The Classes...is that all?

Remove all ads!

Do they seem a bit lacking to anyone else? Don't get me wrong, they sound great. But the lineup feels distinctly lacking to me without the paladin, or at least a "knight" archetype. All the new classes seem lightly-armored and esoteric, like the "dusty, mysterious stranger" kind of vibe. None strike me as heroic in the traditional sense.* In the original Diablo, I preferred the warrior. In 2, the Paladin. Maybe this will be settled in future DLC, but...eh. I have to admit I'm a bit underwhelmed by the current class roster.

* This is probably deliberate on the part of Blizzard, but still.

 

It’s a drag not to have a paladin class. It was my favorite class and I’ve only finished hell mode with it.

I also believe it was deliberated and I expect Blizzard to release a similar class in some future expansion. It’s just the way the game industry works today.

 

Diablo was always a dark and gritty setting. Maybe there aren't really any shining heroes.

 

If there are demons and devils, you gotta have heroes. Otherwise, who would view the demons has evil? You need good to exist to have evil, right?

 

Doesn't mean they dress in obvious and shiny demon-attracting armour

 

You don't necessarily have to be Good to see something else as Evil.

The demon hunter class, for example, seems pretty dark and not like the nicest person, but you can bet your ass she'll live up to her name.

 

They were saying earlier that they wanted to avoid remakes of previous classes (with the exception of the barbarian, I believe). I guess they couldn't find another tank type class to make. Dread knight maybe? Dragoon? I mean, it shouldn't be that hard.

 

I was under the impression that the Witch Doctor was a sort of reskinned Necromancer?

 

As I understand it -

* Witch Doctor is a mix between Necromancer and Druid
* Demon Hunter - Seems to be a cross between an Amazon and perhaps Paladin, with maybe some roguish elements splashed in. It's too early to really say, I guess.
* Barbarian is from D2, but is a class that Blizzard felt could be improved upon
* Monk is the monk class from the original Diablo expansion, which has obviously evolved quite a bit since the days of the original Diablo game. This may also be something of a replacement for the assassin.
* And the Wizard is supposed to be fundamentally different than a sorcerer/ess, but I guess is basically your standard nuker class with its own new personality.

I think the intent is that just about every class in D2 has some sort of alternative option in D3. We'll see if it works out that way. I'm betting we'll see more classes in an expansion. I've heard tell that we may even see some of the classic D2 favorites make a return.

 

Have faith in Blizzard. They 'don't do' bad games.

 

But it's the Diablo series. You need some type of good-guy option. At least one. A warrior cleric, a paladin or even a Magic-Knight. We need something. Not all of us like to play bad-asses all of the time. I like to have at least one good-guy Hero option. Is 1 of 5 asking too much?

 

Keep in mind that both D1 and D2 had expansions that offered additional classes. Five classes was what the D2 had, expanded to seven with the expansion.

I agree with most of what has been said here about the classes. About the only correction I have is that the Demon Hunter is more of a cross between an Amazon and an Assassin. The three trees consist of crossbow skills (like an amazon), a bunch of thrown projectiles (not unlike traps), and another one that is shadow magic (which sounds strikingly like the "shadow disciplines) in the D2 assassin tree). (Note - even though Blizzard released the picture of a demon hunter as a woman, all five classes have male and female versions.)

I have no idea if there will be a "holy warrior" type class in the expansion. But to me, all the characters are fighting on the side of good. But there already IS a holy warrior in the five announced classes - it's the monk. The first line in the description is the monk is a religious warrior.

From Blizzard:

Religious. Spiritual. Good. Pure. Sounds like a holy warrior to me.

If you want some more back info on the classes, look here. I linked to the monk, but there are links at the bottom of the page that will take you to each of the other four classes as well.

---------- Added 0 hours, 8 minutes and 38 seconds later... ----------

Blizzard also has finally given a projected release date for D3 - it's the first time they have done so. It's currently slated for November 2011.

 

I figured that their strategy is to release a paladin-type class in an expansion, which is smart in a "drive sales" kind of way. Relegate a class whose absence will be felt in the standard game to the DLC. Smart. I hope they release more than one expansion. Having 9 characters to choose from would be pretty dope.

 

Interestingly, you had no such good-guy option in the game that started it all, the original Diablo. You had a vanilla warrior type, a bow wielding "rogue" and mage/sorcerer. I guess your point must really come down to personal preference, as the original Diablo managed to become a phenomenon without this. There was very little about that game that wasn't dark.

 

Personally, I hope a Paladin style class never turns up. I like the dark, gritty, evil, hopeless style of it. Also, morally ambiguous characters are far more interesting. Paladins are as one dimensional as Dr Evil.

 

I believe at the time when Diablo itself was released, there weren't many games with a dark-side to it. I think it was a given that all 3 classes were the "goodguys". Plus they were more Generic types of classes. But as the genre opened up, part 2 really had some interesting twists. You could easily play the "goodguy" as the Paladin, but also had a chance to play the Dark Hero, the Necromancer. Then with the release of the expansion you got to choose the Assassin, another Dark Hero. The Barbarian, Amazon, Sorceress or Druid all could be taken in any direction, but not the Pally, he is "True Goodness". Though these other classes could as well, all depends on your perspective.

On another note, though I like the Barbarian, it would be nice for another type of Warrior, as there are so many options they can touch upon here, like an Oriental style Warrior, a magic-wielding Warrior/Knight. a Crusader, etc...

 

By "warrior" I'm sure you mean melee weapon / heavy armor dependent. Ya know, before someone replies that "they're all 'warriors'."

 

I was surprised that there wasn't a second beefier type warrior as well. In the early development of D3, they announced there would be 5 classes: 2 melee characters, 2 spell casters, and one missile character. The missile character is clearly the demon hunter. The spell casters are the wizard and witch doctor, and the melee characters are the barbarian and monk.

While a little non-conventional in picking a monk, that character did appear in the original D1, and he was certainly melee based. But it was definitely a "light" version of the warrior class. Higher dexterity investments, and bonuses to fighting and defense when wearing light armor.

 

Yeah, yeah, no know what I mean DR. And no, the Sorceress is not a warrior, she's a magic-wielding, panzy-ass, Tinkerbell wannabe!

 

Well more and more classical fighter type is considered not cool enough for a video game compared to say dual wielding barbarian. I think most game developers don't really have an idea how to make that type of character unique or interesting so they go with dual-wielding, no armor or shield idiocy or a monk.

Anyway I'm kinda disappoint with the classes(fighter types) and for 99,9% I will play sorc or beachdoctor.