the necro IF they decide to.
I personally do not want the necro added in addition to the WD
1. Lore
2. Looks
3. Play
Lore -
the necro was already like 100 yrs old in D2. 20 years later, he is like what? 200 now (j.k. I know 100 + 20 = 187). I think decard should be the only really, really, really old fart.
Looks -
the necro was an old, unmuscular, creepy looking guy. The WD is an old, unmuscular, creepy looking guy. ? Basically the same except the WD Has a tan.
Play -
simply put, IMO, they play the same.
Summons=summons (they only possible difference is strength vs. # like the Druid and necro in D2.
Poison=poison
curses vs. Horrify/confuse ( of course they have different effects but the principle is the same. No actual damage but makes killing easier.)
bone vs. Fire (bone was used primarily as ranged attacks. Fire is used for ranged, at least with the flame skull. Bone wall replaced by zombie wall)
I just don't see enough differences between the two. I think these two are even more similar than the sorceress and the wizard. I personally have no problem playing the WD as replacement for the necro.
Your thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I mean, a necromancer is an master of anatomy, using dark magic with corpses and anything that is dead, to create poisons, explosions, or to bring them back to "life" as followers.
And a witch doctor is more like a creepy hermit of the jungle, who is using anything(dead or alive) to break through any obstacle.
On the gameplay side, there seems to have some similarities, but we can't really say it's the replacement for the necro, just because they have a summon, a zombiewall and some poisons...
Until I play it, and see if it really is different or similar, I'll still say that the WD isn't meant to be a necro, and should be different.
But yeah, it's still only my opinion...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you can't amaze people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.
I really think the necro was much kooler than the WD. But im biased towards the necro because of all the books ive read. I mean really, blizzard greatly reduced the potential of what the necro could do, i mean they could have made him rly kool. But that would make him better than the other characters.
I can see that the necro and the WD have different backgrounds and stories. And if this were a book I'd say they are not replaceable. But as a game they are just too similar. I don't have a problem with this. I'm glad we get the same type of character but with a new twist. I don't understand why people want to play the same char we have been playing for 10 yrs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
... I don't have a problem with this. I'm glad we get the same type of character but with a new twist. I don't understand why people want to play the same char we have been playing for 10 yrs.
Same for me... that's one of the reason why I want the WD to be different...
There probably wont have a huge choice of classes in D3, if we have to choose between only a few classes, I'd prefer if they are new ones... Not copies of the 7 classes we already had in D2... Which I'm sure most of you already created 2characters of each class, or more.
If they're to introduce a necro(or similar) class, I would really prefer it to be in an expension, and should be an 'improved/balanced' necro. I mean, beating the game naked on hell at lvl 75 because your summons are doing all the job, isn't really interresting/balanced...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you can't amaze people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.
I don't want to see the Necro back they would be too similar, why someone wants to play with something that is 20 years old in the lore and 10 years old in the playability(well that happens too for the Barb but he wasn't perfect in the way the other chars were) I suppose people want the necro back because they know how to play with him and the game will be easy to beat. :/
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Eternal suffering would be too brief for you, Diablo!"
I don't think the Witch Doctor is skinny at all, he just looks thin and wirey. I don't think the character themes are similar at all, the Witch Doctor is quite unique imo and I was very happy with the class after sooo many games with the same classes
The same goes with the Wizard, I mean of course there will be a caster class but like Blizzard says it's focus is more on the Wizard's ability to manipulate the laws of the universe.
Slow time is the most awesome spell I have ever seen and even the others like acid, cold (which can freeze the enemy) are really cool. Games usually make the mistake of have an 'Ice' Wizard or a 'Fire' Wizard but in D3 it makes so much more sense - why shouldn't the Wizard be able to cast a variety of all different types of spells?
My point (if that's what you are referring to) is that blizzard has said the WD and the necro are different but I think they have more similarities than the wizard and the sorceress which blizzard has said this is the equivalant.
I just don't get why people are saying they are different or want both in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
...I don't think the character themes are similar at all, the Witch Doctor is quite unique imo...
I agree 100%
The necro was my favorite class of D2 because I am really really lazy and it was fun having my summons do all the work, now in D3, i don't think the summons will do all the work but at least I can be a little bit lazy : D
EDIT: As regards to the OP, I think people want the necro back just mainly because of the lore and the theme (he was pretty evilish as opposed to the other heroes). The WD is very very close to the necro IMO, so close in fact that I really dont think they should bring the necro back (The D2 way, lots of summons, curses, etc.) The only way they will bring him back is if they change him a lot and that way people wont like him as much : P
You guys fail to amaze me. Here comes my two cents.
First thing is first, the WD is not Necro 2.0. First off, the necro didn't have half of the crazy spells the WD has, such as Skull of Flame, Firebats, Plague of Toads, etc. This whole Necro = WD idea is based on individual ignorance passed around as theory, and all these sheep just seem to follow. Your basis of them being too similar is that they BOTH use a form of black magic, they both summon something, and that stupid wall of zombies skill (and for all we know that might not make it into final production for that very reason).
The big problem is, you cease to realize that they are truly very different. Necro had a lot to do with Bones and Necromancy. He summoned skellys and ressurected fallen creatures to do his bidding. His spells were mostly all some sort of bone or poison attack. He was also the leading Debuff class.
So far, Witch Doctor hardly has a debuff other than Mass Confusion and Horrify, which are more like offensive and time buying spells as opposed to debuffs. Also, where Necro focuses on direct bone and poison spell, the Witch Doctor focuses on very indirect and somewhat mundane magic at times. He uses a lot of Fire techniques, something unheard of to the entirely black magic Necro.
To be very honest they would fit just fine side by side, especially if Blizzard updated Necro to be something a little more modernized to fit the Diablo 3 title. They can and honestly may easily be implemented together simultaniously. Blizzard has already stated (in order to calm Necro fans) that they are definately looking toward him as a possible Expansion character, they just don't want him in the opening line up.
And as for this whole " Necro is 120" crap... Even if the Necro was 120, I bet he could still be moving along just fine. Hes a fucking Necro for christ sakes, half the necros from TONS of series turn into an effin Lich. They just don't die of old age from working with the Necromantic arts. This could easily be associated with the game. That, or you know they could just make A NEW NECRO. Its not like there is only one... There are entire sects of these people and we will probably see a few Necro NPCs when DIablo 3 first comes out. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from making a new character (lorically) to fit the same class as our previous well known white haired hero. Plus they would have to make a chick as well, so they might as well.
As you can probably tell, I highly doubt Necro is down for the count just yet. I wish people would have a little fucking faith in the developers for once instead of crying about how "Blizz ruined my Necro with WD". Your points are moot. They can still easily exist together, in fact Jay Wilson has even mentioned that they are making the Witch Doctor in a way that they CAN exist together. Its part of their design plan to leave a very sweet (necro) option open for later expansions if they choose to bring him out. If they are ALREADY planning ahead for this, chances are they won't let that go to waste...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
Maybe they could bring a young necro with different powers and a different story and he can be related to the old one. I wouldn't mind that, in fact I would like it .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Eternal suffering would be too brief for you, Diablo!"
To many people have become attacked to Diablo 2. We don't need to play the same over again. I for one have beat that game almost 100 times probably and played for countless hours. The story, the levels, the characters, the skills have been engraved into my head. I can still recall everything even though i haven't played for years. I would hate to see a brand new game opening up an entire new storyline, monsters, levels, only to be limited by having to replay old classes. It kinda feels like a roadblock for creativity. I'm not really that excited about the Barbarian but I guess Blizzard can't please everyone.
1. Calling someone ignorant for their opinion based on facts is a little harsh :_ (
2. I understand their skills are different. But overall gameplay is very similar. More similar than wizard and sorceress.
3. I am not complainig that they ruined the necro. I think they improved the the necro and gave him a new name. I am saying if they add more classes later I want something with more variety to the line up instead of the necro.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Don't get me wrong, I never meant to point a finger out and say any particular person was ignorant, especially not for their particular opinion. Everybody has a right to theirs, but if someone tries to lay out what appears to be attempts at fact that are contradictory to something I know, I'm going to debunk it.
I really cannot agree with the statement "Witch Doctor is to Necromancer as Wizard is to Sorceress". Take a look at all the skills that Sorceress and Wizard (respectively) have in common so far: Hydra, Chain Lightning/Electrocute, Frost Nova, and Blizzard. That is 5 skills already in place that are practically identical (if that term can be used when comparing D2 technology to D3).
On the other hand, when you compare the Necromancer to the Witch Doctor, you only get 2 nearly identical skills (respectively): Terror/Horrify and Confuse/Mass Confusion. Other skills are slightly similar in feel, such as summonings and Wall of Bone/Wall of Zombies, however no summon so far are remotely similar other than the fact that they all appear undead. Many WD skills feel very different despite the fact that they all seem related to black magic. In fact, with light on Turmobil's post, their methods of dark magic are very different. Necromancer relates to his name, he uses Necromancy. The Witch Doctor uses a very different brand of dark magic: Tribal Voodoo. To be honest though, as far as similar skills, we don't even have enough of the WD skills to know how close the two classes will really be. If we wanted to get even more technical, we don't even know if half of the existing skills will make it into final production.
Honestly the thing that irks me the most is that many people can't possibly fathom the Necro ever existing with the WD in play, or think they would be too much alike. As I mentioned before, Jay Wilson has made it clear that the WD is intentionally being developed in a way that allows them to coincide freely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
Ok. So the WD and the necro have "different" skills with "different" effects. But look at the grand scheme of the game and all games. If you were to compare the WD to anybody who would it be? He doesn't use melee like barb. Not ranged melee. Not pure caster. Not a shapeshifter. Not quick and agile. These are all different archetypes the WD and necro are not. As far as archetypes they both have summons ranged/close magic and spells to effect monsters stats/fighting ability. From a game designer's view they are similar even though their summons are different and one has bones while the other has fire. These are artistic differences not game design differences.
If the WD was in a different game (not blizzard) how many blizzard fans would say "they ripped off the necro and just changed his looks (spells included)"?
I am not saying they are the exact same. Just too similar IMO
Do you see the difference betwen the two words? No?
Damage, Distraction, Damage, Distraction. Getting clearer? No? (Dumbass..)
to turmobil:
please don't turn this into a battle.net thread calling people dumbass especially when there is no merit behind it. Tell them you disagree, you think they are wrong or even how could you think that but name calling... come on, we are above this. I never claimed that the summons were the same. I can see the difference between damage and distraction. First off, how do you know the WD pets are only for distraction? Secondly, looking at diablo not every class has summons. In d2 both the necro and Druid did. That means they have that in common. If the WD is the thrid then they share that trait. In d2 your summons were numbers vs. strength. We don't know how the WD summons will act but they are still summons.
I really cannot agree with the statement "Witch Doctor is to Necromancer as Wizard is to Sorceress". Take a look at all the skills that Sorceress and Wizard (respectively) have in common so far: Hydra, Chain Lightning/Electrocute, Frost Nova, and Blizzard. That is 5 skills already in place that are practically identical (if that term can be used when comparing D2 technology to D3)
the wizard and sorceress do have very similar skills, but the wizard also has arcane which is basically supposed to be time manipulation. That can completely change a play style. If this is seen as similar enough to compare the classes than why are the WD and necro not. What is so different about them that they would play differently?
And yes morden. We don't really know all the WD has to offer. But as of now IMO they are similar
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Lore:
I don't even need to use any arguments. Read WD's lore in D3 website and Necro's lore in the Arreat Summit and see the absolute absense of similarities.
Looks:
Necromancer are palid, have white long hair and use armor made out of bones. Witch Doctor have dark skin, no hair and use colorfull-tropical-tribal cloths. Your similarities are so vague that belongs to a mind that are seeking then. They style are 100% different - necromancer are truely that dark-creepy medieval character. The WD style is more picturesque, hes above all things exotic and weird - his stetic is more to "bizarre" then "dark".
Gameplay:
I wonder why you think the WD gameplay and the Necro are similar if you never played with him ?
A friend of mine played the blizzcon demo and i will reproduce his words:
" The Witch Doctor are completly different from the necromancer. The mongrels kill stuff very fast but dies even faster - it feels more like D1's Elemental spell then any D2 summon. Also his 2 crowd controls are essentials, it's like using frost nova and fear in wow."
So his summon are veyr different. If can't imagine two diferent summoner classes just look at D2. The Trap Sin is not but a SUMMONER - still the gameplay between a skellymancer and a trap sin are very clear.
The necromancer curses have totally different use then a WD curses. In most cases (AD, IM and LR, the 3 most used curses) have the function to directly increase the overall DPS of the party, not to crowd control. Andthe WD curses are pure straight cc's.
Also the comparison between the Bone and the Fire are beyond non sense. The two fire spells we know so far (Fire Bats and Skull) are basically mid range spells. And necromancer bone spells don't have mid, but a super master large range. You can hit stuff from outside of the screen with bone spirit. Actually, range is one of the very advantages of the bonenecro - he can hit the enemy from really far away. The mid-range caster in D2 are the Druid since he really needs to be close to his enemy to cst anything because the spell have a low range or because it takes a random direction or because it's travel speed is to slow.
Imo the only similarity between those 2 classes are - both summon undeads and use poison damage. A very vague one if you ask me.
As I have previously mentioned, I tend to agree with Italofoca on this one, and I am glad we could hear something from someone who actually played the D3 demo.
They look way different, their direct combat skills are completely different, and their lore is obviously way different. The only thing keeping them closely similar is their two or three similar spells, their ability to summon undead (which so far have been very different in style), and their architype as a dark magic user (even though they use two completely different sects of dark magic lorically).
Characters aren't just about looks and spells either, they are about the way they feel. Though I have not played WD myself, it appears as though it would feel MUCH different than a Necro in play (as Italofoca tells us his friend has confirmed). For all we know a D3 expansion Necro may feel different than the D2 Necro on its own, thus separating the feel of the classes even farther.
Its all speculation at this point, but if you seriously listen to the way they have talked about Necro in the Blizzcon 08 vids, they really sound like Necro has a good shot at an expansion return.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
So far most of the debate against the necro and WD has been nit picking details. I ask you to look at the larger picture. Name what archetype the WD and the necro each are. If diablo was a game where everybody had summons, magic, and debuffs then we could nit pick the details that individualize each one. His summons last longer, his are stronger. His debuff weakens, his debuff distracts. His magic is close/midrange, his magic is long range. The fact still remains summons, magic, debuffs made the necro and summons, magic, debuffs will make the WD him (yes. We don't truly know the WD). Name any class in diablo or any game where they have summons/magic/ debuffs. This is why I am saying they are one in the same, the core of the character.
If they add a necro in an expansion, IMO it will be to appease fans more than to compliment the game play. There are just so many new ideas and play styles they could add.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
While he may not have had a ton of debuffs, the Druid actually had a lot of summons and magic. Druid only had one CC debuff, which was Shock Wave, so idk if that really counts so much. But then again Witch Doctor only has two debuffs, which are pretty much CC, just like the Werebear stun, so we could rule that one in. He did however have summons and tons of magic. What does that tell me? It tells me that an Elemental or Summoning focused Druid could play similar to a Bone/Poison or Summoning focused Necro (respectively), with the only change being artistic design and some numbers. Nobody complained that they could not coincide did they? All because why? One tree was entirely different. In gameplay mechanics they were fairly similar, but through art, lore, and a completely different third tree they remained completely different entities.
Now, comparing the D2 Necro to the D3 Witch Doctor is like comparing apples to oranges, especially with your partially incorrect list up there (which didn't even mention Druid or Assassin). The first big thing you need to realize, the Necro had a whole tree dedicated to debuffs (Curses). They weren't just CC debuffs, we are talking a whole tree of stat and utility debuffs alike.
The only two debuffs WD even has are taken from the Necro, I will admit, but he doesn't have a debuff tree. His debuff spells fit in with other trees. Instead of a debuff tree, he has 3 distinctly different trees that do not focus exactly on the same things Necro did, rather they focus on different types of magic that a tribal WD would focus. Were they to implement a Necromancer using the same exact trees (which I doubt, as we are comparing apples to oranges here), you would have a tree focusing specifically on summons, one specifically on spells, and one specifically on debuffs. There really is a difference, even when you do "take a look at the larger picture".
Now I don't know about you, but two debuffs, one similar spell, and the ability to summon one creature (so far) does not tell me that WD is replacing the Necro. It does not at all tell me that these characters cannot coincide. It does not tell me that a WD will feel remotely similar in play to the Necro (other than the fact that they are both casters with summons). It also does not tell me that a new Necromancer could not reinvent the Necromancer concept into something even better and more innovative than before while keeping a different feel from the Witch Doctor.
The problem I have is that you are basing these assumptions off of the fact that the D3 WD and the D2 Necro currently share 2 abilities, have a similar spell (Zombie Wall vs. Bone Wall) , and the fact they are casters who choose a darker sect of magic (through art and lore). Not only that, you are suggesting that since they are so similar, Blizzard shouldn't even bother to implement one of the funnest Diablo classes every created? The Necromancer has been voted the most popular D2 class ever made, and even many Bliz devs themselves share this love. Blizzard has already suggested that they are making the WD feel different so that a Necro could easily make a come back in an expansion, which I personally would be all in favor of, as I too loved the Necro.
Am I saying these two classes aren't similar? No, I never said that. Do we know they will even feel close to the same if/when they both show up side by side? No, we don't know that either. All I am saying is that I have a good feeling that Necromancer isn't down for the count. Blizz has mentioned it themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
well, i assume that the few skills they have shown are a good variety of the types of skills to come. as far as the trees goes. it is hard to directly compare with d2 because a lot of their trees focused on buffs of some sort where d3 has them mixed in.
sorry about the absence of the druid and assassin i was typing on my iphone when it closed out and i had to retype and i forgot but i have added them now.
Not only that, you are suggesting that since they are so similar, Blizzard shouldn't even bother to implement one of the funnest Diablo classes every created? The Necromancer has been voted the most popular D2 class ever made, and even many Bliz devs themselves share this love
I realize this that is why i said if they add him it will be for the fans
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I personally do not want the necro added in addition to the WD
1. Lore
2. Looks
3. Play
Lore -
the necro was already like 100 yrs old in D2. 20 years later, he is like what? 200 now (j.k. I know 100 + 20 = 187). I think decard should be the only really, really, really old fart.
Looks -
the necro was an old, unmuscular, creepy looking guy. The WD is an old, unmuscular, creepy looking guy. ? Basically the same except the WD Has a tan.
Play -
simply put, IMO, they play the same.
Summons=summons (they only possible difference is strength vs. # like the Druid and necro in D2.
Poison=poison
curses vs. Horrify/confuse ( of course they have different effects but the principle is the same. No actual damage but makes killing easier.)
bone vs. Fire (bone was used primarily as ranged attacks. Fire is used for ranged, at least with the flame skull. Bone wall replaced by zombie wall)
I just don't see enough differences between the two. I think these two are even more similar than the sorceress and the wizard. I personally have no problem playing the WD as replacement for the necro.
Your thoughts?
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I mean, a necromancer is an master of anatomy, using dark magic with corpses and anything that is dead, to create poisons, explosions, or to bring them back to "life" as followers.
And a witch doctor is more like a creepy hermit of the jungle, who is using anything(dead or alive) to break through any obstacle.
On the gameplay side, there seems to have some similarities, but we can't really say it's the replacement for the necro, just because they have a summon, a zombiewall and some poisons...
Until I play it, and see if it really is different or similar, I'll still say that the WD isn't meant to be a necro, and should be different.
But yeah, it's still only my opinion...
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Same for me... that's one of the reason why I want the WD to be different...
There probably wont have a huge choice of classes in D3, if we have to choose between only a few classes, I'd prefer if they are new ones... Not copies of the 7 classes we already had in D2... Which I'm sure most of you already created 2characters of each class, or more.
If they're to introduce a necro(or similar) class, I would really prefer it to be in an expension, and should be an 'improved/balanced' necro. I mean, beating the game naked on hell at lvl 75 because your summons are doing all the job, isn't really interresting/balanced...
"Eternal suffering would be too brief for you, Diablo!"
The same goes with the Wizard, I mean of course there will be a caster class but like Blizzard says it's focus is more on the Wizard's ability to manipulate the laws of the universe.
Slow time is the most awesome spell I have ever seen and even the others like acid, cold (which can freeze the enemy) are really cool. Games usually make the mistake of have an 'Ice' Wizard or a 'Fire' Wizard but in D3 it makes so much more sense - why shouldn't the Wizard be able to cast a variety of all different types of spells?
I just don't get why people are saying they are different or want both in the game.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I agree 100%
The necro was my favorite class of D2 because I am really really lazy and it was fun having my summons do all the work, now in D3, i don't think the summons will do all the work but at least I can be a little bit lazy : D
EDIT: As regards to the OP, I think people want the necro back just mainly because of the lore and the theme (he was pretty evilish as opposed to the other heroes). The WD is very very close to the necro IMO, so close in fact that I really dont think they should bring the necro back (The D2 way, lots of summons, curses, etc.) The only way they will bring him back is if they change him a lot and that way people wont like him as much : P
First thing is first, the WD is not Necro 2.0. First off, the necro didn't have half of the crazy spells the WD has, such as Skull of Flame, Firebats, Plague of Toads, etc. This whole Necro = WD idea is based on individual ignorance passed around as theory, and all these sheep just seem to follow. Your basis of them being too similar is that they BOTH use a form of black magic, they both summon something, and that stupid wall of zombies skill (and for all we know that might not make it into final production for that very reason).
The big problem is, you cease to realize that they are truly very different. Necro had a lot to do with Bones and Necromancy. He summoned skellys and ressurected fallen creatures to do his bidding. His spells were mostly all some sort of bone or poison attack. He was also the leading Debuff class.
So far, Witch Doctor hardly has a debuff other than Mass Confusion and Horrify, which are more like offensive and time buying spells as opposed to debuffs. Also, where Necro focuses on direct bone and poison spell, the Witch Doctor focuses on very indirect and somewhat mundane magic at times. He uses a lot of Fire techniques, something unheard of to the entirely black magic Necro.
To be very honest they would fit just fine side by side, especially if Blizzard updated Necro to be something a little more modernized to fit the Diablo 3 title. They can and honestly may easily be implemented together simultaniously. Blizzard has already stated (in order to calm Necro fans) that they are definately looking toward him as a possible Expansion character, they just don't want him in the opening line up.
And as for this whole " Necro is 120" crap... Even if the Necro was 120, I bet he could still be moving along just fine. Hes a fucking Necro for christ sakes, half the necros from TONS of series turn into an effin Lich. They just don't die of old age from working with the Necromantic arts. This could easily be associated with the game. That, or you know they could just make A NEW NECRO. Its not like there is only one... There are entire sects of these people and we will probably see a few Necro NPCs when DIablo 3 first comes out. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from making a new character (lorically) to fit the same class as our previous well known white haired hero. Plus they would have to make a chick as well, so they might as well.
As you can probably tell, I highly doubt Necro is down for the count just yet. I wish people would have a little fucking faith in the developers for once instead of crying about how "Blizz ruined my Necro with WD". Your points are moot. They can still easily exist together, in fact Jay Wilson has even mentioned that they are making the Witch Doctor in a way that they CAN exist together. Its part of their design plan to leave a very sweet (necro) option open for later expansions if they choose to bring him out. If they are ALREADY planning ahead for this, chances are they won't let that go to waste...
"Eternal suffering would be too brief for you, Diablo!"
2. I understand their skills are different. But overall gameplay is very similar. More similar than wizard and sorceress.
3. I am not complainig that they ruined the necro. I think they improved the the necro and gave him a new name. I am saying if they add more classes later I want something with more variety to the line up instead of the necro.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I really cannot agree with the statement "Witch Doctor is to Necromancer as Wizard is to Sorceress". Take a look at all the skills that Sorceress and Wizard (respectively) have in common so far: Hydra, Chain Lightning/Electrocute, Frost Nova, and Blizzard. That is 5 skills already in place that are practically identical (if that term can be used when comparing D2 technology to D3).
On the other hand, when you compare the Necromancer to the Witch Doctor, you only get 2 nearly identical skills (respectively): Terror/Horrify and Confuse/Mass Confusion. Other skills are slightly similar in feel, such as summonings and Wall of Bone/Wall of Zombies, however no summon so far are remotely similar other than the fact that they all appear undead. Many WD skills feel very different despite the fact that they all seem related to black magic. In fact, with light on Turmobil's post, their methods of dark magic are very different. Necromancer relates to his name, he uses Necromancy. The Witch Doctor uses a very different brand of dark magic: Tribal Voodoo. To be honest though, as far as similar skills, we don't even have enough of the WD skills to know how close the two classes will really be. If we wanted to get even more technical, we don't even know if half of the existing skills will make it into final production.
Honestly the thing that irks me the most is that many people can't possibly fathom the Necro ever existing with the WD in play, or think they would be too much alike. As I mentioned before, Jay Wilson has made it clear that the WD is intentionally being developed in a way that allows them to coincide freely.
If the WD was in a different game (not blizzard) how many blizzard fans would say "they ripped off the necro and just changed his looks (spells included)"?
I am not saying they are the exact same. Just too similar IMO
to turmobil:
please don't turn this into a battle.net thread calling people dumbass especially when there is no merit behind it. Tell them you disagree, you think they are wrong or even how could you think that but name calling... come on, we are above this. I never claimed that the summons were the same. I can see the difference between damage and distraction. First off, how do you know the WD pets are only for distraction? Secondly, looking at diablo not every class has summons. In d2 both the necro and Druid did. That means they have that in common. If the WD is the thrid then they share that trait. In d2 your summons were numbers vs. strength. We don't know how the WD summons will act but they are still summons.
the wizard and sorceress do have very similar skills, but the wizard also has arcane which is basically supposed to be time manipulation. That can completely change a play style. If this is seen as similar enough to compare the classes than why are the WD and necro not. What is so different about them that they would play differently?
And yes morden. We don't really know all the WD has to offer. But as of now IMO they are similar
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I don't even need to use any arguments. Read WD's lore in D3 website and Necro's lore in the Arreat Summit and see the absolute absense of similarities.
Looks:
Necromancer are palid, have white long hair and use armor made out of bones. Witch Doctor have dark skin, no hair and use colorfull-tropical-tribal cloths. Your similarities are so vague that belongs to a mind that are seeking then. They style are 100% different - necromancer are truely that dark-creepy medieval character. The WD style is more picturesque, hes above all things exotic and weird - his stetic is more to "bizarre" then "dark".
Gameplay:
I wonder why you think the WD gameplay and the Necro are similar if you never played with him ?
A friend of mine played the blizzcon demo and i will reproduce his words:
" The Witch Doctor are completly different from the necromancer. The mongrels kill stuff very fast but dies even faster - it feels more like D1's Elemental spell then any D2 summon. Also his 2 crowd controls are essentials, it's like using frost nova and fear in wow."
So his summon are veyr different. If can't imagine two diferent summoner classes just look at D2. The Trap Sin is not but a SUMMONER - still the gameplay between a skellymancer and a trap sin are very clear.
The necromancer curses have totally different use then a WD curses. In most cases (AD, IM and LR, the 3 most used curses) have the function to directly increase the overall DPS of the party, not to crowd control. Andthe WD curses are pure straight cc's.
Also the comparison between the Bone and the Fire are beyond non sense. The two fire spells we know so far (Fire Bats and Skull) are basically mid range spells. And necromancer bone spells don't have mid, but a super master large range. You can hit stuff from outside of the screen with bone spirit. Actually, range is one of the very advantages of the bonenecro - he can hit the enemy from really far away. The mid-range caster in D2 are the Druid since he really needs to be close to his enemy to cst anything because the spell have a low range or because it takes a random direction or because it's travel speed is to slow.
Imo the only similarity between those 2 classes are - both summon undeads and use poison damage. A very vague one if you ask me.
They look way different, their direct combat skills are completely different, and their lore is obviously way different. The only thing keeping them closely similar is their two or three similar spells, their ability to summon undead (which so far have been very different in style), and their architype as a dark magic user (even though they use two completely different sects of dark magic lorically).
Characters aren't just about looks and spells either, they are about the way they feel. Though I have not played WD myself, it appears as though it would feel MUCH different than a Necro in play (as Italofoca tells us his friend has confirmed). For all we know a D3 expansion Necro may feel different than the D2 Necro on its own, thus separating the feel of the classes even farther.
Its all speculation at this point, but if you seriously listen to the way they have talked about Necro in the Blizzcon 08 vids, they really sound like Necro has a good shot at an expansion return.
Barb- melee/buffs/buffs(group)
sorceress- magic/magic/magic
amazon - ranged melee/melee/buffs
pally - magic and melee/buffs(offense)/buffs(defense)
necro - summons/magic/debuffs
druid - summon/magic/shape shift
assassin - traps/melee/melee and magic
new barb - melee/melee/melee
wizard - magic/magic/magic
WD - summon/magic/debuffs
If they add a necro in an expansion, IMO it will be to appease fans more than to compliment the game play. There are just so many new ideas and play styles they could add.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Now, comparing the D2 Necro to the D3 Witch Doctor is like comparing apples to oranges, especially with your partially incorrect list up there (which didn't even mention Druid or Assassin). The first big thing you need to realize, the Necro had a whole tree dedicated to debuffs (Curses). They weren't just CC debuffs, we are talking a whole tree of stat and utility debuffs alike.
The only two debuffs WD even has are taken from the Necro, I will admit, but he doesn't have a debuff tree. His debuff spells fit in with other trees. Instead of a debuff tree, he has 3 distinctly different trees that do not focus exactly on the same things Necro did, rather they focus on different types of magic that a tribal WD would focus. Were they to implement a Necromancer using the same exact trees (which I doubt, as we are comparing apples to oranges here), you would have a tree focusing specifically on summons, one specifically on spells, and one specifically on debuffs. There really is a difference, even when you do "take a look at the larger picture".
Now I don't know about you, but two debuffs, one similar spell, and the ability to summon one creature (so far) does not tell me that WD is replacing the Necro. It does not at all tell me that these characters cannot coincide. It does not tell me that a WD will feel remotely similar in play to the Necro (other than the fact that they are both casters with summons). It also does not tell me that a new Necromancer could not reinvent the Necromancer concept into something even better and more innovative than before while keeping a different feel from the Witch Doctor.
The problem I have is that you are basing these assumptions off of the fact that the D3 WD and the D2 Necro currently share 2 abilities, have a similar spell (Zombie Wall vs. Bone Wall) , and the fact they are casters who choose a darker sect of magic (through art and lore). Not only that, you are suggesting that since they are so similar, Blizzard shouldn't even bother to implement one of the funnest Diablo classes every created? The Necromancer has been voted the most popular D2 class ever made, and even many Bliz devs themselves share this love. Blizzard has already suggested that they are making the WD feel different so that a Necro could easily make a come back in an expansion, which I personally would be all in favor of, as I too loved the Necro.
Am I saying these two classes aren't similar? No, I never said that. Do we know they will even feel close to the same if/when they both show up side by side? No, we don't know that either. All I am saying is that I have a good feeling that Necromancer isn't down for the count. Blizz has mentioned it themselves.
sorry about the absence of the druid and assassin i was typing on my iphone when it closed out and i had to retype and i forgot but i have added them now.
I realize this that is why i said if they add him it will be for the fans
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team