View Full Version : No Necromancer? NOOOOOOOOO!
So it seems they removed Necromanacer from the game. It's unlikely that it will be there, since there is this lame Wich Doctor who does all the same things.
This is supposed to be GOTHIC fantasy! This means dark, grim and dense style. Necromancer is THE most gothic class of all and my favorite.
Wich Doctor is some dude from jungle who uses voodoo and stuff. It might be original, but who in western culture want's to be black guy covered in leaves? ^_^ I wan't to be a Necromancer!!! Pale, thin, smart, antisocial, EMO and GOTHIC. :D
"Wich Doctor is some dude from jungle who uses voodoo and stuff. It might be original, but who in western culture want's to be black guy covered in leaves?"
i do:D
So it seems they removed Necromanacer from the game. It's unlikely that it will be there, since there is this lame Wich Doctor who does all the same things.
This is supposed to be GOTHIC fantasy! This means dark, grim and dense style. Necromancer is THE most gothic class of all and my favorite.
Wich Doctor is some dude from jungle who uses voodoo and stuff. It might be original, but who in western culture want's to be black guy covered in leaves? ^_^ I wan't to be a Necromancer!!! Pale, thin, smart, antisocial, EMO and GOTHIC. :D
Agreed. However, I will still be mainly playing the Witch Doctor as it's the closest thing to a Necro - debuffer and summoner, even if he's really a Paladin covered in leaves :P.
New games have new things added to them. LoD had Assassin and Druid, D3 has this Witchdocter among others.
I am disappointed that the necro has gone, but I am sure that I will find another aspect of the game appealing!
stillman
29-06-2008, 14:07
I'm not happy about the leaves either. What is this guy supposed to look like in full plate? See, this was the same problem with the druid and assassin. They look very silly and out of place once you put heavy armor on them.
3:19 -- Wilson says the witch doctor is not the evolved version of Diablo II's necromancer.
More info at http://pc.ign.com/articles/885/885126p1.html
New games have new things added to them. LoD had Assassin and Druid, D3 has this Witchdocter among others.
Obviously, I have nothing agains additions. However, I have something against removing most fun of all classes.
Necromancer was so great, since he had very rich gameplay. I'm thinking about fishymancer here. He had dozens of summons: golem, skellies and revives. He had many curses. At least I had one point in every curse and almost all of them had fun use. He had cool AOE spell - CE. Every battle was a huge crowd fight, like in a RTS, with you in the middle. :D
I think it's to early to judge it. Maybe we are wrong and Necromancer is there! If many people request it, they might add him in an add-on.
Mcwhopper
29-06-2008, 14:34
Guys don't worry were still 7 light years away from release. If the community is vocal enough I'll bet we'll get the necromancer back
Holy-Avenger
29-06-2008, 14:39
IMO I like it. It's I think it'd be good to have a change. IMO I think they will release necro at the expanstion because SO many people seem to want it. :thumbup:
I doubt we'll see straight up necros again, it just struck me we might actually get a class based on each of the old acts:
Act 1 - Ranged specialist.
Act 2 - ??
Act 3 - Witch Doctor
Act 4 - ??
Act 5 - Barbarian
I'll cry if we wont get any mages (100% offensive caster).
Guys don't worry were still 7 light years away from release. If the community is vocal enough I'll bet we'll get the necromancer back
Light years are a unit for distance, not time (1 light year= the distance light travels in one year)
And even though I really liked the necro, I think it's just better if they merge him into the witch doctor. It'll just be stupid with 2 very similar classes, and the class witch doctor has much more flexibilty and less limitation. You can't add fire bombs to a necromancer. I think it's fine as it is
ShadowmageIX
29-06-2008, 17:41
Dudes... I have but three words for you....
Wall. of. Zombies
So. fricking. AWESOME!
Omikron8
29-06-2008, 17:52
More info at http://pc.ign.com/articles/885/885126p1.html
did everyone forget to read this ?
Kiroptus
29-06-2008, 18:13
Im sorry but I have little hopes to see necromancer once again. He was my favourite character and I feel really bad to see him go. I dont want to ditch the WD right away, I will give him a chance but D2's necromancer was my fav rpg class.
Necromancer just got scraped imo, because of the concept of his skills. Because of the 3D enviroment and Blizzard's desire to reach the most possible audience the necromancer asked for a more powerful rig. He needs corpses to CE and to Summon, so the performance would decrease with so much corpses. He could summon an army of skeletons, again would affect other' players performances.
I do think he is out, the lead designer said that the WD isnt the replacement for the necromancer but never said that necromancer would be in. They just picked some of his concepts, that are applicable in the new engine, and merged it into the WD's. To me he just got scrapped. Which is sad.
What a Lame Name ^^ Witch Doctor... lol
smartdot
29-06-2008, 18:17
it seems you guys want a necro. you have a necro, its just called a witchdoctor, and has a different look. you cant expect the look of the chars to remain the same throughout different games. look at the barb. it plays like a barb, but hes got grey hair. Take the witch doctor, it seems it plays exactly like the necro, just with some slight twinks and different flavor. "a rose by anyother name would smell as sweet" ring a bell?
Nostavar
29-06-2008, 18:22
did everyone forget to read this ?
Indeed, too much assumptions being made in this thread.
The Q&A transcript also showed that WD is not the spiritual successor of Necro and that it doesn't stop them from making a Necro at all, if they want to.
So, wait it out before you assume there won't be a necro.
Kiroptus
29-06-2008, 18:28
Indeed, too much assumptions being made in this thread.
The Q&A transcript also showed that WD is not the spiritual successor of Necro and that it doesn't stop them from making a Necro at all, if they want to.
So, wait it out before you assume there won't be a necro.
Why there would be a necro in the first place? The WD has curses, has a big wall of zombies (which is very necro-alike) and has summons(boring dog things, but summons nonetheless). Why would there be a necro when its the wd has so many functions of the necro?
If the Necro is back it certainly will be a completely diferent class because the WD is already similar to the necro. Even tho its not really him.
Mad Mantis
29-06-2008, 18:30
3:13 -- Question about classes. "We're doing a fresh start on classes," says Wilson. Says he hasn't figured out how many classes will be in yet, but they're not necessarily trying to mirror what was in Diablo 2. They're trying to do things a little differently.
3:19 -- Wilson says the witch doctor is not the evolved version of Diablo II's necromancer.
He talks about doing a fresh start on classes and doing things differently. When taken with the other quote it sounds to me like they scrapped the Necro. The WD is not an evolved Necro it is a class that plays differently, but shares some similarities. Obviously I'm still hoping the Necro will be in, but I'm not confident.
Kiroptus
29-06-2008, 18:36
He talks about doing a fresh start on classes and doing things differently. When taken with the other quote it sounds to me like they scrapped the Necro. The WD is not an evolved Necro it is a class that plays differently, but shares some similarities. Obviously I'm still hoping the Necro will be in, but I'm not confident.
Exactly, thats how I feel.
GodOfWake
29-06-2008, 18:49
The WitchDoctor summons Zombies, not Skeletons, he buffs the minions with 'creatures' not poison, so imo, he' more like a Druid than a Necromancer! If he had summoned Dogs would you assume the Druid had gone:P
After re-reading some of the early Diablo2 hype I noticed how wrong most of it is and how quickly that game changed after initial release. I think I once read a post statng D2 had male Sorc skins that never happened:( Numerous other things fell away too such as crafting, runewords, Massive Bugs and glitches.
There are at least 200000000 people begging for the Necromancer class to stay I'm sure the Necro will remain, but female:wink:
:coffee:
Just think about how old the necro and barb was before and look at the barb now. The necro probably died of old age or has serious arthritis and cant move =P
What a Lame Name ^^ Witch Doctor... lol
They should name him... Witcher! Then there is a problem with female version... Witcheress? O_o
Just think about how old the necro and barb was before and look at the barb now. The necro probably died of old age or has serious arthritis and cant move =P
Barb looks like he is 40 something strongman. I like it. WD seems to have some kind of neurological disease though. Did you notice that his head and left arm shakes constantly during idle animation cycle?
Sure, they haven't ruled anything out, but with only 5 slots it's very unlikely that you have a Witch Doctor and a Necromancer with very similar abilties, and then some other class afficionados cry their eyes out. There's not much you can do with 5 slots.
1. (melee) Barbarian
2. (caster/pet) Witch Doctor
3. (ranged) Rogue/Amazon/Hunter/Ranger
4. (dedicated caster) Sorcerer/Mage
5. (alternate melee/support) - Paladin/Druid/Assassin
Not much room for a necromancer. Which is too bad, he was my favorite class in D2, and while I realize the Witch Doctor is similar, I'll pass on the barefoot guy dressed in leaves.
Well at least now we won't have to listen to the constant whining of "NO SUMMONS".
As anyone at all lagged from a Necro since the days of dial-up?
stillman
29-06-2008, 20:01
You guys are incredibly lucky just to get the barb back. I believe the good old days you seek rest upon his shoulders, and that is the end of it. You're not going to get a paladin, necro, amazon or any other D2 charaters. Imagine if they did put the necro in D3. Well, that leaves only 3 slots left for completely original ideas. Actually, since the witch doctor is kind of a spin off of old characters, then that means there would be TWO completely original character classes. I don't want D3 to be dominated by D2 skills.
I don't understand you guys. Don't you want new heros? Do you really want those same dudes you've been using for 10 years?
Well, there may not be a "Sorcerer" or an "Amazon", but you can bet there will be something similar that fills the same slot. I can see both viewpoints on this... on the one hand, you want new stuff, but on the other hand... if it's just the same role with some slightly different abilties, why bother changing a necromancer to a witch doctor when what people want is a necromancer?
Doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, but I will miss my skellies.
SaroDarksbane
29-06-2008, 21:03
You guys are incredibly lucky just to get the barb back. I believe the good old days you seek rest upon his shoulders, and that is the end of it. You're not going to get a paladin, necro, amazon or any other D2 charaters. Imagine if they did put the necro in D3. Well, that leaves only 3 slots left for completely original ideas. Actually, since the witch doctor is kind of a spin off of old characters, then that means there would be TWO completely original character classes. I don't want D3 to be dominated by D2 skills.
I don't understand you guys. Don't you want new heros? Do you really want those same dudes you've been using for 10 years?
I don't think it's about the skills themselves as much as the look/feel of the class. We want new skills and new ways of doing things, but we like the necro himself. They could keep all their shiny, new, innovative skills in and I would be happy as a clam, provided they:
1. Changed the witch doctor's name to "Necormancer".
2. Changed his graphic to mirror his D2 counterpart.
3. Maybe switched out his dog graphics for skellies. =P
Kiroptus
29-06-2008, 21:18
Yeah, new skills are always welcome. Its the visual attachment itself that will be missed. To play as a dark mage that used undead to his bidding, it was pretty cool.
Look at the barbarian, he was updated to be more pratical and have more useful skills, while in D2 it was a chore to play barb until you finally got WW, which was his most fun skill.
The necromancer could have had an update as well, rather than to be sliced and fused some of his concept with another class. Witch Doctor looks fun but certainly necromancer will be missed.
DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
29-06-2008, 21:30
Hey blizzard! Give us the magic words!
It's not so much that I don't like the witch doctor, but I will deeeeeeply miss my skeletons. I had most fun with the necro. You can cast any of many useful curses for your minions to dominate and completely own with CE.
That isn't to say I want the same skills. I really just want my skeletons. They can spice up the necro any other way they want. Just please keep the skellies. Those dog things were lame!
ah what the hell
"Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang"
stillman
29-06-2008, 22:20
I'll just pack up my "It's D3, not D2" argument into a black little briefcase with "reality" stencled on it and sneak out. You're all having a lot of fun with this.
They should name him... Witcher! Then there is a problem with female version... Witcheress? O_o
How about Witch:rolleyes:
Spinemuncher
29-06-2008, 22:56
I like the Witch doctor , the Wall of Zombies spell was pretty friggin awesome.
Now mind you I loved my Necro but if they can add some other unique classes I won't be upset especially if he is brought back in with the expansion pack.
I wonder how did they come to conclusion that WD will be a better choice than Necro, assuming there is no Necro indeed. If I were them, I would do some kind of market research, gather statistical data from battle.net and stuff, to make such a move. Certainly doing something "original" for the sake of being different from D2 is stupid to say the least. Especially that D2 is eight years old and many younger players never experienced it in the first place.
I would like to see a poll on these forums with a question: "Having a choice, would you prefer to play an updated Necromancer class or new Witch Doctor?"
Personally, although I played countless RPGs over the years, I would be perfectly happy with very traditional approach: barb/warrior, sorc, rogue/zon, sin, druid, pala, necro, priest/monk. I would implement what worked in the past and would add some new cool classes on top of that. Necros seem very popular, so WHY remove them?
I don't understand you guys. Don't you want new heros? Do you really want those same dudes you've been using for 10 years?
"If it aint broke, don't fix it." Everybody loves Necro. Why remove it? Also, having a class with a certain style has NOTHING to do with new skills and gameplay. Look at new barb. He looks different. He has ranged attacks, AoE, CC and stuff. It's not an old 1vs1 barb.
They're creative persons making a game, they want to challenge themselves to come up with new stuff. If you want to play the necro then just keep playing Diablo II. Have some faith in that you'll be playing really fun characters in DIII
etslayer
30-06-2008, 00:17
the witch doctor is cool concept, but its not a diablo-esque character. It's one thing to be original, but to completely change the game theme is downright stupid.
CaptainDingo
30-06-2008, 00:29
Wich Doctor is some dude from jungle who uses voodoo and stuff. It might be original, but who in western culture want's to be black guy covered in leaves? ^_^
It sure beats being a dainty 60 year-old emo with long white hair. Diablo was never about pure gothic style for long. That gothic purist stuff ended with Diablo II, which flung you into deserts, arctic wastes and, yes, a JUNGLE. :P
I say open your mind.
Same to etslayer. They didn't change the theme, jungles were part of Diablo II!
you should be glad Blizzard is introducing new classes. Imagine if blizzard listened to all the Diablo fans when creating Diablo 2, we would have had none (or less) of the great great classes that D2 gave us. Have a little faith, will ya.
You never know, the Necro could be in the game taking the shape of something entirely new. Based on the fact that you don't appear to be able to interact with corpses anymore, as they would appear to disappear quite quickly, the necromancer might be a character that focuses on maintaining a single summonable creature/demon, that can gain experience and use items maybe? Speculations, but I can see the Necro fitting in still, and hope he does in the end :D
The Witch Doctor fits the diablo setting just as well as the Amazon does, so I don't see why anyone would consider it as a misfit character class.
"If it aint broke, don't fix it." Everybody loves Necro. Why remove it? Also, having a class with a certain style has NOTHING to do with new skills and gameplay. Look at new barb. He looks different. He has ranged attacks, AoE, CC and stuff. It's not an old 1vs1 barb.
Apparently not everyone. I, for one, hated the necromancer and I won't miss it one bit. The witch doctor actually seems a bit more fun from what I've seen so far.
You never know, the Necro could be in the game taking the shape of something entirely new. Based on the fact that you don't appear to be able to interact with corpses anymore, as they would appear to disappear quite quickly, the necromancer might take be a character that focuses on maintaining a single summonable creature/demon, that can gain experience and use items maybe? Speculations, but I can see the Necro fitting in still, and hope he does in the end
OMG, no! I played warlock in WOW. One summon is boring.
Corpse disappearing is not a problem at all. For ex. you could summon mass GHOSTS instead of skeletons. For every kill you claim soul of your enemy and you use it for summoning. You could accumulate some number of souls, say in permament soulstone items. When you log in you can IMMEDIETELY summon many minions without charge-up phase.
This soul-mechanics could be developed further: one soul - basic minion, ten souls - mega minion etc. Minion crafting: you mix souls with some reagents to create special minions with cool powers. Is it to much to ask?
I'm glad they got rid of the necro, I wished they'd scrapped the barbarian too and given us 5 NEW classes with ALL NEW abilities. I never liked the barb as it seemed too generic (the fighter class), atleast the witch doctor has some personality about him they could've made him some sort viking class this time round to keep things fresh. I think it's also good to see some deviation from the all anglo-saxon appearance unlike the previous Diablo where even the amazon was bleached white?? I hope they continue this through to the other classes to differentiate them further and give them vastly different flavours and feel from one another.
Something you guys are overlooking is what was said during the game design panel about Necros:
"We always thought the Necromancer was cool and we're trying to figure out what else we can do to make it cooler. So no, the Witch Doctor is not the spiritual successor to the Necromancer but we are not sure if the Necromancer will be in the game or not."
Not a direct quote but pretty damn close.
Just look at WOW: warrior, priest, mage, paladin etc. You can't get more traditional than that. Yet THIS is what most people want. The key is not in fancy orignality, but in quailty of execution.
For ex. I played warrior in WOW. I got Battle Shout, so I shout. The sound is quiet, clamped: "pssssssssssssssssssssss". When I heard THIS SINGLE SOUND, I immedietely stopped playing warrior. Compare it to Barb, who shouts with POWER. It's a joy to simply spam his shouts and even make a "singer". :D
From marketing point of view having fancy classes might be important. You can say: "Look we are different, you can't play WD elseware!" and this way make a sale. It seems to me that this kind of tactic is not needed for Diablo 3. This game is EXPECTED to be instant cult classic and classic designs are rarely fancy. They are just more rafined and polished.
Was Diablo 1 original in any way? The only new thing was that they merged various good design patterns with very attractive, stylish and streamlined interface.
Just look at WOW: warrior, priest, mage, paladin etc. You can't get more traditional than that. Yet THIS is what most people want. The key is not in fancy orignality, but in quailty of execution.
For ex. I played warrior in WOW. I got Battle Shout, so I shout. The sound is quiet, clamped: "pssssssssssssssssssssss". When I heard THIS SINGLE SOUND, I immedietely stopped playing warrior. Compare it to Barb, who shouts with POWER. It's a joy to simply spam his shouts and even make a "singer". :D
From marketing point of view having fancy classes might be important. You can say: "Look we are different, you can't play WD elseware!" and this way make a sale. It seems to me that this kind of tactic is not needed for Diablo 3. This game is EXPECTED to be instant cult classic and classic designs are rarely fancy. They are just more rafined and polished.
Was Diablo 1 original in any way? The only new thing was that they merged various good design patterns with very attractive, stylish and streamlined interface.
Since when has Blizzard made "original" games? Every single title they have created has "borrowed" aspects of other games. Rock n Roll Racing borrowed from Mario Kart, The Lost Vikings borrowed from many of the action/adventure titles with heavy puzzle elements of its time and Blackthorne borrowed from all the other action/adventure titles out at that time. Starcraft/Warcraft borrowed from all the other RTS games out and Diablo borrowed the entire gameplay structure from "Rogue" which was a text only game that was completely randomized (which is why Diablo is called a "Rogue-like" game). Sure each game had their own unique aspects but the majority of the games were based upon existing titles. Once Blizzard adds their patented spit and polish to the titles though they glow unlike any other.
If they were to simply port all the classes over from Diablo 2, it really would not be a lot of fun. We will see what they have in store but there is NOTHING saying they are locked into only 5 character classes just so you know.
OMG, no! I played warlock in WOW. One summon is boring.
Corpse disappearing is not a problem at all. For ex. you could summon mass GHOSTS instead of skeletons. For every kill you claim soul of your enemy and you use it for summoning. You could accumulate some number of souls, say in permament soulstone items. When you log in you can IMMEDIETELY summon many minions without charge-up phase.
This soul-mechanics could be developed further: one soul - basic minion, ten souls - mega minion etc. Minion crafting: you mix souls with some reagents to create special minions with cool powers. Is it to much to ask?
Correction, one summon is boring in WoW, because you can't do anything really interesting with your summon. If you could really customize your summon a lot, it would be really awesome.
Correction, one summon is boring in WoW, because you can't do anything really interesting with your summon. If you could really customize your summon a lot, it would be really awesome.
Nope, the whole point is to have tons of minions. If you have JUST one minion which can use items and has many special abilities, it's simply a proxy. Also, with manually triggered special abilities etc. you would have to micromanage everything like in a RTS game. What I liked about Necro a lot is that I could just enter a room and do NOTHING - just watch. At the other hand, I could be very active, casting varius curses, CE etc. It was a very flexible class.
When you have just one monster fighting for you all the time, you start to ask yourself a question: "Who is the hero here, me or it?"
stillman
30-06-2008, 10:26
I'm glad they got rid of the necro, I wished they'd scrapped the barbarian too and given us 5 NEW classes with ALL NEW abilities. I never liked the barb as it seemed too generic (the fighter class), atleast the witch doctor has some personality about him they could've made him some sort viking class this time round to keep things fresh. I think it's also good to see some deviation from the all anglo-saxon appearance unlike the previous Diablo where even the amazon was bleached white?? I hope they continue this through to the other classes to differentiate them further and give them vastly different flavours and feel from one another.
I totally agree 110%. This guy nailed it dead on.
I guess I can accept the barb being back if I never use him and pretend he's not there, but I hope that is where it ends. Let this be D3.
I'm glad they got rid of the necro, I wished they'd scrapped the barbarian too and given us 5 NEW classes with ALL NEW abilities. I never liked the barb as it seemed too generic (the fighter class), atleast the witch doctor has some personality about him they could've made him some sort viking class this time round to keep things fresh. I think it's also good to see some deviation from the all anglo-saxon appearance unlike the previous Diablo where even the amazon was bleached white?? I hope they continue this through to the other classes to differentiate them further and give them vastly different flavours and feel from one another.
Also agree. The only reason I don't mind the barbarian being back is because I never played one in Diablo 2 and generaly didn't notice them that much. I dread the return of the sorceress...
Wich Doctor is some dude from jungle who uses voodoo and stuff. It might be original, but who in western culture want's to be black guy covered in leaves? ^_^
I see you have totally missed the part of "role play" in RPG.
Ah allow me to explain. You take the position of a character who is NOT YOU and then you play in their style.
I have been known to throw fireballs around - and I land most of them too, but I am not, in fact .. a sorceress.
When playing a Barb, I don't (remarkably) turn into a huge muscled lump of meat who grunts a lot.
I don't care if the character is black, white, purple, male, female or Martian providing it is distinctive, entertaining and allows me to *role play*.
Hoping that's clear enough for you so you don't come dangerously close to racism again. :)
but who in western culture want's to be black guy covered in leaves?
Racist comments, even those that are borderline or innocent sounding to some, are not allowed or tolerated here.
Keep it off the forums.
SirLuxeflex
30-06-2008, 18:00
Good riddance, the bone-skill-tree was a mess (bone-wall, bone armour and bone prison... come on Blizzard...) and the skeletons were too weak (though fun in act 1 and 2). Time for a restyle; Necromancer and Druid in one awesome character named the Witch Doctor.
Good stuff, good stuff!
Kiroptus
30-06-2008, 18:09
Skeletons were weak? In hell baal could never kill a single skelly of mine. I think people never really played a good summoner...
We are getting Diablo 3.
I played the Necro almost exclusively, I'm just happy to hear "the first of his summons..." about the WD. I was almost thinking that the Nec might still be back in an expan pack. I think that the WD may be more Druid than Nec, but it's diablo 3, I've been waiting for it for the past 6 years really.
Only time will tell, they are putting a lot in there and you know it'll be fun. It's diablo 3!
Ampersand
30-06-2008, 23:03
The new Witch Doctor is so cool and full of atitude...while I enjoyed playing necro in D2 I prefer something refreshing for D3.
Diablo 2 had different classes than Diablo 1, don't see why we can't have some new ones now...I preferred to see entirely new classes but since the old fart the barb is in I guess that wont be the case
Biscuits For Smut
30-06-2008, 23:10
Incredible! It's D3 folks. I like the Witch Doctor implementation immensely.
Pyratheon
30-06-2008, 23:23
I see you have totally missed the part of "role play" in RPG.
Ah allow me to explain. You take the position of a character who is NOT YOU and then you play in their style.
I have been known to throw fireballs around - and I land most of them too, but I am not, in fact .. a sorceress.
When playing a Barb, I don't (remarkably) turn into a huge muscled lump of meat who grunts a lot.
I don't care if the character is black, white, purple, male, female or Martian providing it is distinctive, entertaining and allows me to *role play*.
Hoping that's clear enough for you so you don't come dangerously close to racism again. :)
Just a couple of things. I do care if its black white purple male, female or mattian. Because of you. Yuou have given me this idea. My god, i frickin wanna play a pruple martian, and u can feel my purple pvp wrath. Since thats not likely to happen, ill live with whatever. But there better be a pure spellcaster(no tele, acrobatics or something plz).
Oh yeah, and as to your other point your wrong to. People generally don't stay in the same room as me when im play. Not unless they want a fireball in the face...
Pyratheon
30-06-2008, 23:29
Never really played necro, and when i did never really enjoyed. Hoping for a more interesting pure spellcaster than sorc, rituals or something aswell as combat.
Here's the thing, we know of like, seven spells belonging to the WD. Maybe its wishful thinking, but then again, maybe not. Only a few of these spells really translate well as necro spells IMO. The two curses, and maybe the zombie wall, which could also translate as a firewall if you think about it. These spells could very well be the only things that the WD has in common with the necro.
Summoning undead minions, come on. Its vague enough that there are any number of things they can do with it. The only qualifier is that the minions be undead. Diseases v.s. poison, well, I can think of several games where disease and poison mechanics worked differently. Also, the sorceress, assassin, paladin, and druid in D2 all had fire skills, but they certainly weren't carbon copies of each other. As for the curses, perhaps the WD would focus more on controlling the minds of his victims and the necro on controlling the fates of his victims.
On summons, the mechanics of it are certainly up for grabs. Perhaps the WD summons are temporary, or few in number. We do know he can buff his minions with his spells, something the necro may not be able to do. Also, it just seems to fit that he would have fewer at his disposal. When I think of WD summons, I think of a few zombies or an angry spirit or two. When I think of necromancer summons, I think of skeleton armies.
And lets not forget the barbarian made it in, and it looks like he has several skills that make him lot different than he was in D2. There's all kinds of stuff they can do with the necromancer to make him vastly different from the WD.
Also, the game was just announced guys. Few things are really set in stone right now. Maybe they'll decide to add more than five characters for its release, or maybe they'll just have three. A lot of things can change between now and the big day. Not to mention blizzards habit of making really good expansions later on. :wink:
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents on the subject.
I see you have totally missed the part of "role play" in RPG.
Ah allow me to explain. You take the position of a character who is NOT YOU and then you play in their style.
(...)
Hoping that's clear enough for you so you don't come dangerously close to racism again. :)
You are missing the point. The point of RPG is that you are somebody else in a different world and you identify with that character. You are a hero who can be and do what you can't to in this world. I can easily identify with a Necromancer but not with WD.
I'm not racist too, but you just can't compare Europe/medieval inspired dark magic hero to a tribal magician.
I would have NOTHING against WD if he wasn't apparently replacing my favorite class.
korialstraz
01-07-2008, 15:17
And who says WD is replacing the Necro? Even the devs said WD does not replace the Necro. If we will se a Nec for the release or not is a totally different matter.
If the necro is not in the game as a playable character, then the WD is a replacement, plain and simple. But like I said, there are all sorts of things they could potentially be doing with both classes to make them vastly different from each other. And the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that the WD is closer to the druid in play style, minus the shape shifting (though you never know, they could give him that too).
korialstraz
01-07-2008, 20:59
It's not a replacement, plain and simple. It's a new character, new skills, new background story and new looks. How can you possibly say that is a replacement for necro? Just because he can summon Mongrels? The druid can summon stuff as well so it could easily be a replacement for him instead.
But no matter how you twist around it the WD doesn't replace any chars, it's a new char added to the game. And at this stage it's to early too tell which chars will return and which wont.
Why does everyone seem to think every d2 character needs a "replacement"? The Witch Doctor does not "replace" the necromancer because #1: We've only seen like 6 of his skills, most only resembling the necromancer's skills in image, and not function. #2: This is Diablo 3, as in an entirely different game. I was actually very suprised and somewhat disappointed that they even brought back the barbarian, I expected everything to be completely new(with the exception of maybe sorcerer/sorceress, because let's face it "wizard" certainly doesn't sound diablo and "mage" would seem like a WoW ripoff).
The necromancer nor any other class don't have or need replacements because this is it's own game. The only archetypal character that needs to remain with a replacement is the sorceress/sorcerer. I only find the barbarian coming back acceptible because they basically dug their own grave on barbarians with the LoD expansion having tied them so deeply into the lore.
I REALLY hope that they don't bring any old classes back besides sorcerer/sorceress. And i hope both the sorc and barb work totally differently than their predecessors, which is looking good for the barb in that respect.
Pyratheon
02-07-2008, 00:13
If they call the spellcaster something like wizard or mage im gonna be so annoyed with them. It just wouldnt be near dark or gothic enough.
I want different characters. I do want a pure spellcaster, I don't want the exact same sorceress. I want to have to adapt, to learn how to use new classes, to experiment with new things and find a style that I like. I want to figure out good tactics that suit my playing style, and new tactics for pvp. I want a new game, not just more diablo 2.
It seems people around here arent grasping how important variation is, learning new things. What it seems like you want is just, the same characters, in a new place. You blitz through it in a week, cause you've already perfected your tactics by playing diablo 2 for years, and then its back to square one. I want new characters, I want a spellcaster, where I can win, but have to figure out how, not just restricted to the same old skills. "Bring back the skeles?" You've had years of it. I know while we're at it, lets bring back the hammerdins sorcs amas, assas, druids and we've already got the barb. Great. D2 in a new place. Fun time, oh wait, i already know how to win on this build. Completed. In under a week. If we have the necromancer, think how many will start on it, with what they know well. What an advantage it'd be pvp, knowing the stuff. yes theres a barb, but it was underplayed in d2, and will have to adapt to the challenges of new classes, and fighting melee in 3D. Personally I think you should start fresh, and find a new, refreshing way to play.
Lighten up, so what, necros gone, perhaps you'll play a new character, and find you like it better. After all, you like necro so much, yet it wasn't there in d1, maybe thinkgs will improve. Personally I think so, blizzard have had years to study the problems of d2, and now they have a chance to fix it. Let's hope they take it.
Pyratheon
02-07-2008, 00:17
Saying that, still hoping there's a pure spellcaster, just with new skills, so I can adapt, learn how to use them most effectively, and play a whole new, different game style.
#2: This is Diablo 3, as in an entirely different game
That's just a cop out and is simply not true. This is a sequel. Part of a series of games, so to simply throw everything from the previous games out the window because "this one is newer" makes no sense. If its an entirely different game then you may as well call it something else.
Look, people, we aren't saying the necro has to come back the exact same way as he was in D2. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the barbarian. Even with just the few skills we know about he is a lot different than he was previously. That's how you improve on something. Take something cool and make it cooler. Not by replacing it completely with something else.
Sequitur
02-07-2008, 05:12
Necro hit the scrap heap.
Deal.
:)
Ampersand
02-07-2008, 16:50
Look, people, we aren't saying the necro has to come back the exact same way as he was in D2. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the barbarian. Even with just the few skills we know about he is a lot different than he was previously. That's how you improve on something. Take something cool and make it cooler. Not by replacing it completely with something else.
Its all a matter of opinion...Ofc you can make cool cooler, but I'd rather see something like the WD which is even cooler than the necro can ever hope to be :P
If this was 4-5 years ago the necro would be a kinda cool, now its more a been there done that kinda thing for me.
I love summoners. In LOD, we had 2, the necro with a gothic style and the druid with a medieval style. i dont think it's a good idea to mix these two. i want a summoner specializing in undead and a summoner specializing in nature. They can (and hopefully will) reconstruct anything if theystick to that concept. I dont care if its called necro or witch doctor or count dracula as long as its cool and stylish and i think the wd is quite stylish. In fact, heavy armor is not for spellcasters, so in terms of image, i think wd is better.
However, what most people miss is what actually differentiated those characacters was the combination of 6 types of damage. All had cons and pros; physical damage was for fighters, heavily depended on items, fire was massive, cold slowed the enemy and got rid of the bodies, lightning was fast but unpredictable (1-2000 and so on), poison had duration, magic was... well no character was the master of magic damage so it was just a flavour.
We dont even know if there are still 6 types of damage, maybe there will be 10 types of damage now with completely new aspects.
The only thing that bothers me is we may be missing a pure undead summoner
Thrandir
02-07-2008, 21:16
If the necro is not in the game as a playable character, then the WD is a replacement, plain and simple.
Mmm, but I bet the witch doctors do not follow/worship Trag'Oul or revere the balance between life and death with the same pragmatism as the Necromancers. This game does carry on in a continuous universe, things like an entire cult(ure) don't just disappear overnight. Where are the priests of Rathma? Maybe they won't be playable, but I'm hoping they haven't just up and gone.
LucianDK
02-07-2008, 21:25
Mmm, but I bet the witch doctors do not follow/worship Trag'Oul or revere the balance between life and death with the same pragmatism as the Necromancers. This game does carry on in a continuous universe, things like an entire cult(ure) don't just disappear overnight. Where are the priests of Rathma? Maybe they won't be playable, but I'm hoping they haven't just up and gone.
Corrupted is my guess from reading this: http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/world/bestiary/undead.xml
Killer_sss
02-07-2008, 22:17
Myself I cannot count out the witchdoctor i will play him like i have played all chars. I cannot say whether or not i will like him until i play him.
One thing is for sure if they do not put in the necromancer i will miss him. it was awesome summoning monsters to do ur bidding, blowing up corpses, making everything around you degenerate like crazy with poison, making walls from pure bone and covering the screen with them, cursing monsters causing many and varied ailments, shooting projectiles at enemies made of pure magic, and last but not least summoning a golem to be the ultimate boss negation (gotta luv the slowing of clay golem :} ).
I'm hoping they will add him even if they add him in an expansion that would be frigging awesome.
korialstraz
02-07-2008, 22:40
I was actually very suprised and somewhat disappointed that they even brought back the barbarian, I expected everything to be completely new(with the exception of maybe sorcerer/sorceress, because let's face it "wizard" certainly doesn't sound diablo and "mage" would seem like a WoW ripoff).
If "mage" would seem like a WoW ripoff I wonder how many games it would seem WoW ripped off using it. They are not the first to use "mage" in a game you know :scratchchin:
If they call the spellcaster something like wizard or mage im gonna be so annoyed with them. It just wouldnt be near dark or gothic enough.
I want different characters. I do want a pure spellcaster, I don't want the exact same sorceress. I want to have to adapt, to learn how to use new classes, to experiment with new things and find a style that I like. I want to figure out good tactics that suit my playing style, and new tactics for pvp. I want a new game, not just more diablo 2.
It seems people around here arent grasping how important variation is, learning new things. What it seems like you want is just, the same characters, in a new place. You blitz through it in a week, cause you've already perfected your tactics by playing diablo 2 for years, and then its back to square one. I want new characters, I want a spellcaster, where I can win, but have to figure out how, not just restricted to the same old skills. "Bring back the skeles?" You've had years of it. I know while we're at it, lets bring back the hammerdins sorcs amas, assas, druids and we've already got the barb. Great. D2 in a new place. Fun time, oh wait, i already know how to win on this build. Completed. In under a week. If we have the necromancer, think how many will start on it, with what they know well. What an advantage it'd be pvp, knowing the stuff. yes theres a barb, but it was underplayed in d2, and will have to adapt to the challenges of new classes, and fighting melee in 3D. Personally I think you should start fresh, and find a new, refreshing way to play.
Lighten up, so what, necros gone, perhaps you'll play a new character, and find you like it better. After all, you like necro so much, yet it wasn't there in d1, maybe thinkgs will improve. Personally I think so, blizzard have had years to study the problems of d2, and now they have a chance to fix it. Let's hope they take it.
I can't see how Sorceress is more "gothic" than Wizzard. They could still use the same name though. Like male chars is called Sorcerer and femal is called Sorceress.
Apart from that I agree 110% with the rest of the post :wink:
That's just a cop out and is simply not true. This is a sequel. Part of a series of games, so to simply throw everything from the previous games out the window because "this one is newer" makes no sense. If its an entirely different game then you may as well call it something else.
Look, people, we aren't saying the necro has to come back the exact same way as he was in D2. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Look at the barbarian. Even with just the few skills we know about he is a lot different than he was previously. That's how you improve on something. Take something cool and make it cooler. Not by replacing it completely with something else.
It's a sequel yes, but it does not imply that you should take everything from the previous game, upgrade the graphics and make the skills look cooler then place it in a different story. That just wouldn't be right and the game would become really boring real fast. Especially thinking if the franchise don't end with D3 and we are stuck another 8 years with the same "improved" characters in a new sandbox to play in.
I looked at the barb and saw the same old barb with improved graphics, better skill animation and a couple new skills. Is that really what you want? Because when I look at the WD I see a new class I can't wait to play. Come on, the guy can enhance his own pets with his offensive spells for crying out loud, I didn't see the barb do that. Sure he tore down a wall, but we don't know if he will be the only char able to do that.
Corrupted is my guess from reading this: http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/world/bestiary/undead.xml
I never thought of that, but in a way it could make sense lore wise. Depending on what happened after the destruction of the worldstone, the Necros could become corrupted, or join the forces of evil.... Say what?!
Bear with me here. Again basing on the novels (as I did in a previous post somewhere) there is a Necromancer that turns evil (can't remember the name, but he was very important, and a highly respected follow of Rathma). Anyway after years of battling evil he had sort of a revelation. The followers of Rathma work to uphold the balance in Sanctuary. There can't be good without evil or vice versa, however neither can be allowed to prevail. Let's say the destruction of the worldstone was a good thing. A major victory for light. Now suppose Rathmas followers noticed this, and found out that the very balance they fought to uphold is now out of balance. This could lead to them correcting this balance by helping out the evil they once fought. It's far fethced, but lore wise I could see it work.
One thing is for sure if they do not put in the necromancer i will miss him. it was awesome summoning monsters to do ur bidding, blowing up corpses, making everything around you degenerate like crazy with poison, making walls from pure bone and covering the screen with them, cursing monsters causing many and varied ailments, shooting projectiles at enemies made of pure magic, and last but not least summoning a golem to be the ultimate boss negation (gotta luv the slowing of clay golem :} ).
Are you kidding me? The WD is that and much more (though don't think of him as replacement for the Necro). He can summone minions, enchant them with his own spells before they go into battle, then blow them up even before they have turned to corpses. No more trying to get the first few kills in Act 1 (just to use a term here we know and can relate to, I don't assume there will be acts in D3) to build up your army. Guess what? You just summon them now and are ready to go :alright:
This thread is hilarious. Condensing it into a few sentences would go something like this:
I am Joe Internet. I do two things very well: make assumptions and fear change.
The Witch Doctor looks neat. I'm interested in how Blizzard will do level generation, because it seems there's at least some emphasis on constructive utilization of obstacles and other environmental assets (the Doc tossing exploding skulls over walls is the example at hand, but there are others).
korialstraz
02-07-2008, 22:54
This thread is hilarious. Condensing it into a few sentences would go something like this:
I am Joe Internet. I do two things very well: make assumptions and fear change.
The Witch Doctor looks neat. I'm interested in how Blizzard will do level generation, because it seems there's at least some emphasis on constructive utilization of obstacles and other environmental assets (the Doc tossing exploding skulls over walls is the example at hand, but there are others).
Qft. Not only the use of obstacles as assets but to combine abilities really have me excited. It's the 1 thing I hoped Blizzard would implement. The ability to mix spells and create new and interesting combos.
/edit: this wandered off topic, but the only place I could think to put it would be DIII General, and that place scares me... so I'll just post it here for now.
It'd be neat to see party-only skills. Say, when they party up the Witch Doctor could hop up on the Barb's shoulders and when he's there both gain a set of skills that they don't have at any other time (I know, this is a cheesy example).
I would like it if it were impossible for single characters to play safely in high playercount games at the final difficulty regardless of their gear. This wouldn't mean downplaying the solo experience. It'd just mean fleshing out of a set of skills for each class that function well in low playercount situations. If you were to use DII as the base example, it'd mean that in 1-2 player environments, the hammerdins and conviction lightsorcs would be perfectly playable, but in 3-player games they'd have a hard go of it and in 4+ their effectiveness would slow to a crawl.
Once you have that balance worked out you could build upwards from there for the players with a more cooperative bent, designing party-aligned skills and abilities specifically for use in large groups.
If playability in high playercount games were scaled by forcing cooperative skill utilization then the free-roaming hammerdins and conviction lightsorcs would become a thing of the past. This would be great, but I somehow doubt Blizzard would eschew this demographic of ego-inflated endgame gear-hoarders.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be different class pairings. Two casters, for example, might be able to cast a binding spell of some sort when they're close to each other, and when bound they might receive stat/ability boosts, access to altogether new spells/buffs or improved varieties of the skills they already posses. For example, two casters throwing chain lightning around solo might only see their lightning move in one direction off an initial foe, but if bound to another caster it might split once or more upon initial contact and arc out from there. The possibilities are really endless.
But, again, I think what I'm talking about is far outside the realm of what Blizzard would consider for DIII. They're out to milk the franchise goons for all they're worth and you don't do that by rocking the boat.
lionheart
03-07-2008, 21:01
I am not against the witch doctor. I will play him as i have played every other class before and appreciate the things that he can do. That said though considering the lore of Sanctuary based on the Sin War books i think the necro should be a character that is present in the game considering the big part that Rathma had in the books and considering the fact that necros are supposed to be around to preserve the balance in Sanctuary. Are we to believe that they all died after 20 years? They all turned evil? or are they gonna include a necro just as a lame npc??
SaroDarksbane
03-07-2008, 21:58
I'll just pack up my "It's D3, not D2" argument into a black little briefcase with "reality" stencled on it and sneak out. You're all having a lot of fun with this.
I'm evidently unaware of the "reality" you refer to, because in my reality, giving developers feedback on a game that is still in the design stages seems perfectly realistic to me.
If you object to bringing the Necro back because "It's D3, not D2", then you have to ask yourself why they brought the Barb back . . .
korialstraz
03-07-2008, 22:33
Interesting thought Jambe, but I'm not sure if that's the way Blizzard would go. I think they will keep all the chars "seperate" from eachother while still being able to do great teamwork.
it'd mean that in 1-2 player environments, the hammerdins and conviction lightsorcs would be perfectly playable, but in 3-player games they'd have a hard go of it and in 4+ their effectiveness would slow to a crawl.
Just wanted to point out that it was a bad example. My light sorc can almost run 8 player chaos games as fast as a hammerdin unless I get some nasty light immune spawns. The hammerdin does it even faster. A light sorc is generally way faster than a hammerdin anyway. But who is to say the chars will be so overpowered/unbalanced in D3? :scratchchin:
Are we to believe that they all died after 20 years? They all turned evil? or are they gonna include a necro just as a lame npc??
Some could have turned evil, some get killed and some stay good as NPCs, or they will be brought back as the barb was. No one knows yet :P
If you object to bringing the Necro back because "It's D3, not D2", then you have to ask yourself why they brought the Barb back . . .
Usually a melee char like the barb is the suggested starting char for new games. I almost can't remember any RPG/ARPG game that did not have a melee char in the "center" of attention. My guess is it's easier to use a melee char compared to a mage like char when trying out a new game, which is why it's brought back.
lionheart
03-07-2008, 22:54
That's true we don't know anything for sure as of now, and i'm not going to start complaining as of yet. My point was only on the storyline side, meaning that if they continue with it and they make it much more a part of it as they said, they have to include some characters as the necromancers that were there in the struggle since the beginning. I don't want them to start to twist the story around making it full of twists and turns and conspirancies as if it is a soap opera...
hhellstream
03-07-2008, 23:06
Me neither likes taht the best char in the whole game disappeared, Necro as first char ever, necro as last char ever -_-
Pyratheon
03-07-2008, 23:16
Are we to believe that they all died after 20 years? They all turned evil? or are they gonna include a necro just as a lame npc??
Your forgetting that if that argument works for necro it works for the other chars aswell. Personally if thats the case its 20 years to late for the hammerdin. Perhaps its just that the necromancer has taken a vacation from fighting the worlds evil, or they're just not there. In that specific place. they're busy. Or whatever. After all whatever happened to the rogue?
Personally i'm quite glad that they've changed it, and a bit unhappy barbs there, tbh.
I'm glad the necro is gone (it makes sense storywise - he was an old fart then, 20 years later R.I.P.) I mean, ya never know they might have him in D3 as a spiritual mentor/hologram - like ObiwanKenobi -] Heck we've had D2 for how many years now??? WE NEED CHANGE!!! Not more of the same!
lionheart
03-07-2008, 23:36
Your forgetting that if that argument works for necro it works for the other chars aswell. Personally if thats the case its 20 years to late for the hammerdin. Perhaps its just that the necromancer has taken a vacation from fighting the worlds evil, or they're just not there. In that specific place. they're busy. Or whatever. After all whatever happened to the rogue?
Personally i'm quite glad that they've changed it, and a bit unhappy barbs there, tbh.
You are forgetting that the rogue like some other characters were either fighting just for the defense of their own territory or had some other purposes. The necromancers were around just for the sole purpose of keeping the balance in Sanctuary. I think they would be involved if something new happens.
Bear in mind before starting to bash on what im saying that i like change too and im not gonna start hating or crying if they dont put the character in. I was just basing my complaint on the facts that we learn from the books and the lore of Sanctuary. If they wanna come up with whole new things that we dont know about they are more then welcome to do so as long as it makes sense and doesn't get too stupid to follow.
Pyratheon
04-07-2008, 15:50
I'm glad the necro is gone (it makes sense storywise - he was an old fart then, 20 years later R.I.P.) I mean, ya never know they might have him in D3 as a spiritual mentor/hologram - like ObiwanKenobi -] Heck we've had D2 for how many years now??? WE NEED CHANGE!!! Not more of the same!
Not really making sense storywise, by your argument. He was an old fart then, 20 years later R.I.P. Unfortuneately youve forgotten, so was deckard cain, yet he survives.
Hopefully they'll have a reasonable explanation, or perhaps goods been winning a bit to much, so necros have withdrawn to bring back the balance. I mean the 3 prime evils are dead, whereas whats happened to they're good counterparts.
Think i'm just gonna wait and see what happens. Might have to review my snatuary lore to check for any other valid reasons. I'm sure that blizzard will come up with something, and from what i've seen of the game so far(exluding the fact barbs back, yet most games have a pure melee, so he was always probably gonna be there, so why change the name, then again, most have pure spellcaster, but I want a different thing from the sorc.) i doubt i'm gonna be dissapointed.
Speaking of which, look on the other side, I mean, if I was a barb player I'd probably be annoyed that he was hardly changed, as I would've want a new type of pure melee to play with, isn't this the same with necro, surely if they gave you nothing new you wouldn't be happy? I know I wouldn't.
korialstraz
04-07-2008, 20:04
Even if the Nec from D2 dies, there is a whole cult following the order of Rathma, so even if 1 dies it doesn't make sense all is gone.
I'm confident Blizzard will come up with something that will fit the game story wise :azn:
lionheart
04-07-2008, 22:41
Thats what im hoping too, at least mention something about them. I hope they dont act as if they never existed...
LucianDK
04-07-2008, 23:26
There is more hints that the Necromancers have turned nutty by D3:
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/world/bestiary/gnarledwalker.xml
The Necromancer order hiding in the swamp near new Tristram will likely be what the players have to take out in Act1, and their boss will likely be the d2 necromancer.
Just like how the d1 rogue and sorcerer became bosses in d2.
From the flavor text for the d3 barbarians, it seems like the majority of the barbarian race have gone insane. Appearently only a precious few, or maybe even only the player barb alone whom have been able to overcome the madness.
lionheart
04-07-2008, 23:43
I don't think thats proof enough for that. The necromancers were not much liked for the kind of magic in which they dwelve. You could see this in the second game and as well in most of the books if you have read them. People attribute the evil stuff that happens to them since they deal with undead and magics of that sort. His comment for me is more of a biased point of view that most people in sanctuary have about the necromancers rather then true proof that they have turned bad.
As korialstraz pointed out, one plays characters that are parts of larger societies in Sanctuary, not rogue individuals wholly removed therefrom. You can't talk about "the necromancer" being removed from DIII — he's not a singular, he's a role you step into (that is to say, he's an infinite amount of characters pulled from the Rathma society). Purporting otherwise is misunderstanding the premise and structure of the game.
Another thing — this bashing of DIII's barb design because it's "unchanged" is completely unfounded. Few have seen much of the Barb skill tree, and those who have can't talk about it in detail. What little has been revealed thus far indicates a mix of old and new, and the "I can't stand any repetition at all" vocal minority dimwits will never be satisfied regardless of what Blizzard may do. Logical folk don't use fringe nuts as examples of where to direct game design. See this article on community management (http://www.grimwell.com/?p=200) for more of the same (yes, I know, it talks about MMOs, but the principles apply to all communities).
I'm not sold on this "we need change" premise either. So long as the story is well put-together and the content is believable, the game will be fun. Whether there is gads of newness in the playable characters is of secondary import. Hell, given the purely argumentative option between playing identical barbs in windowed 8-bit 800x600 or 32-bit 2560x1600, I'd choose the latter, and I'd venture to say most would.
OverUsedChewToy
05-07-2008, 06:49
It would be cool to play the necro again but I know it's not the be-all-and-end-all if one can't. Still, it'd be good to have them as major players in the narrative of D3 considering the lore they have surrounding them, they're very unique characters who combine an unusual philosophy of life and action with the overall darker atmosphere of Diablo, and I think it would be a shame to waste such an interesting set of characters on too insignificant-a role in the narrative.
The Necro was such a good character! Was like 3 characters in one! You were able to build a summoner of the undead or a summoner of magic creatures. You also were able to build an offensive caster who didn't depend on elements such as fire or cold. And what about the cool option of being a master of poison?
For example. I did like the idea of the Druid on the expansion. but he was light years to reach what the a necro could be or a real tank as the other path a Druid had. A Druid was fun but not to the level of a necro or a barb. Even the Paladin was more fun than a Druid tank heck!
Barbs and Paladins were both essential. Two very difefrent characters that could had uber fun PVP matches.
Let's come back to the main discussion. We need a cult veteran human who likes to study dark magic, who is trickie and that even likes to "cheat" on a duel!
I want to see ice golems, fire golems, stone golems. Wall of zombies are ok, neon light bees are not.
Simon Grim
09-07-2008, 06:04
The Necro was such a good character! Was like 3 characters in one! You were able to build a summoner of the undead or a summoner of magic creatures. You also were able to build an offensive caster who didn't depend on elements such as fire or cold. And what about the cool option of being a master of poison?
For example. I did like the idea of the Druid on the expansion. but he was light years to reach what the a necro could be or a real tank as the other path a Druid had. A Druid was fun but not to the level of a necro or a barb. Even the Paladin was more fun than a Druid tank heck!
Barbs and Paladins were both essential. Two very difefrent characters that could had uber fun PVP matches.
Let's come back to the main discussion. We need a cult veteran human who likes to study dark magic, who is trickie and that even likes to "cheat" on a duel!
I want to see ice golems, fire golems, stone golems. Wall of zombies are ok, neon light bees are not.
The idea of a dark caster has merit. Void Mage! Draws their power from the very essence of the black abyss. Uses shadow abilities and throws purple bolts of energy. Anyway that was off subject but fun thoughts none the less. :)
AxlStrife
09-07-2008, 06:19
From reading the stuff on the mini-site, it looks like the Necromancer will appear as an enemy, hence why the WD isn't replacing the Necromancer from the viewpoint of Sanctuary. As a playable character, I believe the Witch Doctor replaces the Necromancer. If flavor reasons are bothering people, that is something those people will have to get over or ignore altogether.
poltergeist
13-07-2008, 00:22
the witch doctor is cool concept, but its not a diablo-esque character. It's one thing to be original, but to completely change the game theme is downright stupid.
Completely disagree. The WD seems VERY Diablo to me, and fits the theme perfectly.
Simbacca
13-07-2008, 00:55
I haven't read this whole thread or anything, but since I first saw the Witch Doctor, I've believe the Necromancer will be the big-time featured character of the expansion. There's just no way they'd get rid of such a popular class, or at least I hope. Necro in the expansion makes it more satisfying than the Druid was in LoD to most people (don't crucify me, I like Druids myself).
Makes me mad too. I hate ugly black dudes...... << Infraction. Won't tolerated.
Witchdoctors were what you fought in D2. An inferior class compared to a Necromancer. Sure it has neat skills, but im picky about appearance. A female witchdoctor is gana look ugly too probably........
Why don't we just give the Paladin a HUGE, WIDE nose for this game too:crazyeyes:
AxlStrife
15-07-2008, 03:00
Makes me mad too. I hate ugly black dudes......
Witchdoctors were what you fought in D2. An inferior class compared to a Necromancer. Sure it has neat skills, but im picky about appearance. A female witchdoctor is gana look ugly too probably........
Why don't we just give the Paladin a HUGE, WIDE nose for this game too:crazyeyes:
I'd suggest watching the gameplay video before passing such judgment.
radiopayola
15-07-2008, 05:17
The great thing about the witch doctor is that they actually exist in the real world. Eyes burned black...crumbling dust and mumbling chants. If you see one, walk- do not run the other way.
I'd suggest watching the gameplay video before passing such judgment.
Dial-up:crazyeyes:
Toke me a day just to load the entire 18 Min sample video......
The Witchdoctor just looks too silly to take seriously, and im sure some stupid Fallen would agree.
They didn't have to make him 100% tribal looking.
AxlStrife
15-07-2008, 07:28
Dial-up:crazyeyes:
Toke me a day just to load the entire 18 Min sample video......
The Witchdoctor just looks too silly to take seriously, and im sure some stupid Fallen would agree.
They didn't have to make him 100% tribal looking.
I know the pain, had it for 3 years.
Calling it an inferior class when we can't even play with him/her yet was unfounded, and the female WD is youthful in appearance, as will probably every female character due to target demographics. Opinions on appearances are all cool in my book, though when seen in the light of his region's flavor (dense jungle/swamp) he fits in way more than the Necro ever did. If they didn't go for the gusto it would be a cut to the artistic direction of that region.
I'd love to see the size of all the armor scaled down slightly, especially the shoulder pieces.
Darker Realm
15-07-2008, 08:02
The Necro was such a good character! Was like 3 characters in one! You were able to build a summoner of the undead or a summoner of magic creatures. You also were able to build an offensive caster who didn't depend on elements such as fire or cold. And what about the cool option of being a master of poison?
.
Five Characters in one. The Necromancer has traits from all five original character classes and one ability class specific to Necromancers (Curses)
1) Amazon - Bone Spear and Bone Spirit, replacement for Magic and Guided Arrow
2) Barbarian - Curses - Howl and Grim Ward abilities. Summon Resist and Mastery for Golem and Skeletons similar to Barbarian Natural Masteries.
3) Paladin - Auras (from Fire Golem) and others from 1.10 Runewords
4) Sorceress - has Fire abilities (Corpse Explosion, Golem, Mages) and Lord of Magi (Fire Cold Light) can replace the Sorceress and is good at Teleport.
5) Necromancer
I think the only reason why people think any of this stuff is because of the barb.
Think about it from blizzard's perspective tho,
they need a pure melee. ok thats easy, make up some skills and what not. done
put them in the story. hm, who could that be...?
make sure theyre not copying something from another game. Can't call him warlock, warrior, etc...
Oh wait, the barbarian! He was one of the most original ideas for an rpgs imo was. I mean, what better choice was there for blizzard to choose? He's a great character that could easily be improved and fit into the diablo universe perfectly. i thought the barb of DII was strange and very annoying to play in the early stages and i think blizzard has done good on molding a character into something better.
Its just a matter of choosing the right character and the barbarian filled the slot the best. I doubt they just said: "hey, lets pick a character from random and put him in DIII".
Just my opinion :)
LarryPaul
24-07-2008, 00:39
I hope they will make the necromancer return with emphazising on Poisen Dagger, and mixing some assasin-like skills with the dark poisonous side.
I actually tried creating a "necrosassin" with Hero Editor, and he is fricking funny to play.
CE, terror, cloud, poisen dagger really works well together.
Bah, the necromancer is the coolest character class I've ever played in a RPG, and him likely not returning in D3 is hugely disappointing to me.
Nothing's as cool as walking (not running, walking) slowly through the battle, cursing and blowing up/reviving corpses as you go, a huge armoy following you around. Adding teleporting and warcries with higher end items (or amulets) adds a whole new level of play as well. Summoner is an awesome buold that can easily be customized hugely to allow for many different playstyles.
It's sad to see him go if he is, as he likely seems to be.
Also, Darker Realm, what? The nec took debuffs from the barb? More like the other way around, necs have a whole tree dedicated purely to debuffing, and putting up the fire golem as an aura to make it look like he's got some paladin in him - come on. Because he does fire damage he's stealing from the sorc? And he can teleport with items? All classes can do that! Further you could reverse the arument and say that because the sorc uses fire damage she's stealing from the nec.
Anyway, all classes are simmilar to each other, but the nec was by far the most unique and I've not seen any class that comes close to being like him in any other game I've played.
Galtrovan
25-07-2008, 16:53
Necromancer. Witch Doctor. The only difference I see is a name change. Had Blizzard called the Witch Doctor a Necromancer in the video, would anyone be complaining? I doubt it. The class summons. The class has a "wall" skill. The class has a "projectile" skill. Same old, same old. Just new graphics and damage types at best.
Yes, sure - it's just the namechange and, oh, the massive difference in theme and apperance, but sure they're the same things, because we all know nobody cares about how their characters look at all. That's like the least improtant aspec of games these days. Yeah.
It's just the necromancer after he returned from his Hawaiian vacation as far as looks go.
Tanned Skin
Pastels
Grass Skirt
as i said before the necromancer's are hated by most of sanctuary and are blamed for the events of D2 and the rampant undead problems in the world...
also the witch doctor is alot flashier then the necromancer so far...
but who in western culture want's to be black guy covered in leaves? ^_^ I wan't to be a Necromancer!!! Pale, thin, smart, antisocial, EMO and GOTHIC. :D
Yeah well, necromancers aren't from the west.
Barbarians are nomadic people, mainly living in the east.
So by this concept, we shouldn't even have necromancers and barbarians.
Besides witchdoctors are closer to the "dead" than necromancers, if you watched any documentaries on "zombie making" from the witch doctors in africa, you'd know.
Bob: Hey, Rob.
Rob: Hey, Bob!
Bob: I got an idea. We'll make a character who's based on DEATH. He'll be appealing because he'll tinker with the undead and poison, and general death stuff in general. LIKE A DARK JEDI.
Rob: Fantastic idea. But will people like it?
Bob: We'll see.
*Patch later*
Rob: OK this 'necro' of yours? Corpse Explosion is too powerful and we can only have like, 2-3 overpowered abilities. Furthermore, I'm not too comfortable with this character having too much power. Let's nip this in the bud.
Bob: Gotcha.
*Years later*
Rob: DIABLO THREEEEEEE! Holy %@#@#% %#@!
Susie: Our focus group says the Necromancer is not so popular. Most people don't like 'Necros' because they do freaky stuff like use their abilities - you know, summoning minions, using Bone Spirit etc. We feel Diablo might be better without Necros.
Rob: HMMM........... Well I don't know, Bob's feelings might be hurt. Can't we get rid of the Necromancer and still use our basic idea? You know, like we do in all of our games? Ultralisks, Furbolgs, and Treehead Woodfist = innocent, corrupted brutes, same !@#$. I think we can regurgitate the same idea we've had all these years in a form that people will lap up, as we have many times before, right? OK take this for example:
"The Necromancers believe that Trang'Oul is the beast on whose back the world lies. In the balance of all things, it is thought that Trang'Oul is the fulcrum point. He is the closest thing the cult of Rathma has to a deity and this spell is the manner in which he protects his chosen."
Pretty HOT. Can we warp it into something like...
"This belief holds that the true, sacred reality is veiled behind the physical one we normally experience. Their vitally important public ceremonies are centered upon sacrifices to the life force that flows from their gods, who inhabit the Unformed Land, into this lesser physical realm."
and pretend we've actually thought of something?
Bob: Yes! Let's make a Sean Connery Medicine Man sort of guy - he'll have leaves in his hair and preach free love. That's SOOO much cooler than reanimating the corpses of your enemies to serve your purposes. People will be idiots to think our 'Shaman' is not infinitely cooler than the Necro...what?
Rob: LOL
Bob: Make sure to sweep that "Train Ghoul" rubbish under the carpet. The Blizzard Bureau of Retconning can help.
Rob: Got it. But wait - what if our Shaman summoner experiences the same bad publicity as our necro? Let's give him a Magic Hammer that he can beat the game in 2-3 castings with it, if he has the right gear. We don't want him being unpopular.
Bob: Nice. What about the people that miss the Necromancer?
Rob: Oh, we'll toss something in about the Cult of Rathma being corrupted by Belial or some !@#$. Maybe have a super-rare 'Necromancer's Wand' that gives +1 to all Witch Doctor Skills. People are morons and love shiny graphics. They'll buy Diablo 3 no matter how much we alter the structure. We will make big money and good games!
Bob: You, sir, are a true Blizzard genius.
Rob: Thank you.
[/rant]
Verashiden
03-08-2008, 09:34
Also known as the Nintendo Syndrome?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.