Hunter class -- this makes sense!

[SEANBCOOL]

Forgive me if this has already been made into a thread, but I didn't see it anywhere and it's an idea I have to get out there.

As any respectable Diablo fan knows, a character who primarily deals physical damage with ranged attacks and who relies on dexterity and cunning over strength and force is a staple in the franchise. In Diablo, it was the Rogue (my favorite D1 character class) and in Diablo II it was the Amazon (my favorite D2 class).

I think the Hunter would be the most logical choice to fill this role in Diablo III.

The skill trees I envision for this character are as follows:

-Combat

This tree would include combat skills, possibly including those for ranged and melee fighting. This would diversify the character class by not limiting the player strictly to ranged attacks. However, I would expect bows//javelins/etc. to be the main focus. This tree would also have passive skills like those seen in the Amazon's combat tree.

-Traps

Naturally, the hunter will have traps. This fits well with the class and also includes the types of skills that will make assassin lovers happy.

-Summoning/Pets

There is definitely room for another summoning character outside the Witch Doctor. This tree would include the ability to summon wolves or birds, again including abilities from a Diablo II class that will be left out in this game (the Druid). Perhaps this tree could also include the ability to train beasts or other creatures you encounter in the game, a la WoW (note: I am totally against this game being like WoW. I just think it's a cool skill/feature that could work very well in this game).



I fully expect a Hunter class very similar to what I have just described in Diablo III.

If this happens, it will be my only female character. I just can't imagine playing my ranged character as anything other than a hot, leather-clad chick.

What does everyone think?

[Kalkanor]

i can see a ranged chara
but not the same ranged chara from WOW

[Chorkstain]

As it turns out, this idea has been rehashed many, many times.

The only way I see a class like this appearing, is if Blizzard forgets to come up with the last class the day before the release and drunkenly writes this up at 3 in the morning. He will have graphics ripped from the first Diablo game, and all his attacks will be accompanied by .midi renderings of Christina Aguilera tracks. He will summon wolves, represented by the Yoshi graphic from Super Mario World, at which point Nintendo will sue the **** out of Blizzard, forcing them to go bankrupt.

[LaZeR]

[QUOTE=Chorkstain;7234787]As it turns out, this idea has been rehashed many, many times.

QUOTE]

Many many...

Yeah, it's basically your no-brainer Ranger spot.

Nevertheless, it's still a valid idea. merging Range and Melee in one "Combat" Tree is amazing and very D3-like.

However, as we've discussed in a long (long) thread Traps are very problematic mechanic in D3.

Furthermore, I must disagree with your say of "There is definitely room for another summoning character outside the Witch Doctor". I think there is not. Change it however to some ShapeShifting, make it the SSer of D3 and you've got yourself a very nice well rounded char.

[NASE]

You are making trees to mimic classes we know and to replace them in diablo III. I believe this to be a wrong approach. We want to see unique interesting classes with an own feel rather just three different classes from diablo II thrown together.

Not that the main trees are wrong, it just seems like you put them in for the wrong reason.


P.S. There is room for a summon character. It just needs to be different then the witch doctor. Did the druid and necromancer mess up the game in diablo II? It works because they are different enough. Same can be done in diablo III.
Although there may be more important 'trees' to be filled first.
P.P.S. Shapeshifting and ranged combat is as problematic as traps are. It just doesn't combine easy enough.

[LaZeR]

P.S. There is room for a summon character. It just needs to be different then the witch doctor. Did the druid and necromancer mess up the game in diablo II? It works because they are different enough. Same can be done in diablo III.
Although there may be more important 'trees' to be filled first.
P.P.S. Shapeshifting and ranged combat is as problematic as traps are. It just doesn't combine easy enough.

Wow, your P.S were "better" than your actual post ^^.
So ofc I'll comment:

1. Actually, the Druid & Necros summons did overlap each other. But this is not the point. The point is that the Druid was an expansion char. And you know why? Because there wasn't room for 2 Summoner chars in the 5 cores.

2. Why? Traps are problematic since their whole mechanic is against the vibe of the game- Fast pace, rushing from battle to battle, as demonstrated by the Barb's Fury system. That's why the whole "traps" idea is slow and out of place in the D3 world. Unless you make it less "trapy" like D2 Assa's traps, and then, ofc, they aren't really traps anymore...
And SS and Combat in one char is problematic since.... ? =S

[NASE]

And SS and Combat in one char is problematic since.... ? =S

It's the same thing. It slow. Imagine you are firing your arrows at a group. One of them approaches you forcing you to shift and change weapons. You kill him and reshift back to normal form to continue fire arrows.

It's just to bothersome to manage multiple shifts in such a fashion.

A second thing that bothers me is that a ranged character doesn't have the physical strengths of a shapeshifter. Shapeshifters are characters with lots of life and lots of strengths. Ranged characters are often the opposite with the main focus on dexterity.

P.S. Look at the druid in diablo 2. I don't think there is a single build that utilises werewolf/werebear and one of the fire/wind skill (excluding those two that can be cast in were form.). Not even pre synergies (although I'm not up to date with those builds).
And why? Because managing multiple form just doesn't work. Not that way it works in diablo II.

[SEANBCOOL]

I think some of you are too decided on what this game will be like without having ever played it. In truth, you really don't know what the gameplay is gonna be like aside from your own interpretations of what the developers have said in interviews.

I see no reason that a new character cannot mimic certain aspects of character classes from previous games... especially since it's already being done. We all know that the Witch Doctor mimics the Necromancer in several ways. Additionally, in the Lord of Destruction expansion many MANY Druid and Assassin skills directly mimicked skills already present in the game!

The reason this particular build (or a very similar one) would be interesting is the way these types of skill trees would be combined into one character. We've seen the obligatory ranged class, we've seen traps, and we've seen wild animals summoned. What we haven't seen is how those things can work together.

Traps to go along with a an archer make tremendous sense. The strategy for an archer character is to keep your distance and do damage from afar. What better way than to slow your enemies down with traps, or even distract them with pets? The Hunter could summon a falcon to swoop down and attack your enemies while she fires arrows from a safe distance. I promise you this makes sense.

Even if the skill trees are not exactly as defined, the same idea could exist in a very similar fashion. For example, if the traps and summoning skills were combined into one tree. This would place less emphasis on either traps or summoning, and open up room for a whole new unique skill tree.

Mark my words: there WILL me a ranged/marksman/archer type class in this game. This is just a very plausible version of what it could be.

[Chorkstain]

A second thing that bothers me is that a ranged character doesn't have the physical strengths of a shapeshifter. Shapeshifters are characters with lots of life and lots of strengths. Ranged characters are often the opposite with the main focus on dexterity.


Actually I think you're talking about the Barbarian there. I would assume that the point of playing a Shapeshifter would be to change between different forms. Otherwise you might as well just play as some bear or something.

[Chorkstain]

Oh yeah, Hunter idea sucks because animals suck, and summoning random pets is a pretty uninteractive way of playing. Perhaps suggest how summoning animals could be fun?

[SEANBCOOL]

Oh yeah, Hunter idea sucks because animals suck, and summoning random pets is a pretty uninteractive way of playing. Perhaps suggest how summoning animals could be fun?


It could be fun for the same reason the Necromancer was fun, and for the same reason so many people liked the Druid maybe?

It's cool to able to summon companions, especially if it fits well with the character type. And I believe I already gave an example of why summoning pets would work well with a ranged character class:

The goal is to keep distance between yourself and your target. This is usually accomplished by shooting at a monster until they get too close for comfort and then running away to a safer spot.

Pets could make this a lot easier. You could even have pet specific abilites that could accomplish things like this. For example, you're wolf could have the ability to intentionally distract your enemies so that they don't come after you. Additionally, a falcon pet could give you the ability to explore the area ahead of your current location by sending it to scout the level. Or you could have pet specific attacks, like commands that specifically cause your falcon to perform special attacks on your enemies.

I really don't see why you seem to think it's impossible to make summons fun and useful.

[NASE]

Actually I think you're talking about the Barbarian there. I would assume that the point of playing a Shapeshifter would be to change between different forms. Otherwise you might as well just play as some bear or something.

And what's wrong with that? The druids works like that. You need to make a choice between some form depending on what skills and attributes you favour.

Oh yeah, Hunter idea sucks because animals suck, and summoning random pets is a pretty uninteractive way of playing. Perhaps suggest how summoning animals could be fun?

The idea is to have several different summons to take care of different situations. Making it somewhat similar to the micro planning of different shift forms. The main different is that after you made the decision of a summon, you can continue your normal play style while different shift require you to change your play style according to what form you chose.

And a second thing to remember is that doesn't have to be a main tree. it could be a 3rd tree to supplement the other 2. Kind of like how it functioned in diablo II. But few people make pure summoners yet almost every kind of druids takes on 1 or 2 summons that fits their build.
Noting wrong with that if you ask me.

[Chorkstain]

It could be fun for the same reason the Necromancer was fun, and for the same reason so many people liked the Druid maybe?

It's cool to able to summon companions, especially if it fits well with the character type. And I believe I already gave an example of why summoning pets would work well with a ranged character class:

The goal is to keep distance between yourself and your target. This is usually accomplished by shooting at a monster until they get too close for comfort and then running away to a safer spot.

Pets could make this a lot easier. You could even have pet specific abilites that could accomplish things like this. For example, you're wolf could have the ability to intentionally distract your enemies so that they don't come after you. Additionally, a falcon pet could give you the ability to explore the area ahead of your current location by sending it to scout the level. Or you could have pet specific attacks, like commands that specifically cause your falcon to perform special attacks on your enemies.

I really don't see why you seem to think it's impossible to make summons fun and useful.

OK, I don't think it's impossible, but I didn't like how it was done with the Druid. It's like, you automatically resummon minions until you're at full capacity. You don't really think about it, do you?

That said, if you've got less mana to work with (no potions) then one would have to summon more conservatively. So maybe you're right, summons might work. However, it has to be interactive, and it needs to be so you're making choices depending on your combat situation, rather than just making choices at level up based on what build your character is meant to be.

And what's wrong with that? The druids works like that. You need to make a choice between some form depending on what skills and attributes you favour.



Yeah but the choice you make is very long-term and happens once (when you create your character). Fundamentally, there's little different in playing style between a bear and a Barbarian, except for the fact that the Barbarian probably offers a richer experience because he's got a whole class dedicated to that kind of play style. Also, I really hated the Druid for some reason. Really didn't appeal to me.

[LonelyAnon]

Personally pets bore me, I'd prefer a sortof companion animal that you can customize and grows with you, so you could adapt it to your own playstyle. It annoys me if you wanted to be an effective summoner in D2, druid or necro, you prety much had to focus on it completely which left you no room for the other trees. If this is fixed however i could see this becoming a very attractive character indeed.

In short work with your animal, not around them.

[Dimmu]

I think the WD already has the "wildman" theme covered, but obviously a ranged character is still nessesary, just not really in hunter form.

I think we'll see a more urban (diablo universe-wise) form of archer. Both ranged characters in the previous games were pretty primative, and the standard bow/simple traps/wild animals thing would just be too obvious, easy, and boring to come up with. I'm honestly pretty hard-pressed to think of a game where the ranged character wasn't just some hunter, or rogue or something else outrageously simple to think of to associate with the bow and arrow.

I'm saying D3's archer class will suprise us, and in a good way.

[Noammr]

I imagine a hunter/ranger type class is likely to make an appearance...I just hope they come up with some original ideas or variation of it.

Pets...well, I've yet to see this done in a way that's enjoyable to me in any game, but I'm open to the idea.

[NASE]

Nox did it well. I enjoy them there.

[SEANBCOOL]

I really hated the Druid for some reason. Really didn't appeal to me.

I'd have to agree there. The Druid to me was a really cool character idea that just wasn't that much fun to play.

I would, however, like to see what they can do with some the class's philosophies in order to make a better game experience. For example, shapeshifting could be really REALLY cool if it were to be done right.

[sblister]

Its definitely gonna be a ranger/hunter class. Its skill trees will include:
1. ranged: for bow/spears/javelins
2. traps: like the old assassin
3. something to do with nature: shapeshifting, calling upon animals/plants (though I hope blizzard comes up with something brand new)

[SEANBCOOL]

Well, sblister agrees with me.

Although I really don't think the Combat tree will have anything to do with javelins/spears. It will be bow/crossbow skills along with general combat skills, perhaps some of which are focused specifically around melee.

And I know I called it Hunter for the purposes of this thread, but honestly I've officially changed my vote to Ranger at this point. This decision is mostly due to the fact the Blizzard seems to be shying away from too many WoW similarities in this game, which is a good thing.