To me the dark sheep in D2 was the sin. Compare it to any other other char and see, considering everything, it is the weakest of the lot.
Now to say which is the worst or best char for one specific thing like PVP or MF or Solo is pretty easy for some like solo ubers, it boils down to only a few choices. But to say which is the best for something more intricate like PvP is nearly impossible, because one class was usually dominated by another (EG: Lightning zon vrs Lightning Pally)
Overall though considering every possible use for the char, I would have to say the other classes have a definate advantage over the assasin, but a char build for one specific task , it is impossible to say which is the best.
It is my hope that D3 implements a system where you will not see a specific, mainstream build develope, but a multitude of diverse builds that are almost impossible to replicate.
If this was done to my standards, it would be impossible to say which char is the best for anything. Although it would be extremly hard to properly balance such a diverse and large item inventory and skill set with these new characters. Im sure Blizzard is up for the challenge.
D2 Blacksheeps imo was the Assassin. And i don't see blacksheep as a bad/useless class but as a unpopular class. The assassin surely was the most unpopular one.
And for D3 i really don't know, we haven't see the other 2 classes yet.
But the WD have a blacksheep potential.
The Barbarian, the Witch Doctor and the Wizard are all fun to play. I really don't expect there to be any "black sheep" in Diablo III.
Unless there's a beta that you have played or you are playtesting for Blizzard, there is no way to say that any of the characters will or will not be fun to play.
If any of the characters are going to be successful they should at least appear like a group that could be reasonably expected to be found working together in Sanctuary. The Barbarian and Wizard I can see, the Witch Doctor not so much. The witch doctor is the result of trying to replace the role of the necromancer. It just does not seem to mesh with the other characters. A witch doctor is shaman-like, a tribal soothsayer, healer, or voodoo priest. Why would we see this character traveling outside their tribe at all, let alone with strange foreign people whose cultures don't exactly translate well to a "pagan". If there ever is a Paladin again these two together would be ridiculous.
I actually dont agree that there was a blacksheep in D2, and I dont think there will be one in D3. Obviously some people wont like a certain class, but others will... Like in D2 I wasnt a big fan of the Barbarian at all but he wasnt a blacksheep at all... Anyways, thats just my two sense worth. Blizzard will do a good job and make all classes enjoyed by a lot of people I'm sure.
I don't really think there are any blacksheep characters...
A blacksheep character should be really obvious that no one uses them, but if we can't agree on which character is the blacksheep then there really isn't one.
1) Which class will be D3's blacksheep?
2) Will one of the two unannounced classes piss off the majority of players?
3) Do you like blacksheep classes?
1) I thought the Wizard was kind of picking that up, they would need to be trumped by another less popular class.
2) Who knows, I go back to my above answer.
3) Yes
The second melee class will almost definitely be the black sheep. And they're definitely going to add paladins, based on their success after addition in D2, massive popularity especially .09+, and obvious associations with the Diablo storyline (fighting demons). If the Paladin is the other melee class, and everyone rolls one expecting the reincarnation of the Hammerdin, it's going to disappoint. (Let's face it, Smiteadins or Anythingdins were more fun to play than nigma+hammerdin. Might as well play a sorc.)
On the other hand, if it ends up being thief/rogue/ranger/sin type of melee class, it will likely have a huge playerbase, but I doubt any way they manipulate the class mechanics of those characters will enable them to level up more efficiently and safely than using a barb. Signature class in d2 was sorc (pre 1.1), signature class in D3 will be barb.
Dangerous Dan is spot on.
That said, I'll end up playing every possible pure and hybrid version of each class, but of the 3 revealed, I'll enjoy WD the least.
The barb having a tree named berserker does kind of tip you off though. Theyve never attempted to make him honorable or penitent in any other games and he doesn't appear that way in any synopses or pics yet, so I'm not sure there's a good chance of them doing anything along Knight lines with him. In D2 the pally -was- the holy caster, he could buff (auras), heal, cast holy damage spells, etc. I don't think they'll make a priest/cleric/monk type of class simply because theyre designing every class to be able to beat the game solo as well as cooperatively. They've never made a class that was only able to fulfill its potential of fun in multiplayer.
For example, in D2 you had 3 major support only builds, Warcry barb, Curse necro, Auradin. They split those builds across 3 different classes so each could still have skills to solo crap if they needed to. A class that had cries, curses, and auras would fail because it couldnt kill anything.
And without adding holy to a current character or adding a priest, they're gonna need a pally to fill the gap. Thats just my hypothesis though. It may change as we see more information about the game. I just wish theyd bring sins back in D3 but im sure they wont :[
blizzard creates games with only one gamer demographic in mind: the average and median gamer. If your idea appeals only to people who want D3 to be brimming with potential and personality, and most specifically fun, they're unlikely to listen to it. The game's top priorities to them are going to be:
a. user friendly
b. easy
c. rewarding
the average gamer likes to play without challenges and be rewarded for doing next to nothing. The average gamer also loves timesinks. If your class idea fits those criteria, they would probably take a serious look at it. So far, none of the 3 classes revealed look like they would be remotely as difficult to play as say a druid or pre-1.1 paladin. If your knight idea has some aspect of replayability that makes players enjoy the timesink then it's a successful one. How cool the character's synopsis, story, concept, abilities etc are dont hold a whole lot of weight.
Besides, they have always divided their characters into extreme archetypes based on the model of Diablo - warrior, rogue, mage (lets not count the Monk. No one liked him). Another heavy hitting tank melee class wouldnt be different enough to create a sense that you hadn't already gotten the experience from playing barb unless it was a caster hybrid (hence the pally suggestion, although this could be any other type of melee/caster hybrid such as, to name some from wow, shaman, death knight, or druid). Besides, a Knight is basically a paladin anyway in the diablo lore if I understand it correctly. The only Knights usually presented are the ones appointed by Tyrael, more holy and/or benevolent religion motifs associated with them than just an order of chivalry.
Besides, a Knight would generally denote a tank, of which there is little need for in D3 since almost everything can be killed before it lands a hit on you, there are no (yet revealed) healers, and no discernable aggro system. What would be left without tanking or casting? Just another brute force character that few people would bother to roll, even if it's presented with a different appearance and style.
blizzard creates games with only one gamer demographic in mind: the average and median gamer. If your idea appeals only to people who want D3 to be brimming with potential and personality, and most specifically fun, they're unlikely to listen to it. The game's top priorities to them are going to be:
a. user friendly
b. easy
c. rewarding
the average gamer likes to play without challenges and be rewarded for doing next to nothing. The average gamer also loves timesinks. If your class idea fits those criteria, they would probably take a serious look at it. So far, none of the 3 classes revealed look like they would be remotely as difficult to play as say a druid or pre-1.1 paladin. If your knight idea has some aspect of replayability that makes players enjoy the timesink then it's a successful one. How cool the character's synopsis, story, concept, abilities etc are dont hold a whole lot of weight.
Besides, they have always divided their characters into extreme archetypes based on the model of Diablo - warrior, rogue, mage (lets not count the Monk. No one liked him). Another heavy hitting tank melee class wouldnt be different enough to create a sense that you hadn't already gotten the experience from playing barb unless it was a caster hybrid (hence the pally suggestion, although this could be any other type of melee/caster hybrid such as, to name some from wow, shaman, death knight, or druid). Besides, a Knight is basically a paladin anyway in the diablo lore if I understand it correctly. The only Knights usually presented are the ones appointed by Tyrael, more holy and/or benevolent religion motifs associated with them than just an order of chivalry.
Besides, a Knight would generally denote a tank, of which there is little need for in D3 since almost everything can be killed before it lands a hit on you, there are no (yet revealed) healers, and no discernable aggro system. What would be left without tanking or casting? Just another brute force character that few people would bother to roll, even if it's presented with a different appearance and style.
I don't really agree with this.
The demographic public for SC, WC and WoW are really not the avarage/median game, once those are 3 VERY hardcore games.
It is not D2's case, once D2 are a very softcore, but remenber that only about 5% of the people that are working on D3 have worked on D2. So i will not be surprised with we find the Hell difficult REALLY hard or a insane event for b.net that requires a super trainned-organized 4 man group.
WoW is a hardcore game? PvP 2200+ sure, but we're talking about PvE here.
Last I checked, several hundred guilds had completed SWP, WoW's most challenging raid experience relative to the state of the game at the time since its release. Aside from glitches and bugs (C'thun, Four Horseman) almost every raid boss ever introduced in WoW was downed within a month of content release. You don't have to be good at doing anything other than watching a video / reading a diagram and following instructions to acheive the highest attainable status in that game. In early stages of WotLK the raids are pathetic enough that anything other than 2/3 drake OS can be done by casual guilds in all ilvl 187 with players mediocre at their class. Level cap is attainable in less than 10 days (with some help).
This is your idea of a hardcore game? O.o have you played FFXI? WoW and D2's "hardcore" feel came from the necessity of massive amounts of time and luck required to become level capped / rich. Neither of those relate to the general mental acuity or adeptness of the player, and I don't see them breaking the mold in D3 like they did with Starcraft just because the dev team is different. D2's devs went on to make one of the most extreme competitive and arguably the most balanced game ever created, guild wars. I'm pretty sure all of the competitive gamer catering went with them.
and: to make Hell difficulty "hard" would require a sizeable central game concept adjustment, since the current model basically makes everything hit harder and resist more crap. It doesn't make them smarter, it doesn't give them extra abilities, and it doesn't make you have to play any smarter to succeed. Roll a ranged class, hit stuff, and dodge stuff. They made characters borderline invincible if you're clever enough to take advantage of every capability. Sure, Hell difficulty will have a smaller margin of error, but that's nothing like going from fighting Normalsims in Perfect Dark to fighting Darksims, where the computer AI was enhanced and they received augmented abilities to gain a competetive edge over you, forcing you to reinvent strategies against them if you hadn't played on that difficulty before. You'd need more than "Immune to Cold" to make mobs hard enough to kill that the game becomes Hardcore. So yes, they are still appealing to the median.
It just happens to be that I'm part of the median too. Ive burned myself out on enough games.
WoW is a hardcore game? PvP 2200+ sure, but we're talking about PvE here.
Last I checked, several hundred guilds had completed SWP, WoW's most challenging raid experience relative to the state of the game at the time since its release. Aside from glitches and bugs (C'thun, Four Horseman) almost every raid boss ever introduced in WoW was downed within a month of content release. You don't have to be good at doing anything other than watching a video / reading a diagram and following instructions to acheive the highest attainable status in that game. In early stages of WotLK the raids are pathetic enough that anything other than 2/3 drake OS can be done by casual guilds in all ilvl 187 with players mediocre at their class. Level cap is attainable in less than 10 days (with some help).
This is your idea of a hardcore game? O.o have you played FFXI? WoW and D2's "hardcore" feel came from the necessity of massive amounts of time and luck required to become level capped / rich. Neither of those relate to the general mental acuity or adeptness of the player, and I don't see them breaking the mold in D3 like they did with Starcraft just because the dev team is different. D2's devs went on to make one of the most extreme competitive and arguably the most balanced game ever created, guild wars. I'm pretty sure all of the competitive gamer catering went with them.
and: to make Hell difficulty "hard" would require a sizeable central game concept adjustment, since the current model basically makes everything hit harder and resist more crap. It doesn't make them smarter, it doesn't give them extra abilities, and it doesn't make you have to play any smarter to succeed. Roll a ranged class, hit stuff, and dodge stuff. They made characters borderline invincible if you're clever enough to take advantage of every capability. Sure, Hell difficulty will have a smaller margin of error, but that's nothing like going from fighting Normalsims in Perfect Dark to fighting Darksims, where the computer AI was enhanced and they received augmented abilities to gain a competetive edge over you, forcing you to reinvent strategies against them if you hadn't played on that difficulty before. You'd need more than "Immune to Cold" to make mobs hard enough to kill that the game becomes Hardcore. So yes, they are still appealing to the median.
It just happens to be that I'm part of the median too. Ive burned myself out on enough games.
I"m talking execly about wow's PvE.
In wow you can't enter the game, play for 10 minutes and leave with a progress, wich is the main characteristic of a softcore game.
The core fact that you must play the game in the very hour your guilds going to raid makes it a hardcore game. In other words a hardcore game is a game that you can't play it casually. And a casual game is a game that you can play any time is convinient to you (because you work and/or study) and you can pass any time you want playing (so if I only have 10 minutes to play in my day, i can play diablo because i can do some runs and have a small progress. In wow with 10 minutes i can do nothing because the smallest progress needs hours of play).
And i never played FFXI, but i've played L2 for a looong time (lvl75 SE) wich is also a very hardcore game.
Just because a game is noob friendly it doesn't mean it isn't hardcoe you kno....
Not true at all. Look at the "fishymancer" Necro build.
Some even call that a "cookie-cutter" because with that build you can basically go through the game (including all difficulties), naked (no gear) and without dying. Yeah ok maybe that could be hard but theres people who do that from what i heard.
With decent gear you can sit down and let your minions cut through everything.
Though using corpse explosion makes it much faster.
The basic idea of the build is: Maxed skele warriors and mastery, maxed corpse explosion, amplify dmg., a merc with might, some points in summon resist and other curses... and other skills depending on personal choices. A golem with high golem mastery is a good tank and some ranged revives go well.
Before the synergies this build was amazing. You don't need levels in CE if you have a good gear once the range at lvl15 becomes more then enough. Also the skelly became weak at hell, but thats execly what made it fun. You have to resummon stuff all the time, decide between raise another minion or explode a corpse and have to use other curses (weaken, terror and life tap) to assure the survability of your army. You could also been a summoner and use Bone Spirirt/Bone Spear.
But synergies totally ruinned the necromancer. Now you must choose between been a summoner, a bonemancer or a poisonmancer but can't mix then. The result is you have to choose a pure summoner that are unbelievable boring because he can't cast offensive spells and a stupid soccerer variant (I never liked the idea of necros without summons).
The fact that a update can ruin the game instead of balancing it is sad and disturbing.
So that guy are right if his talking about the actual summoner.
I don't really think there are any blacksheep characters...
A blacksheep character should be really obvious that no one uses them, but if we can't agree on which character is the blacksheep then there really isn't one.
Exactly....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dream as if you'll live forever, and live as if you'll die today. "James Dean"
Well the Fishymancer (BTW credit goes to diii.net (formerly diabloii.net) member "Nightfish".) works perfectly well for PvM in the latest version.
You may find it more or less fun but the skeletons are powerful as hell.
You CAN choose bone spear/spirit for secondary attack and even a bit of synergies i think but its not a very good option. Though as the skeles pawn on their own anyway you can go that way.
The more radius for corpse explosion the better. Theres not even mentioning of -not maxing- corpse exlosion in the guide for the build.
We are going a bit off topic BTW.
Thats execly what I said. The actual summoners rely 100% on summoning, wich makes a extreme boring as hell character. When i say the synergy ruins the necro i'm not talking about he became a bad character. I"m just telling the fact that the actual viable necromancer builds (bonemancer, poisonmancer and summoner) are all very boring.
And the CE talk is about BEFORE the synergies were you could use poison nova and bone spear/spirit in a summoner and put point here was absolutly better then in CE because those skills need maximisation and CE were good enough with level 1 + gear points.
Of course you can use BS/BS and PN with summoners nowdays. You can also maximaze Amp Dmg, make a barb with 2 masteries etc... : p
I also think there is no blacksheep class in d2 basically because iv'e played all the classes and none of them seemed to me as a 'blacksheep'' because they were all really fun to play and strong at the same time (pvm or pvp) . But if it comes down to choosing one class, then i'd say that the amazon in the latest patch is a blacksheep class (in the older versions of d2 the amazon was not a blacksheep, maybe the necro tbh...).
In diablo 3? a blacksheep? i dont think so... Atleast i hope not
I havent played the actual game all that much, professionally, especially the older versions, to be honest.
HEUHuehuae
And to be honest i quit playing after 1.10, but some of my guildies keep playing and telling me stuff.
I really get sad when I log just to watch some friends pvping and see the necro playing execly like a soc. Wtfh D2 have become ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In time the hissing of her sanity
Faded out her voice and soiled her name
And like marked pages in a diary
Everything seemed clean that is unstained
The incoherent talk of ordinary days
Why would we really need to live?
Decide what is clear and what's within a haze
What you should take and what to give" - Opeth
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Now to say which is the worst or best char for one specific thing like PVP or MF or Solo is pretty easy for some like solo ubers, it boils down to only a few choices. But to say which is the best for something more intricate like PvP is nearly impossible, because one class was usually dominated by another (EG: Lightning zon vrs Lightning Pally)
Overall though considering every possible use for the char, I would have to say the other classes have a definate advantage over the assasin, but a char build for one specific task , it is impossible to say which is the best.
It is my hope that D3 implements a system where you will not see a specific, mainstream build develope, but a multitude of diverse builds that are almost impossible to replicate.
If this was done to my standards, it would be impossible to say which char is the best for anything. Although it would be extremly hard to properly balance such a diverse and large item inventory and skill set with these new characters. Im sure Blizzard is up for the challenge.
And for D3 i really don't know, we haven't see the other 2 classes yet.
But the WD have a blacksheep potential.
Unless there's a beta that you have played or you are playtesting for Blizzard, there is no way to say that any of the characters will or will not be fun to play.
If any of the characters are going to be successful they should at least appear like a group that could be reasonably expected to be found working together in Sanctuary. The Barbarian and Wizard I can see, the Witch Doctor not so much. The witch doctor is the result of trying to replace the role of the necromancer. It just does not seem to mesh with the other characters. A witch doctor is shaman-like, a tribal soothsayer, healer, or voodoo priest. Why would we see this character traveling outside their tribe at all, let alone with strange foreign people whose cultures don't exactly translate well to a "pagan". If there ever is a Paladin again these two together would be ridiculous.
A blacksheep character should be really obvious that no one uses them, but if we can't agree on which character is the blacksheep then there really isn't one.
1) I thought the Wizard was kind of picking that up, they would need to be trumped by another less popular class.
2) Who knows, I go back to my above answer.
3) Yes
On the other hand, if it ends up being thief/rogue/ranger/sin type of melee class, it will likely have a huge playerbase, but I doubt any way they manipulate the class mechanics of those characters will enable them to level up more efficiently and safely than using a barb. Signature class in d2 was sorc (pre 1.1), signature class in D3 will be barb.
Dangerous Dan is spot on.
That said, I'll end up playing every possible pure and hybrid version of each class, but of the 3 revealed, I'll enjoy WD the least.
The barb having a tree named berserker does kind of tip you off though. Theyve never attempted to make him honorable or penitent in any other games and he doesn't appear that way in any synopses or pics yet, so I'm not sure there's a good chance of them doing anything along Knight lines with him. In D2 the pally -was- the holy caster, he could buff (auras), heal, cast holy damage spells, etc. I don't think they'll make a priest/cleric/monk type of class simply because theyre designing every class to be able to beat the game solo as well as cooperatively. They've never made a class that was only able to fulfill its potential of fun in multiplayer.
For example, in D2 you had 3 major support only builds, Warcry barb, Curse necro, Auradin. They split those builds across 3 different classes so each could still have skills to solo crap if they needed to. A class that had cries, curses, and auras would fail because it couldnt kill anything.
And without adding holy to a current character or adding a priest, they're gonna need a pally to fill the gap. Thats just my hypothesis though. It may change as we see more information about the game. I just wish theyd bring sins back in D3 but im sure they wont :[
a. user friendly
b. easy
c. rewarding
the average gamer likes to play without challenges and be rewarded for doing next to nothing. The average gamer also loves timesinks. If your class idea fits those criteria, they would probably take a serious look at it. So far, none of the 3 classes revealed look like they would be remotely as difficult to play as say a druid or pre-1.1 paladin. If your knight idea has some aspect of replayability that makes players enjoy the timesink then it's a successful one. How cool the character's synopsis, story, concept, abilities etc are dont hold a whole lot of weight.
Besides, they have always divided their characters into extreme archetypes based on the model of Diablo - warrior, rogue, mage (lets not count the Monk. No one liked him). Another heavy hitting tank melee class wouldnt be different enough to create a sense that you hadn't already gotten the experience from playing barb unless it was a caster hybrid (hence the pally suggestion, although this could be any other type of melee/caster hybrid such as, to name some from wow, shaman, death knight, or druid). Besides, a Knight is basically a paladin anyway in the diablo lore if I understand it correctly. The only Knights usually presented are the ones appointed by Tyrael, more holy and/or benevolent religion motifs associated with them than just an order of chivalry.
Besides, a Knight would generally denote a tank, of which there is little need for in D3 since almost everything can be killed before it lands a hit on you, there are no (yet revealed) healers, and no discernable aggro system. What would be left without tanking or casting? Just another brute force character that few people would bother to roll, even if it's presented with a different appearance and style.
I don't really agree with this.
The demographic public for SC, WC and WoW are really not the avarage/median game, once those are 3 VERY hardcore games.
It is not D2's case, once D2 are a very softcore, but remenber that only about 5% of the people that are working on D3 have worked on D2. So i will not be surprised with we find the Hell difficult REALLY hard or a insane event for b.net that requires a super trainned-organized 4 man group.
Last I checked, several hundred guilds had completed SWP, WoW's most challenging raid experience relative to the state of the game at the time since its release. Aside from glitches and bugs (C'thun, Four Horseman) almost every raid boss ever introduced in WoW was downed within a month of content release. You don't have to be good at doing anything other than watching a video / reading a diagram and following instructions to acheive the highest attainable status in that game. In early stages of WotLK the raids are pathetic enough that anything other than 2/3 drake OS can be done by casual guilds in all ilvl 187 with players mediocre at their class. Level cap is attainable in less than 10 days (with some help).
This is your idea of a hardcore game? O.o have you played FFXI? WoW and D2's "hardcore" feel came from the necessity of massive amounts of time and luck required to become level capped / rich. Neither of those relate to the general mental acuity or adeptness of the player, and I don't see them breaking the mold in D3 like they did with Starcraft just because the dev team is different. D2's devs went on to make one of the most extreme competitive and arguably the most balanced game ever created, guild wars. I'm pretty sure all of the competitive gamer catering went with them.
and: to make Hell difficulty "hard" would require a sizeable central game concept adjustment, since the current model basically makes everything hit harder and resist more crap. It doesn't make them smarter, it doesn't give them extra abilities, and it doesn't make you have to play any smarter to succeed. Roll a ranged class, hit stuff, and dodge stuff. They made characters borderline invincible if you're clever enough to take advantage of every capability. Sure, Hell difficulty will have a smaller margin of error, but that's nothing like going from fighting Normalsims in Perfect Dark to fighting Darksims, where the computer AI was enhanced and they received augmented abilities to gain a competetive edge over you, forcing you to reinvent strategies against them if you hadn't played on that difficulty before. You'd need more than "Immune to Cold" to make mobs hard enough to kill that the game becomes Hardcore. So yes, they are still appealing to the median.
It just happens to be that I'm part of the median too. Ive burned myself out on enough games.
I second that
I"m talking execly about wow's PvE.
In wow you can't enter the game, play for 10 minutes and leave with a progress, wich is the main characteristic of a softcore game.
The core fact that you must play the game in the very hour your guilds going to raid makes it a hardcore game. In other words a hardcore game is a game that you can't play it casually. And a casual game is a game that you can play any time is convinient to you (because you work and/or study) and you can pass any time you want playing (so if I only have 10 minutes to play in my day, i can play diablo because i can do some runs and have a small progress. In wow with 10 minutes i can do nothing because the smallest progress needs hours of play).
And i never played FFXI, but i've played L2 for a looong time (lvl75 SE) wich is also a very hardcore game.
Just because a game is noob friendly it doesn't mean it isn't hardcoe you kno....
Before the synergies this build was amazing. You don't need levels in CE if you have a good gear once the range at lvl15 becomes more then enough. Also the skelly became weak at hell, but thats execly what made it fun. You have to resummon stuff all the time, decide between raise another minion or explode a corpse and have to use other curses (weaken, terror and life tap) to assure the survability of your army. You could also been a summoner and use Bone Spirirt/Bone Spear.
But synergies totally ruinned the necromancer. Now you must choose between been a summoner, a bonemancer or a poisonmancer but can't mix then. The result is you have to choose a pure summoner that are unbelievable boring because he can't cast offensive spells and a stupid soccerer variant (I never liked the idea of necros without summons).
The fact that a update can ruin the game instead of balancing it is sad and disturbing.
So that guy are right if his talking about the actual summoner.
i think i saw one of them once
Exactly....
Thats execly what I said. The actual summoners rely 100% on summoning, wich makes a extreme boring as hell character. When i say the synergy ruins the necro i'm not talking about he became a bad character. I"m just telling the fact that the actual viable necromancer builds (bonemancer, poisonmancer and summoner) are all very boring.
And the CE talk is about BEFORE the synergies were you could use poison nova and bone spear/spirit in a summoner and put point here was absolutly better then in CE because those skills need maximisation and CE were good enough with level 1 + gear points.
Of course you can use BS/BS and PN with summoners nowdays. You can also maximaze Amp Dmg, make a barb with 2 masteries etc... : p
In diablo 3? a blacksheep? i dont think so... Atleast i hope not
HEUHuehuae
And to be honest i quit playing after 1.10, but some of my guildies keep playing and telling me stuff.
I really get sad when I log just to watch some friends pvping and see the necro playing execly like a soc. Wtfh D2 have become ?