Why do people think "one element can only belong to one character"?

[Technomancer]

I've been bouncing around here the last couple months and I've seen this come up many times where people are discounting skill ideas for new classes because "Oh, Lightning is the Wizard's domain." Why?! Because she has Lightning skills? Why do some of you guys think like that? Does anyone remember D2? There's major elemental crossover! I thought I'd compile a list off the top of my head. The main number is from classic, in () including xpac characters.

Magic: 3 including Magic Arrow (3)
Fire: 4, including Corpse Explosion (6)
Ice: 3 (4)
Lightning: 3 (4)
Poison: 2 (3)

I may have missed a thing or 2, but I think it makes my point. There's plenty of room for 2 or more characters in D3 to have a strong focus on any given element. Any other conclusions would mean that from this point, the last 2 characters would have to invent their own brand new damage types cause everything is already "owned".

?

[NASE]

Magic: 3 including Magic Arrow (3)
Fire: 4, including Corpse Explosion (6)
Ice: 3 (4)
Lightning: 3 (4)
Poison: 2 (3)

I believe that list is a bit voluntary. You put skill in it that doesn't fit their just to prove a point. I see the list more like this.

magic: 2 (and that's only because hammerdins are that powerfull, only necromancers really have a focus on it).
fire: 2 (sorcerer and druid, all the others just have a minor focus).
ice: 1 (sorcerer, all the rest just have a minor focus)
Lightning: 2 (mainly because javazons are very strong and often made).
Poison: 1 (only the necromancer really has a focus, and even that ain't a large focus. lucky some of the curses help out and there aren't really any other classes that use poison more).

Take out expansion characters and overpowered characters with a smaller focus and it's all 1.


And it's probably going to be the same. Just look at the witch doctor and the wizard. The witch doctor seem to be more fire/poison orientated in his magic while the wizard has but few fire spells and perhaps 1 poison spell.
That's how people want it, you want a character to be clearly defined by what skills it uses. I'm not saying there will be overlap in element used, but it's almost sure there will be only one true master of the element. Other classes will only have a smaller focus.

[Nukeman8]

To be fair most classes are spilt up into different elements and dont focus majorly on just 1.
Amazon, the bow tree. third fire, third physical, third cold/ice
the jav tree, poison and lightining and physical.

same with the assassin etc

[Phidias]

You can just ignore people who say "HE CAN'T USE FIRE! SORC IS SPOSED TO USE FIRE, NOOB" because
1)It doesn't really matter, and they're not really the ones working at Blizzard and making the classes and deciding these things, are they?
2)Fat chance any of the fan classes posted here are going to come into being.
3) They're probably just trolling the first place.

[theeliminator]

Nase is spot on, boil it down and only one class focused on a element. Sure classes can overlap with a few domain spells, but if more then one class focused on the same element each class would loose their individuality

[GuardianHadriel]

NASE is so right:wave:

[GoldenBird]

Some people probably think this way because in D2 since synergies were added we often focus on one element in a character (like ice, fire, or light sorcs). Without focusing on one element, it's often not strong enough to do any damage. With immunes around, we often go for one element that's either easy to break, can be killed by a backup element, or can be easily avoided. If synergies had never been introduced, I bet it would be different (those were the days of like tri-elemental sorcies).

[SlechtWeerBeer]

If synergies had never been introduced, I bet it would be different (those were the days of like tri-elemental sorcies).

I fondly recall my one-point-in-everything sorceress. It was the first character I ever made and couldn't kill a thing (the sword helped, though). At ~lv20 I decided to try a different class.

[Phidias]

if more then one class focused on the same element each class would loose their individuality

Well I think it depends on HOW they focus on that element. If a ranged class is shooting lightning bolts and riding on lightning clouds while summoning storm elementals it can still be completely different and play completely different from a melee class that buffs himself with lightning skills, has lightning-based auras, and traps that shoot out bursts of sparks.
They can play completely differently despite using the same element. The element doesn't matter so long as the playstyles feel unique.

Case in point:
If blizzard split up each of the Sorc skill trees and made a separate class for each, don't you think they'd feel pretty damn similar in quite a few ways?
The element involved is just a flavoring, of course two classes having identical fireball spells is stupid, but if only one has a spells like enchant while the other has fireball, then you'll notice a big difference between the classes despite using the same element.

[theeliminator]

Well I think it depends on HOW they focus on that element. If a ranged class is shooting lightning bolts and riding on lightning clouds while summoning storm elementals it can still be completely different and play completely different from a melee class that buffs himself with lightning skills, has lightning-based auras, and traps that shoot out bursts of sparks.
They can play completely differently despite using the same element. The element doesn't matter so long as the playstyles feel unique.

Case in point:
If blizzard split up each of the Sorc skill trees and made a separate class for each, don't you think they'd feel pretty damn similar in quite a few ways?
The element involved is just a flavoring, of course two classes having identical fireball spells is stupid, but if only one has a spells like enchant while the other has fireball, then you'll notice a big difference between the classes despite using the same element.

Fire arrows is the same thing as Exploding arrow. They may look a little different and have slightly different damage outputs, but they do the same thing.

Secondly why doesn't the Wizard ride on a storm cloud? lol

What would you call a class with these Storm powers? What would happen to the "Storm" tree from the wizard? You may ask yourself, why weren’t these powers just added to the Wizard instead of making a new class?
I understand that it would be imposable for every class to have unrelated powers. There is only so much you can do before ppl will start complaining about how it doesn't feel like Diablo.

[Technomancer]

By the standard some of you talk about, the D2 Sorcs and Zons couldn't exist in the same game (and I've heard people even make THAT argument). Nor could the Necro's Poison skills and the Zon's exist in the same game. Also, having a 1/3rd of a tree focused on one element is minor focus? How about 1/2? The Wizard doesn't have more than half a tree devoted any single element. The WD has like 2 fire skills, same as Wizard. (I can't check right now because the diii wiki seems to be malfunctioning(!)) That would mean they only have minor focus, so a new character that has strong focus on fire wouldn't have much competition, regardless of the detractors.

Phidias is right, overlapping elemental focus is only as much of a problem as they are handled the same way. The storm example earlier isn't a very good one since the Wiz has the "Storm" tree ;), but if the skills do different things and play differently, what's the deeliyo? I think the separation people want is different PLAY styles, not elemental ownership.

[NASE]

By the standard some of you talk about, the D2 Sorcs and Zons couldn't exist in the same game (and I've heard people even make THAT argument). Nor could the Necro's Poison skills and the Zon's exist in the same game.

Why? The amazons isn't focused around ice, fire, lightning or poison while the sorcerer is on the first 3 and the necromancer is somewhat poison focussed.

The amazon clearly is weapon focussed (bow and spear) with a zat of elemental damage and a large selection of passives.
So they focus on a different thing.


P.S. I though the witch doctors skill tree was far from completed. So it's quite logic we can't tell if he's fire orientated or not? Al we know is that wizard certainly isn't.

[theeliminator]

2 skills out of 20 isn't something I would say is a focus. (Speaking of the Wizard and it's fire spells) I would say 5+ out of 20 skills would be considered focusing. A power here and there just gives a class a secondary option in case they encounter Immunities.

WD is by far the most unknowns class out of the 3 so we don't know if he will have more Fire spells or not. (From what Bashiok said the WD will focus on fire) In the new skill trees there is 18-20 skills so fair we only know a handful of skills.

[Technomancer]

Why? The amazons isn't focused around ice, fire, lightning or poison while the sorcerer is on the first 3 and the necromancer is somewhat poison focussed.

The amazon clearly is weapon focussed (bow and spear) with a zat of elemental damage and a large selection of passives.
So they focus on a different thing.
I think you actually just made most of my point for this thread. It's about usage, not specific elements. Too, by my standards, and the standards you just judged Zons with, no class has a "focus" on any element so far in D3. 3-4 active skills in an element does not equal dominion over it. Or in C++:
if( wizard->elementSkills[curElement] <= 4 )
wizard->elementalFocus[curElement] = FALSE; :coffee:

Well, the Wiz does own Arcane pretty well...
wizard->elementalFocus[arcane] = TRUE;

I mean, of course none of this REALLY matters, cause Blizz isn't gonna use any of this stuff, but I think a lot of folks making fan classes are putting themselves through unnecessary grief and limiting what they could be coming up with (and annoying the rest of us ;)) by saying "can't have any lightning or poison or whatever cause another class has dibs."

I dunno, I'll prolly never change anyone's mind. I'd be willing to bet fake money though that when all the classes ARE complete, they'll follow more of what I'm saying than not.

Man, the wiki is still screwed up! When I try to go anywhere in it, I get a page not found. Looks like Holyknight noticed it in the wiki support forum (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=733378).

[NASE]

I think you actually just made most of my point for this thread. It's about usage, not specific elements. Too, by my standards, and the standards you just judged Zons with, no class has a "focus" on any element so far in D3.

Not completely. You can check for yourself, the wizard does not have many fire skills? Why not? Good question, fire magic is probably the easiest and most known type of magic.
What RPG does not have a low level fire ball skill? Non I have played as far as I remember.

And still, you don't see fire skill on the wizard eventhough it may be the most important element.


The answer to this riddles is easy. They want an other character to be the main fire character, look at the witch doctor. His flaming skull is a fireball, with a slightly sinister coat to fit the witch doctor. But safe for that, it's there.


P.S. I don't know what focus the wizard has, yet one thing is certain. It ain't focussed on fire and the witch doctor will be focussed on fire (for a far as his magic abilities go anyway). And we probably won't see an other character with a strong focus on fire. Perhaps one or two fire arrow skills, perhaps one or two mele fire skills with some sort of fire armour.

[LaZeR]

I must say I can't understand your arguments, Techno, nor this whole discussion.

It's not that a different char other than the Wiz can't use ANY Lightning spells, but YES, we can't have another Lightning focused char.

That appilies to D3 and applied to D2. The Amazon, for example, had some Fire skills, but she wasn't focused around Fire as the Sorc and you definitely couldn't call her a "Fire based char" (again, as opposed to the Sorc).