This thread is not to give my opinions but just show my logic process in guessing which other classes we will see. I know there are other threads doing this already: I don't care.
Blizzard has said that none of the other 3 classes will be repeated from previous versions.
Blizzard has also said that the name of the class will be something well recognized so that
you instantly have an idea about what types of abilities it might use just from the name. ie, some kind of a purist class, no 'dervish', because nobody knows exctly what a dervish is.
Lets look at the previous Diablo classes because we know for sure the last 3 will be none of these, not in name OR in exact function:
They've already created a brute force class and a summoner class. They are sure to add
a pure magic class and a more civilized fighter class as well.
Possible magic user classes:
Warlock. The problem with warlock is the female counterpart is a witch, and theyalready have a witch doctor. Still, they might ignore this and just allow for male/female warlocks.It would probably specialize in some dark magics. However this might conflict with the Witch Doctor a little too much.
Sage. Probably a mix between wizard and druid, but what exactly does a sage do? I'm not sure, so it's probably out.
Elementalist. Previous sorcerer was basically an elementalist already, so we can forget about seeing this one.
Illusionist. This would be a pure magic user class but focus on a different aspect of magic than the elemental stuffused previously.
Possible civilized fighter class:
Cleric. As we have never had a healer class in D2 except for "sortof" the Paladin, and the previous monk was more of a martial artist. I think this might be a good possibility.
Ranger. Also a good possibility because we all know what ranger does, and its not quire a Druid...but there are a lotof wilderness areas and its always been a popular choice among players. Could replace the rogue/amazon and fighter/paladin class simultaneously.
Samurai. Possible...but, probably not just because its not European.
Crusader. Can't see how this would be any different from the Paladin, which they aren't remaking, so it can't be this.
Knight. Well, this would be exactly like the warrior and similar to paladin. Still, how can you make a game like Diablo WITHOUT a class like a Knight? It's such a classic icon. D1's Warrior looked like a Knight but they didn't focus on skills back then. D2's Paladin focused a lot on the holy aspects of a knight. We could have a knight that was not religious oriented and had a skill tree focusing more on tactical combat without being such a brute as the barbarian. For this reason, I think the Knight is a good possibility.
Paragon/Angel-knight. I'm not exactly sure what they could call this without sounding too godly, but its a viable class. Most similar to Paladin for sure..but definitely different. The drawing on Blizzcon 2008 bg really looks like a playable class to me.
Possible third class: I think we can expect at least one more highly creative class like the witch doctor from D3. This makes it a little more difficult to predict. However, since so many things have been done already, there really aren't too many more logical choices left for different mechanics.
Artificer. These are interersting variants we havent seen before, but they aren't pure magic users.Probably would be something like a Gnome from D&D or the Engineer from Hellgate:London, only using more archaictype artifacts like from M:Tg. I'm thinking like Urza or Mishra.
Alchemist. I think this is a pretty good new possibility too. Someone who really focuses on using potions, perhaps with a lot of skills that work off of like the throwable potions from D2.
Demon Prince / Dark Knight. Someone else suggested this. My thought is no, because its too contrived, and too evil. We are fighting evil, remember? The whole concept of an evil death knight turned good is kind of ridiculous.
Shapeshifter. Has been suggested. But this is what the Druid was alredy, so forget it. Not happening.
What about the rogue-like, you say? I think this class is basically out, unless they somehow mix it with the civilized fighter -- eg, like with the Ranger. Simply because they cant do without a real fighter and magic user, and will probably want something more creative for the last class, and so many rogue options have been used already: rogue, amazon, assassin...seriously there is not much left except for like "swashbuckler" and "thief" neither of which fit in such a combat oriented setting.
To summarize, I think the most likely additional classes are narrowed down to the following (in no particular order): Warlock, Illusionist, Cleric, Ranger, Knight, Artificer, Alchemist
I think the Illusionist would be a more interesting magic user class than the warlock, who would have to specialize in dark magics...and since weve already had a witch doctor and necromancer that both specialize in dark magic already, I think illusionist is more likely. Probably would be similar to D&D illusionist mage or mesmer from GW.
Between Artificer and Alchemist, I think alchemist is more likely because artificer might quickly turn into some type of a summoner class...or even worse, some super high tech gadgety dude.
As for the remaining fighter class, the logical options remaining are cleric, ranger, or knight. cleric isn't much of a hardcore fighter and healing isnt that good because diablo isnt really that party based. I know the paladin was attempted to be a party character but its not like people used him that way. As much as I like the knight I think a ranger is more likely, becausae it also supplants the roguelike wannabe's...and is a bit newer to the diablo world than a pure knight class.
Ok, so, my final set of predictions for D3 classes are...drumroll...
Its pretty well thought out. It kind of helps to sort out my own thoughts, thanks. But lol, these ARE your opinions - they are certainly not fact (especially since you keep using the phrase 'I think', lol).
But, a Warlock is not a male witch. Thats just the latest 'trend' to follow. You can technically have male 'witches', and you can have female warlocks.
not in name OR in exact function
They didn't say not in exact function, did they? I mean, a spellcaster is a spellcaster, no matter the name or the spells they use. 'Spell-casting' is a function, so if they aren't gonna have a class that does the same functions as a previous class, then they wouldn't have a spellcaster (Sorcerer, Sorceress, Mage, Sage, Warlock, whatever).
But basically, we know that they are gonna have some sort of ranged-fighter and a spell-caster - its the fifth class thats the most debatable and the one that seems the most interesting (though I am looking forward to the revealing of the spell-caster the most).
But, a Warlock is not a male witch. Thats just the latest 'trend' to follow. You can technically have male 'witches', and you can have female warlocks.
The definition of the word warlock is a male witch. That's not the latest trend, it's the meaning of the word. Of course, any game designer can twist that meaning around if they want to -- I know WoW has a warlock class and I bet they allow it to be female.
They didn't say not in exact function, did they? I mean, a spellcaster is a spellcaster, no matter the name or the spells they use. 'Spell-casting' is a function, so if they aren't gonna have a class that does the same functions as a previous class, then they wouldn't have a spellcaster (Sorcerer, Sorceress, Mage, Sage, Warlock, whatever).
They said that they are not remaking any of the old classes other than Barbarian in the base game. They also said that the Barbarian started out as being called something else, but the class design was basically the same as the Barbarian, and it would be pointless to name it something else if it was essentially a Barbarian, so they just called it the Barbarian. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that they are not going to remake an old character and just change its name, which rules out any new ideas for a character class that are basically the same as an old class.
Also, they said that they didn't want to remake the Necro class because they felt like they did a good job with it the first time around. The designers didnt want to simply copy old skill trees, because that isnt fun to design. All these tidbits of information give us unsight into the mind of the developers and makes it obvious that they are not going to make repeat classes.
This does not mean that, since somebody used magic in D2, nobody will use magic in D3. They have to keep the classes balanced and they have to appeal to the tactical preferences of players. There will always be some players who prefer to play ranged, up-close, spellcast, summon, etc. We can be confident that eachl of these major desires will be satisfied by some class simply to balance the game and appeal to the fanbase.
Alchemist - heck no.
1) making potions is interesting to some, boring to many
2) Witch Doctor is already based in earthly magic - throwing firebombs (aka unstable concoctions aka exploding potions) and whatnot
My guess is in my sig:
Ranger - more pets, assassin's traps, and ranged mastery. Has a name everyone understands, and I think Wilson said in a recent interview that the next class to be announced might upset some people because it will be very similar to an old class (amazon)
Warlock - lightning, ice, and shadow. Lightning and ice are sorceress basics, and since WD has fire, I replaced it with "shadow," which would be generic "dark" magic. Also, has name everyone understands.
Demonologist - could probably use a better name. However, it is a very dark character, that has the same mood as the Necromancer. And, rather than just being a caster or just a warrior, it's a warrior/caster hybrid - it'lll shapeshift, attack physically, but summon furies to add team bonuses, and use bone skills to supplement the physical damage
Problems with my idea - Warlock is too similar to sorceress, and Demonologist isn't solid thematically
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ranger - Ranged Weapon Mastery (fire a bow or javelins like a machine gun!), Traps (MK style!), Pets (lions, tigers, and bears oh my!) - physical damage based
Demonologist - Bone Spells (Necro style!), Avatar (shapeshift into a demon!), Furies (evil spirits that hang around you, giving party bonuses) - mix of physical damage and magic
LEAP ATTACK!!!!! PLAGUE OF TOADS!!!!!
SLOW TIME!!!!!
I like the way you think (OP). However, as Atrumentis said, no one is saying that they are trying to get away from the functionality of the old classes. That would be impossible! On the contrary - they want classes to be archetypal. Diablo 1 really broke it down to the essential, and D2 expanded on it and spiced it up. I made my own set of predictions in another thread, so I'll just quote myself:
Quote from "Dimebog" »
Blackguard: The opposite version of Paladin combining melee and direct-damage spells.
Archmage: Evil version of a pure non-summoner caster specialized in cold and shadow-type of direct damage spells instead elemental schools, for a change (in D1 and D2, necromantic spells were classified simply as Magic damage, but they could rename it to Shadow or Unholy for the sake of consistency).
Vipermage: Same as above. Handling poison and fire damage and hypnosis.
Shadowdancer: An Assassin type of a class that is more magical and less kinetic in nature. Uses stealth.
Warlord: A class handling ranged weapons and polearms but also magical abilities which debuff enemies and buff allies in terms of combat readyness.
Who knows, my ideas are pretty obscure, but I might have nailed at least one. D3 could use something like the Warlord class I mentioned. In other words, there has to be:
a) Plain caster. They have to invent something new. Repeating the old set of elemental skills is out of question.
A ranged class. It HAS to be there. Rogue/Amazon type of a character, just probably more diverse and imaginative.
c) A knightly figure. Warrior of light is Paladin, no matter how you take it - so what could it be? Warrior of dark? Just go crazy and think of typical D&D names for dark... knights.
The definition of the word warlock is a male witch. That's not the latest trend, it's the meaning of the word. Of course, any game designer can twist that meaning around if they want to -- I know WoW has a warlock class and I bet they allow it to be female.
No, thats not the definition. The definition depends on your culture, and culture depends on the latest trend (which is what culture is). The word 'warlock' comes from the old english term 'waer logger', meaning 'covenant breaker' or 'traitor', which is why they are generally considered evil. Nowadays though, thanks to the media (like games), people now define it as just a male witch. But call a real male witch a warlock and he will likely be highly offended at being called a traitor. As I said, it depends on the latest trend and culture. The definition of every word is based on some sort of latest trend.
It does refer to only male witches being the traitors though, so yes I was wrong about there being female warlocks, but "warlock = male witch" is certainly not the only definitive term (and its certainly not a definition that isn't based on culture).
No, thats not the definition. The definition depends on your culture, and culture depends on the latest trend (which is what culture is). The word 'warlock' comes from the old english term 'waer logger', meaning 'covenant breaker' or 'traitor', which is why they are generally considered evil. Nowadays though, thanks to the media (like games), people now define it as just a male witch. But call a real male witch a warlock and he will likely be highly offended at being called a traitor. As I said, it depends on the latest trend and culture. The definition of every word is based on some sort of latest trend.
It does refer to only male witches being the traitors though, so yes I was wrong about there being female warlocks, but "warlock = male witch" is certainly not the only definitive term (and its certainly not a definition that isn't based on culture).
After thinking about it more, 1ord i3eans I think you may be right that Alchemist is too similar to witch doctor. And Dimebag, you're right, we NEED a knightly class.
Many people have suggested an evilish knightly class. I think its also possible to see an Angelic knightly class, sort of like the Tyrael brand.
So, maybe this is a more likely lineup:
Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Illusionist, Angelic or Evil Knight, Ranger
Oh, and as for the Blizzcon announcement...I'm betting that they announce the Ranger first
I agreed with the ranger concept. Before they said that the only returning class would be the barbarian i though it was a Rogue (Bow/Dagger user with trap and stealth) but now i think the name can change for something like that.
My other two guesses are:
Hyerophant: A class that can mix some elemental magic, white magic and ''pure'' magic. See my tread about him hehe.
Black/Hell/Bloody (anything wicked) Knigh: A melee class that uses fire spells, lifesteal attacks and suportive skills.
WD is already a Shaman with a twist. It doesn't get anymore 'shamany' than him.
Hunter on the other hand might be a possible choice, but that would cause some commotion since there's a Hunter class in WoW (among classes like the Paladin, Warrior, Mage, Druid, Rogue which all existed in the Diablo universe)... You can't really argue with those people - their reasoning is messed up by too much CNN and MTV.
haha they are all not gonna be in the game.. but in all seriousness i think there will be some type of full magic user class, a class that can use bows maybe/maybe not as their primary weapon who knows and the last class who knows.. but they will definately not be any of the old classes.
i'd agree much with this name since its as suited for the Diablo universe as Rogue and Amazon. Its already been used in the Sin War Trilogy (Uldyssian's friend Achilios was a great hunter).
Quote from "Eldius" »
Crusader (Paladin)
sounds to me more like a different name for the same class. The abilities of a crusader should be about the same as those of a paladin. There may be "some" similarities, but i highly doubt we're going to see renamed classes. Barbarian is the only class to remain in the game because it felt like the same class after they created him. They aimed for the pure melee class... a whole new class and ended up with him so they kept the name.
Quote from "Dimebog" »
WD is already a Shaman with a twist. It doesn't get anymore 'shamany' than him.
Heh you all got it wrong. Look at these Warrior, Rogue, Sorcerer, Witch Doctor, Barbarian SHAZAM FIVE CHARACTERS ALL LAYED OUT RIGHT THERE!!! We dont need all these fancy smazy names like cleric or bard or them weird lil fairys lets keep it plain and simple and just play a bad ass game without spending five hours figuring out our characters (we probably will stilll do that anyway ) Just my personal opinion I honestly dont care as long as theres characters to choose from
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
www.myspace.com/mpotatoes for all your Trans Siberian Orchestra listening pleasure
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
Yeah, I think a knightly class would be getting closer than alchemist.
However... who says a knight class is needed? What's stopping you from getting knightly gear for your barbarian? ^^
But if there is a knight class, I could definitely see it being a melee/caster or melee/support hybrid, with either a good slant, an evil slant, or the ability to go either good or evil
@DesmondTiny - Warrior would just be a boring version of the Barbarian, so no
@Julian_Grey - yep, just coincidence... though I did steal the name demonologist off somebody else
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ranger - Ranged Weapon Mastery (fire a bow or javelins like a machine gun!), Traps (MK style!), Pets (lions, tigers, and bears oh my!) - physical damage based
Demonologist - Bone Spells (Necro style!), Avatar (shapeshift into a demon!), Furies (evil spirits that hang around you, giving party bonuses) - mix of physical damage and magic
LEAP ATTACK!!!!! PLAGUE OF TOADS!!!!!
SLOW TIME!!!!!
I honestly believe that all this guessing will get us no where
but in soem interview jay willson said that soem of the original ideas for the Barb name may be used for a different class so I think that could be a melee-range mix or the other melee character like Amazon or Paladin.
Probaly something liek Mountainman, Bounty Hunter or something doesn't matter what you name it those are possibilities
Also Pure-caster is a must obviously
FInally I think the some character class will have a if not completely asian infuence a semi asian influence (like the assassin from D2) possibly could be there caster but who knows
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't believe hair metal used to be cool...
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
YUCK!
Yeah, I think a knightly class would be getting closer than alchemist.
However... who says a knight class is needed? What's stopping you from getting knightly gear for your barbarian? ^^
But if there is a knight class, I could definitely see it being a melee/caster or melee/support hybrid, with either a good slant, an evil slant, or the ability to go either good or evil
Yes, they both prefer the clash of cold steel to the conjuration of deadly spells, but apart from that they could not be more distant relatives.
The barbarian is an uncivilized brute running around half-naked with bulbous muscles carrying giant axes covered in warpaint howling raping and pillaging every village in his path.
The knight, on the other hand, is a dashing silver-clad hero who lives by a strict code of honor and justice, and he only rapes and pillages people of differing religions.
I hate the barbarians guts, he has no class...I never play that shit and im sure if I put knightly armor on him his steroid pumped muscles would burst it out at the seems and not look remotely chivalrous. How am I going to be slaying demons and saving damsels then??
Blizzard are intentionally making the classes not clear cut- but they are covering their old bases, just with more variety within each character. They're also making each character distinct and avoiding RPG stereotyping to keep people guessing.
The witchdoctor, for example, is covering Fire, Poison and summons and is an entirely new diablo class.
While the barb is old and traditional, it isn't just any barb, it's very clearly a diablo barb from harrogath with all the associated baggage. He's got party buffs and melee.
I'm thinking we'll see something using frost and lightning eventually- stormcaster perhaps? Which'll be the most sorc-related class. Could well also use shapeshifting, into a hawk or something.
Civilised fighter class seems pretty likely, though I'm not sure if they'll go wholesome knight/archer or something agile and stealth-based. Whatever the case it'll be something along the lines of a rogue or mercenary "working purely for the money but perhaps finding a greater truth along the way" or "a gifted fighter of the stealthy/stabby guild of *whatever the big city's called* finally finding adequate use of his years of devout training"..
There'll be another wildcard in there- I'm thinking psychic based but whatever.
Yes, they both prefer the clash of cold steel to the conjuration of deadly spells, but apart from that they could not be more distant relatives.
The barbarian is an uncivilized brute running around half-naked with bulbous muscles carrying giant axes covered in warpaint howling raping and pillaging every village in his path.
The knight, on the other hand, is a dashing silver-clad hero who lives by a strict code of honor and justice, and he only rapes and pillages people of differing religions.
I hate the barbarians guts, he has no class...I never play that shit and im sure if I put knightly armor on him his steroid pumped muscles would burst it out at the seems and not look remotely chivalrous. How am I going to be slaying demons and saving damsels then??
Knights are nor but a christian-paranoid barbarians with plates and gold. Theres no class in a knight fight style. They are brutish like their ancestors. Theres no such a thing as chivalary. Those are only romantic legends. Knigths are brutish and merciless, and they don't save damsels, they fucked their servant's wives.
So a knight in a diablo game would be just a Barbarian 2. Makes no sense for me.
After thinking about it more, 1ord i3eans I think you may be right that Alchemist is too similar to witch doctor. And Dimebag, you're right, we NEED a knightly class.
Many people have suggested an evilish knightly class. I think its also possible to see an Angelic knightly class, sort of like the Tyrael brand.
So, maybe this is a more likely lineup:
Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Illusionist, Angelic or Evil Knight, Ranger
Oh, and as for the Blizzcon announcement...I'm betting that they announce the Ranger first
I also like the idea of the evil knight.. I think as a bonus, an evil knight should be less detected by other evil things (due to is similar evilness) as compared to normal characters. I would be great to have a 25% or so less detected bonus just to help things along. Say he could collect set items to add to his less detected by evil bonus.
I guess it would be better to say un-noticed, as evil would detect other evil just not pay much attn to it.
To even this out you could make a evil knight more easily detected by non evil/summoned monsters.
The evil knight could travel behind his party when its likely to encounter a non evil foe and travel up front when evil is afoot.
What ya think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Blizzard has said that none of the other 3 classes will be repeated from previous versions.
Blizzard has also said that the name of the class will be something well recognized so that
you instantly have an idea about what types of abilities it might use just from the name. ie, some kind of a purist class, no 'dervish', because nobody knows exctly what a dervish is.
Lets look at the previous Diablo classes because we know for sure the last 3 will be none of these, not in name OR in exact function:
D1 classes---------
rogue
sorcerer
warrior
* monk
* bard
* barbarian
D2 Classes---------
amazon
barbarian
sorceress
paladin
necromancer
* assassin
* druid
D3 Classes---------
Barbarian
Witch Doctor
They've already created a brute force class and a summoner class. They are sure to add
a pure magic class and a more civilized fighter class as well.
Possible magic user classes:
- Warlock. The problem with warlock is the female counterpart is a witch, and theyalready have a witch doctor. Still, they might ignore this and just allow for male/female warlocks.It would probably specialize in some dark magics. However this might conflict with the Witch Doctor a little too much.
- Sage. Probably a mix between wizard and druid, but what exactly does a sage do? I'm not sure, so it's probably out.
- Elementalist. Previous sorcerer was basically an elementalist already, so we can forget about seeing this one.
- Illusionist. This would be a pure magic user class but focus on a different aspect of magic than the elemental stuffused previously.
Possible civilized fighter class:- Cleric. As we have never had a healer class in D2 except for "sortof" the Paladin, and the previous monk was more of a martial artist. I think this might be a good possibility.
- Ranger. Also a good possibility because we all know what ranger does, and its not quire a Druid...but there are a lotof wilderness areas and its always been a popular choice among players. Could replace the rogue/amazon and fighter/paladin class simultaneously.
- Samurai. Possible...but, probably not just because its not European.
- Crusader. Can't see how this would be any different from the Paladin, which they aren't remaking, so it can't be this.
- Knight. Well, this would be exactly like the warrior and similar to paladin. Still, how can you make a game like Diablo WITHOUT a class like a Knight? It's such a classic icon. D1's Warrior looked like a Knight but they didn't focus on skills back then. D2's Paladin focused a lot on the holy aspects of a knight. We could have a knight that was not religious oriented and had a skill tree focusing more on tactical combat without being such a brute as the barbarian. For this reason, I think the Knight is a good possibility.
- Paragon/Angel-knight. I'm not exactly sure what they could call this without sounding too godly, but its a viable class. Most similar to Paladin for sure..but definitely different. The drawing on Blizzcon 2008 bg really looks like a playable class to me.
Possible third class:I think we can expect at least one more highly creative class like the witch doctor from D3. This makes it a little more difficult to predict. However, since so many things have been done already, there really aren't too many more logical choices left for different mechanics.
- Artificer. These are interersting variants we havent seen before, but they aren't pure magic users.Probably would be something like a Gnome from D&D or the Engineer from Hellgate:London, only using more archaictype artifacts like from M:Tg. I'm thinking like Urza or Mishra.
- Alchemist. I think this is a pretty good new possibility too. Someone who really focuses on using potions, perhaps with a lot of skills that work off of like the throwable potions from D2.
- Demon Prince / Dark Knight. Someone else suggested this. My thought is no, because its too contrived, and too evil. We are fighting evil, remember? The whole concept of an evil death knight turned good is kind of ridiculous.
- Shapeshifter. Has been suggested. But this is what the Druid was alredy, so forget it. Not happening.
What about the rogue-like, you say? I think this class is basically out, unless they somehow mix it with the civilized fighter -- eg, like with the Ranger. Simply because they cant do without a real fighter and magic user, and will probably want something more creative for the last class, and so many rogue options have been used already: rogue, amazon, assassin...seriously there is not much left except for like "swashbuckler" and "thief" neither of which fit in such a combat oriented setting.To summarize, I think the most likely additional classes are narrowed down to the following (in no particular order): Warlock, Illusionist, Cleric, Ranger, Knight, Artificer, Alchemist
I think the Illusionist would be a more interesting magic user class than the warlock, who would have to specialize in dark magics...and since weve already had a witch doctor and necromancer that both specialize in dark magic already, I think illusionist is more likely. Probably would be similar to D&D illusionist mage or mesmer from GW.
Between Artificer and Alchemist, I think alchemist is more likely because artificer might quickly turn into some type of a summoner class...or even worse, some super high tech gadgety dude.
As for the remaining fighter class, the logical options remaining are cleric, ranger, or knight. cleric isn't much of a hardcore fighter and healing isnt that good because diablo isnt really that party based. I know the paladin was attempted to be a party character but its not like people used him that way. As much as I like the knight I think a ranger is more likely, becausae it also supplants the roguelike wannabe's...and is a bit newer to the diablo world than a pure knight class.
Ok, so, my final set of predictions for D3 classes are...drumroll...
Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Illusionist, Alchemist, Ranger
But, a Warlock is not a male witch. Thats just the latest 'trend' to follow. You can technically have male 'witches', and you can have female warlocks.
They didn't say not in exact function, did they? I mean, a spellcaster is a spellcaster, no matter the name or the spells they use. 'Spell-casting' is a function, so if they aren't gonna have a class that does the same functions as a previous class, then they wouldn't have a spellcaster (Sorcerer, Sorceress, Mage, Sage, Warlock, whatever).
But basically, we know that they are gonna have some sort of ranged-fighter and a spell-caster - its the fifth class thats the most debatable and the one that seems the most interesting (though I am looking forward to the revealing of the spell-caster the most).
The definition of the word warlock is a male witch. That's not the latest trend, it's the meaning of the word. Of course, any game designer can twist that meaning around if they want to -- I know WoW has a warlock class and I bet they allow it to be female.
They said that they are not remaking any of the old classes other than Barbarian in the base game. They also said that the Barbarian started out as being called something else, but the class design was basically the same as the Barbarian, and it would be pointless to name it something else if it was essentially a Barbarian, so they just called it the Barbarian. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that they are not going to remake an old character and just change its name, which rules out any new ideas for a character class that are basically the same as an old class.
Also, they said that they didn't want to remake the Necro class because they felt like they did a good job with it the first time around. The designers didnt want to simply copy old skill trees, because that isnt fun to design. All these tidbits of information give us unsight into the mind of the developers and makes it obvious that they are not going to make repeat classes.
This does not mean that, since somebody used magic in D2, nobody will use magic in D3. They have to keep the classes balanced and they have to appeal to the tactical preferences of players. There will always be some players who prefer to play ranged, up-close, spellcast, summon, etc. We can be confident that eachl of these major desires will be satisfied by some class simply to balance the game and appeal to the fanbase.
1) making potions is interesting to some, boring to many
2) Witch Doctor is already based in earthly magic - throwing firebombs (aka unstable concoctions aka exploding potions) and whatnot
My guess is in my sig:
Ranger - more pets, assassin's traps, and ranged mastery. Has a name everyone understands, and I think Wilson said in a recent interview that the next class to be announced might upset some people because it will be very similar to an old class (amazon)
Warlock - lightning, ice, and shadow. Lightning and ice are sorceress basics, and since WD has fire, I replaced it with "shadow," which would be generic "dark" magic. Also, has name everyone understands.
Demonologist - could probably use a better name. However, it is a very dark character, that has the same mood as the Necromancer. And, rather than just being a caster or just a warrior, it's a warrior/caster hybrid - it'lll shapeshift, attack physically, but summon furies to add team bonuses, and use bone skills to supplement the physical damage
Problems with my idea - Warlock is too similar to sorceress, and Demonologist isn't solid thematically
Demonologist - Bone Spells (Necro style!), Avatar (shapeshift into a demon!), Furies (evil spirits that hang around you, giving party bonuses) - mix of physical damage and magic
LEAP ATTACK!!!!!
PLAGUE OF TOADS!!!!!
SLOW TIME!!!!!
Who knows, my ideas are pretty obscure, but I might have nailed at least one. D3 could use something like the Warlord class I mentioned. In other words, there has to be:
a) Plain caster. They have to invent something new. Repeating the old set of elemental skills is out of question.
c) A knightly figure. Warrior of light is Paladin, no matter how you take it - so what could it be? Warrior of dark? Just go crazy and think of typical D&D names for dark... knights.
That's my POV.
No, thats not the definition. The definition depends on your culture, and culture depends on the latest trend (which is what culture is). The word 'warlock' comes from the old english term 'waer logger', meaning 'covenant breaker' or 'traitor', which is why they are generally considered evil. Nowadays though, thanks to the media (like games), people now define it as just a male witch. But call a real male witch a warlock and he will likely be highly offended at being called a traitor. As I said, it depends on the latest trend and culture. The definition of every word is based on some sort of latest trend.
It does refer to only male witches being the traitors though, so yes I was wrong about there being female warlocks, but "warlock = male witch" is certainly not the only definitive term (and its certainly not a definition that isn't based on culture).
Many people have suggested an evilish knightly class. I think its also possible to see an Angelic knightly class, sort of like the Tyrael brand.
So, maybe this is a more likely lineup:
Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Illusionist, Angelic or Evil Knight, Ranger
Oh, and as for the Blizzcon announcement...I'm betting that they announce the Ranger first
My other two guesses are:
Hyerophant: A class that can mix some elemental magic, white magic and ''pure'' magic. See my tread about him hehe.
Black/Hell/Bloody (anything wicked) Knigh: A melee class that uses fire spells, lifesteal attacks and suportive skills.
Hunter on the other hand might be a possible choice, but that would cause some commotion since there's a Hunter class in WoW (among classes like the Paladin, Warrior, Mage, Druid, Rogue which all existed in the Diablo universe)... You can't really argue with those people - their reasoning is messed up by too much CNN and MTV.
haha they are all not gonna be in the game.. but in all seriousness i think there will be some type of full magic user class, a class that can use bows maybe/maybe not as their primary weapon who knows and the last class who knows.. but they will definately not be any of the old classes.
i'd agree much with this name since its as suited for the Diablo universe as Rogue and Amazon. Its already been used in the Sin War Trilogy (Uldyssian's friend Achilios was a great hunter).
sounds to me more like a different name for the same class. The abilities of a crusader should be about the same as those of a paladin. There may be "some" similarities, but i highly doubt we're going to see renamed classes. Barbarian is the only class to remain in the game because it felt like the same class after they created him. They aimed for the pure melee class... a whole new class and ended up with him so they kept the name.
fact!
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
However... who says a knight class is needed? What's stopping you from getting knightly gear for your barbarian? ^^
But if there is a knight class, I could definitely see it being a melee/caster or melee/support hybrid, with either a good slant, an evil slant, or the ability to go either good or evil
@DesmondTiny - Warrior would just be a boring version of the Barbarian, so no
@Julian_Grey - yep, just coincidence... though I did steal the name demonologist off somebody else
Demonologist - Bone Spells (Necro style!), Avatar (shapeshift into a demon!), Furies (evil spirits that hang around you, giving party bonuses) - mix of physical damage and magic
LEAP ATTACK!!!!!
PLAGUE OF TOADS!!!!!
SLOW TIME!!!!!
but in soem interview jay willson said that soem of the original ideas for the Barb name may be used for a different class so I think that could be a melee-range mix or the other melee character like Amazon or Paladin.
Probaly something liek Mountainman, Bounty Hunter or something doesn't matter what you name it those are possibilities
Also Pure-caster is a must obviously
FInally I think the some character class will have a if not completely asian infuence a semi asian influence (like the assassin from D2) possibly could be there caster but who knows
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
YUCK!
Yes, they both prefer the clash of cold steel to the conjuration of deadly spells, but apart from that they could not be more distant relatives.
The barbarian is an uncivilized brute running around half-naked with bulbous muscles carrying giant axes covered in warpaint howling raping and pillaging every village in his path.
The knight, on the other hand, is a dashing silver-clad hero who lives by a strict code of honor and justice, and he only rapes and pillages people of differing religions.
I hate the barbarians guts, he has no class...I never play that shit and im sure if I put knightly armor on him his steroid pumped muscles would burst it out at the seems and not look remotely chivalrous. How am I going to be slaying demons and saving damsels then??
The witchdoctor, for example, is covering Fire, Poison and summons and is an entirely new diablo class.
While the barb is old and traditional, it isn't just any barb, it's very clearly a diablo barb from harrogath with all the associated baggage. He's got party buffs and melee.
I'm thinking we'll see something using frost and lightning eventually- stormcaster perhaps? Which'll be the most sorc-related class. Could well also use shapeshifting, into a hawk or something.
Civilised fighter class seems pretty likely, though I'm not sure if they'll go wholesome knight/archer or something agile and stealth-based. Whatever the case it'll be something along the lines of a rogue or mercenary "working purely for the money but perhaps finding a greater truth along the way" or "a gifted fighter of the stealthy/stabby guild of *whatever the big city's called* finally finding adequate use of his years of devout training"..
There'll be another wildcard in there- I'm thinking psychic based but whatever.
I just want someone to summon skeletons.
Knights are nor but a christian-paranoid barbarians with plates and gold. Theres no class in a knight fight style. They are brutish like their ancestors. Theres no such a thing as chivalary. Those are only romantic legends. Knigths are brutish and merciless, and they don't save damsels, they fucked their servant's wives.
So a knight in a diablo game would be just a Barbarian 2. Makes no sense for me.
I also like the idea of the evil knight.. I think as a bonus, an evil knight should be less detected by other evil things (due to is similar evilness) as compared to normal characters. I would be great to have a 25% or so less detected bonus just to help things along. Say he could collect set items to add to his less detected by evil bonus.
I guess it would be better to say un-noticed, as evil would detect other evil just not pay much attn to it.
To even this out you could make a evil knight more easily detected by non evil/summoned monsters.
The evil knight could travel behind his party when its likely to encounter a non evil foe and travel up front when evil is afoot.
What ya think.