View Full Version : Flux agrees: Wizard = Sorceress
CCCenturion
22-09-2009, 06:52
Not trying to stir up (too much) trouble here, but I did think this was funny.
In what must have been a Freudian slip, Flux mislabelled this image (http://diablo.incgamers.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=3341&cat=563) and this image (http://diablo.incgamers.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=3340&cat=563) of a Blizz con Wizard poster when he posted them in the image gallery.
On a side note, I do think it's awesome that the Sorceress... er, Wizard :smug: ... is dual wielding a sword and a staff. Finally it'll be worth it to actually use staves!
ancalagon
22-09-2009, 12:25
Flux does it on purpose. He's been doing it ever since he got back from Blizzcon. He stated the demo he played with the Wizard felt too much like a reskinned Sorc, or something like that. Ah well, I will know myself next year at Blizzcon if this is true :)
It's just concept art, it doesn't necessarily means that Wizards will be able to dual wield like a Barbarian. Although I hope they will.
Regarding the "Sorc=Wizz" arguement. I think that Wizard equals Sorceress just like the Barbarian from D2 equals the Barbarian from D3. They completely re-polished the archetype... and I think that the Wizard is only half as much as a Sorceress. Same goes to the Barbarian.
CCCenturion
22-09-2009, 15:44
I think Flux got it right if he's doing it on purpose. But before the Wiz fans want to kill me, let me also say that re-doing the Sorceress really isn't a bad thing. Iif they were to try to make all entirely new classes, it would seem like they're just tossing the old lore aside and trying to make something new. I feel like the games blend together better this way.
What's most important to me is the way each class plays -- balance, variety of skills, etc. -- the appearance and especially the name don't matter nearly as much as the playability.
lol @ OP, that's funny. :P
Wizard x Sorceress: If the Wizard really plays like a Sorceress, then I am guaranteed to like a class in DIII. I absolutely loved the Sorc in D2, it's really topping my favorites list along with Amazon - the fast paced gameplay was a total blast, if they can repeat that in DIII with the Wiz, I know I'll love her.
Sadly, I've yet to do it on purpose. Of course that just makes it funnier...
I'm not critical of the lack of innovation in character design, but changing the sorc's name for D3 seems an entirely calculated move so they could say that only the Barb is a returning/repeating character. Even though not one fan would have batted an eye if they'd just called the D3 mage a Sorcerer/Sorceress.
D1: Eastern wizard styled male mage character called the Sorcerer
D2: Eastern wizard styled female mage character called the Sorceress
D3: Eastern wizard styled male/female mage character called the... Wizard.
It's almost as if the game program wouldn't allow the char name to change by gender, which made Sorcerer/Sorceress. And someone on the design staff's kids had been watching Harry Potter non-stop, so they were like... "Wizard! Plus that way it won't be repeating the same character from the previous 2 games, even though that would make far more sense in terms of lore and world fiction continuity! Also, the light-armor, staff-wielding, open-hand-fighting Monk isn't a repeat of the light-armor, staff-wielding, open-hand-fighting Monk from Hellfire because um... beard! And the Rogue won't be a repeat either b/c now... there are male rogues too!"
CCCenturion
23-09-2009, 05:35
I'm not critical of the lack of innovation in character design, but changing the sorc's name for D3 seems an entirely calculated move so they could say that only the Barb is a returning/repeating character.
I think that's the key point that most people miss. The Barb is the only returning character, not the only returning/repeating class. There's so much lore that's been written for the Diablo games that it would be a mistake not to build on top of it, and I think that includes revisiting old classes. Of course they should be improved, evolved, and given a more well-rounded skill set; that's the point of a sequel. I don't see why they needed to pretend that the Wizard was a new class.
As for the name, the Harry Potter theory is interesting, but whatever the cause, I think it fits in with what we've seen in past games. In D1 and D2, a ______ of Wizardry always gave higher bonuses than a ______ of Sorcery. So think of the Wizard as a tougher Sorceress, though still a Sorceress all the same.
Lanthanide
24-09-2009, 01:54
I think that's the key point that most people miss. The Barb is the only returning character, not the only returning/repeating class.
So I guess all the female barbs in D3 are D2 barbs who had sex changes, then?
Sadly, I've yet to do it on purpose. Of course that just makes it funnier...
I'm not critical of the lack of innovation in character design, but changing the sorc's name for D3 seems an entirely calculated move so they could say that only the Barb is a returning/repeating character. Even though not one fan would have batted an eye if they'd just called the D3 mage a Sorcerer/Sorceress.
D1: Eastern wizard styled male mage character called the Sorcerer
D2: Eastern wizard styled female mage character called the Sorceress
D3: Eastern wizard styled male/female mage character called the... Wizard.
It's almost as if the game program wouldn't allow the char name to change by gender, which made Sorcerer/Sorceress. And someone on the design staff's kids had been watching Harry Potter non-stop, so they were like... "Wizard! Plus that way it won't be repeating the same character from the previous 2 games, even though that would make far more sense in terms of lore and world fiction continuity! Also, the light-armor, staff-wielding, open-hand-fighting Monk isn't a repeat of the light-armor, staff-wielding, open-hand-fighting Monk from Hellfire because um... beard! And the Rogue won't be a repeat either b/c now... there are male rogues too!"
lol I never really considered this. That's hilarious.
Question - are you saying that the lack of innovation is not a bad thing (you aren't critical of that decision) or that you don't want to even attempt to critically analyze the decision (you refuse to form a position)?
One thing - I always thought Sorcerer was African.
So I guess all the female barbs in D3 are D2 barbs who had sex changes, then?
How about the Barbarian going from a level high enough to kill Diablo, with massive skills and awesome loot and whatnot down to level 1 again with no skills, items or abilities?
CCCenturion
24-09-2009, 05:07
So I guess all the female barbs in D3 are D2 barbs who had sex changes, then?
Uh... read much?
The barbarian from D2 is the only returning character. The male barb in D3 is the barb from D2. The female barb in D3 is obviously not the same character.
How about the Barbarian going from a level high enough to kill Diablo, with massive skills and awesome loot and whatnot down to level 1 again with no skills, items or abilities?
That's actually a good question, and I'd like to see them address that in his backstory. I'll take a stab at a possible story.
Maybe he hasn't been fighting much over the past 20 years for whatever reason, and his gear was taken from him. Suppose he was (falsely?) imprisoned for some crime, his weapons and armor confiscated, and he was forced to live in a cell for 10-20 years... I'm sure his fighting skills would be a bit rusty after something like that.
popodomo
24-09-2009, 05:20
According to the lore, she is technically a sorceress. She went through the Zann Esu Clan then made a mess of her stay in the Vizjerei.
She also has ice and lightning spells in addition to all her time-space altering abilities so she must of kept some of that Zann Esu knowledge.
I guess Blizzard didn't want to call her a Sorceress because that actual "person" is not returning, at least for now.
I also always thought of the D2 Sorc as either Arabian or Persian in looks. I'm leaning towards Persian.
How about the Barbarian going from a level high enough to kill Diablo, with massive skills and awesome loot and whatnot down to level 1 again with no skills, items or abilities?
He retired and had a family, then when he went on a cross country journey with an old friend his family was massacred by the Hulk gang and he came out of retirement with the claws sharper than ever.
Question - are you saying that the lack of innovation is not a bad thing (you aren't critical of that decision) or that you don't want to even attempt to critically analyze the decision (you refuse to form a position)?
One thing - I always thought Sorcerer was African.
I don't really care. I've been a fan of the mage chars in the previous Diablo games and I just want the character to be fun to play this time. The fiction they've dreamed up for the Wiz is okay; I'm not real won over by the rebellious headstrong star pupil etc. I guess it's cool they didn't just go with another wandering hero with no particular personality (which describes teh Barb, WD, and Monk, as far as we now know) but this personality doesn't really leap out at me. I like the Barb being the returning aged hero; that's more interesting to me than some attitude-heavy 20 y/o prodigy.
I do think it's fairly arbitrary that they changed the character name to a unisex synonym (witch/warlock would have been confusing?) without really changing the character background or world fiction. Read the lore for the [/URL], or some of the [URL="http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Diablo_I_Manual#The_Binding_of_the_Three"]d1 game manual stories (http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/D1_Sorcerer#Sorcerer_Lore). The mage clans are from the eastern deserts, and they use a huge variety of magic; much more spell types in D1 than in D2. (Making them more logical predecessors of the Wizard than the D2 Sorc.)
The D2 sorcs (http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Diablo_II_Manual#Sorceress) are more mysterious and not clearly from the Eastern deserts (Lut Gholein area), but they're said to share many of the same spells as their male mage compatriots.
It was fairly obvious in D2 that they went with a Sorceress rather than a Sorcerer just to mix things up a bit on the gender options. And the D3 team has chosen to mix it up further. Which is their prerogative. Just as it's our prerogative to have some fun laughing about it.
Moonfrost
24-09-2009, 20:08
Even Chris Metzen called her "the sorceress" during the Blizzcon 09 opening ceremony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJtmc-PnVvQ) (04:40ish).
Even Chris Metzen called her "the sorceress" during the Blizzcon 09 opening ceremony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJtmc-PnVvQ) (04:40ish).
The fact that they had only a female wizard the first year didn't help people like myself and Metzen keep them straight, either. Seemed a direct continuation of the D2 Sorceress. If they'd debuted with the male wiz, I'd probably still be calling him the sorcerer, but not as unavoidably as I am now.
On that front, what if they'd debuted with the female monk? wouldn't that have just seemed totally confused and weird?
He retired and had a family, then when he went on a cross country journey with an old friend his family was massacred by the Hulk gang and he came out of retirement with the claws sharper than ever.
Heh. Didn't expect to see an Old Man Logan reference in a Diablo 3 Wizard forum. :p
Funkopotamus
26-09-2009, 09:17
Heh. Didn't expect to see an Old Man Logan reference in a Diablo 3 Wizard forum. :p
I knew that scenario sounded familiar.
Grumpy Old Wizard
28-09-2009, 13:47
I don't care if they call the mage a sorceress or a wizard. I do like that all classes now have gender selectable. I would like some robes to be in game for wizard "armor." And dye, like it Titan Quest, would be nice.
I don't care if they call the mage a sorceress or a wizard. I do like that all classes now have gender selectable. I would like some robes to be in game for wizard "armor." And dye, like it Titan Quest, would be nice.
I for one like it that the D series doesn't try to fit into old stereotypes. I for one hate the dress-wearing wizard type.
CCCenturion
29-09-2009, 05:10
I don't think of it as a stereotype, I think it just makes sense. If you were a powerful wizard who could manipulate matter and forces of nature with your mind, why would you bother wearing something as heavy and uncomfortable as a suit of armor?
I don't like the D&D perspective where wizards don't wear armor because it interferes with their abilities. I think the fact that wizards typically wear robes is a sign of their power, not of their weakness. That's exactly why Dr Manhattan walks around stark naked in Watchmen... if you have that much power, what's the point of wearing clothes at all?
Funkopotamus
29-09-2009, 07:19
I would wear armor. Awesome, ornate looking armor. The ornate part as the sign of power thing, and the armor as a backup.
Also, Dr. Manhattan didn't go nude as a sign of power. He did it because he gained no benefit from wearing clothes and ascended past shame.
Grumpy Old Wizard
29-09-2009, 15:27
The classic wizard spends more time studying arcane tomes or practicing his magic incantations than exercising. So he is physically weak and unable to wear heavy armor. He trains his intellect more than his body.
The classic warrior trains his body more than his intellect. He may wield a maul with ease that a wizard would even have trouble picking up and wear full plate mail to boot.
CCCenturion
29-09-2009, 21:04
I would wear armor. Awesome, ornate looking armor. The ornate part as the sign of power thing, and the armor as a backup.
Also, Dr. Manhattan didn't go nude as a sign of power. He did it because he gained no benefit from wearing clothes and ascended past shame.
To each his own. Personally, if I had that kind of power I don't think I'd ever bother changing out of my pajamas.
As for the Dr M thing, I never meant to imply he went nude as a sign of anything. All I meant was that he went nude because he didn't need any kind of clothing, so why bother? And to me, that exemplifies his power. Sort of making a statement by not needing to make a statement, if you follow.
The classic wizard spends more time studying arcane tomes or practicing his magic incantations than exercising. So he is physically weak and unable to wear heavy armor. He trains his intellect more than his body.
The classic warrior trains his body more than his intellect. He may wield a maul with ease that a wizard would even have trouble picking up and wear full plate mail to boot.
That's an excellent point, although I think that once a wizard masters telekinesis, as mages in the Diablo universe have, strength should become irrelevant.
The classic wizard spends more time studying arcane tomes or practicing his magic incantations than exercising. So he is physically weak and unable to wear heavy armor. He trains his intellect more than his body.
The classic warrior trains his body more than his intellect. He may wield a maul with ease that a wizard would even have trouble picking up and wear full plate mail to boot.
I know plenty of smart people who are in good shape. Again you fall into the stupid stereotype of wizards. Who is to say that wizarding isn't innate kind of like Harry Potter? That would require study yeah but a well-balanced studyt that includes physical effort. Plus physical wellness would be an asset in combat for really anybody. The idea of a battle mage to me is just plain awesome.
Ok here is proof that you can't see past the stupid stereotype - why robes? Why not pants and a t-shirt? Robes (dresses) as a sign of strength? lol Why not dresses, flowers, high heels, makeup, earrings, a purse, fishnet stockings, nail polish, lipstick, feather boa, a lisp, assless chaps, an 8 ball in your mouth etc? Because if you are wearing all those things and still win then you really must be badass.
In fact let's talk about warriors. The best ones are not completely retard-level stupid. Think about Bill in Kill Bill. The best ones are in fact super smart. Having ALL of the positive assets (strength, speed, skill, smarts) is better than just 3/4 of them. Same with a mage/wizard.
Grumpy Old Wizard
06-10-2009, 23:27
I know plenty of smart people who are in good shape. Again you fall into the stupid stereotype of wizards.
Chill dude. I said the CLASSIC WIZARD. I did not say that it is impossible for a wizard to be in good shape or strong. There is a difference between being in good shape and being strong by the way.
A classic wizard has to spend countless hours practicing the magic rituals and pouring over magic tomes. It would be hard to be an expert wizard and an expert fighter and strong enough to wear full plate mail and weild a huge maul at the same time.
The idea of a battle mage to me is just plain awesome.
Sure, but a fighter-mage has to sacrifice womething. He won't be as good of a fighter as a dedicated fighter and he won't be as good of a wizard as a dedicated wizard.
Ok here is proof that you can't see past the stupid stereotype - why robes?
Lol! Chill dude. I didn't say I can't envision a character that is master of everything. I said the CLASSIC wizard and CLASSIC warrior.
I don't think that the "stereotype is stupid." It is hard to be master of everything eh?
Oh, and why not robes? I didn't say everyone's wizard's should be forced to wear robes, I just said I'd like to see robes available.
Why not pants and a t-shirt? Robes (dresses) as a sign of strength? lol Why not dresses, flowers, high heels, makeup, earrings, a purse, fishnet stockings, nail polish, lipstick, feather boa, a lisp, assless chaps, an 8 ball in your mouth etc? Because if you are wearing all those things and still win then you really must be badass.
I wouldn't care if you wanted to put your male wizard in a dress and make up but mine wouldn't be.
In fact let's talk about warriors. The best ones are not completely retard-level stupid. Think about Bill in Kill Bill. The best ones are in fact super smart. Having ALL of the positive assets (strength, speed, skill, smarts) is better than just 3/4 of them. Same with a mage/wizard.
Again, I was talking about the CLASSIC warrior and wizard. Wizards overall will be smarter than warriors and warriors will be more physically developed.
Of course in Diablo 2 you had the option of making your character's stats whatever you wanted them to be but that will not be present in Diablo 3 unfortunately.
There's a huge difference between someone who actually trains in a combat form and someone who is just in good shape who picks up a weapon. Hand to hand combat, especially with weapons, is an enormously specialized and skilled activity. This is obscured by heartwarming modern movies about medieval days, where a few hardy peasants can pick up old swords and/or hay forks and defeat armored and well-equipped brigands/evil soldiers, but in reality they'd be peasant-burgers in about 3 seconds. Swords and spears aren't guns. They don't instantly level the playing field between the skilled and the amateur. Generally, they widen it. A big guy might grapple with and win an open-handed fight against a boxer, but give them both a sword and the fencer will cut the Hulk to ribbons. (Not that guns do either, since um... aiming is hard. But in movies amateur good guys always shoot better, and most of us imbibe that fiction.)
I spent 5 years learning a weapon-based form of martial arts, and by the end of that time I had gained an understanding of how combat worked with sticks, staves, swords, etc, that wouldn't have made any sense to me 5 or 4 or even 2 or 3 years previous. And I was just doing it for fun, a few hours a week.
Imagine someone spending 8+ hours every day, for years and years, doing nothing but combat training and sparring? There's a level of body control, focus, and weapon manipulation (such as what the master of my school possessed) that's not only impossible to imitate for a beginner, but it's impossible even to comprehend.
That's how good the Barbarian or Monk would be, in combat. They'd kill you with attacks you never even saw them initiate, and that you were utterly helpless to defend against. (Not even counting their magical skills and vastly superior strength and speed.)
No mage, even one with fairly good physical strength and stamina, would have the faintest hope of competing on that level. Which isn't to say that heavy armor and a weapon would be useless, since the monsters are fairly awful fighters, but I don't think it's reasonable to compare a battle mage to a real melee combatant, in terms of weapon prowess. Unless the mage is some sort of super prodigy who can master the spells so quickly and effortlessly that he's still got hours a day for sparring, but then you're getting away from "traditional" versions of magery, and changing the terms of the debate.
There's a huge difference between someone who actually trains in a combat form and someone who is just in good shape who picks up a weapon. Hand to hand combat, especially with weapons, is an enormously specialized and skilled activity. This is obscured by heartwarming modern movies about medieval days, where a few hardy peasants can pick up old swords and/or hay forks and defeat armored and well-equipped brigands/evil soldiers, but in reality they'd be peasant-burgers in about 3 seconds. Swords and spears aren't guns. They don't instantly level the playing field between the skilled and the amateur. Generally, they widen it. A big guy might grapple with and win an open-handed fight against a boxer, but give them both a sword and the fencer will cut the Hulk to ribbons. (Not that guns do either, since um... aiming is hard. But in movies amateur good guys always shoot better, and most of us imbibe that fiction.)
I spent 5 years learning a weapon-based form of martial arts, and by the end of that time I had gained an understanding of how combat worked with sticks, staves, swords, etc, that wouldn't have made any sense to me 5 or 4 or even 2 or 3 years previous. And I was just doing it for fun, a few hours a week.
Imagine someone spending 8+ hours every day, for years and years, doing nothing but combat training and sparring? There's a level of body control, focus, and weapon manipulation (such as what the master of my school possessed) that's not only impossible to imitate for a beginner, but it's impossible even to comprehend.
That's how good the Barbarian or Monk would be, in combat. They'd kill you with attacks you never even saw them initiate, and that you were utterly helpless to defend against. (Not even counting their magical skills and vastly superior strength and speed.)
No mage, even one with fairly good physical strength and stamina, would have the faintest hope of competing on that level. Which isn't to say that heavy armor and a weapon would be useless, since the monsters are fairly awful fighters, but I don't think it's reasonable to compare a battle mage to a real melee combatant, in terms of weapon prowess. Unless the mage is some sort of super prodigy who can master the spells so quickly and effortlessly that he's still got hours a day for sparring, but then you're getting away from "traditional" versions of magery, and changing the terms of the debate.
It's funny because all you mention is his skill with a blade when the actual debate was really about armour and defenses. Well I guess I liken a battle mage to the D1 sorcerer who was basically a tank that tosses fireballs. In that scenario you have a skilled spell caster buff (and manly) enough to stick on some armour and not just wear skirts and dresses because "he's so weak from constant study".
In fact take a look at the Iron Wolves from D2 and you see they are wearing chain/breast plate combos while tossing flames.
The guy above mentions "i'm talking about the classic mage"...well that really is the essence of the sterrotype isn't it? That a mage is so weak he has to wear robes. That's the sterotype that I hate... and that the Diablo world doesn't follow.
ancalagon
16-10-2009, 20:00
As CCCenturion said, Wizard and D2 Sorceress and D1 Sorcerer represent the same caster subclass, but they are different characters lorewise, that was what Jay Wilson really meant.
But yeah, it is funny because Jay Wilson in Flux's recent interview / round of questions mentioned the 'D2 Wizard' instead of 'D2 Sorc'. I guess it is really hard to set them apart in your head as both are catchy phrases and are common used words for a mage character, and besides the lore and the fact the magic of the wizard is no longer just plain str8forward fire / cold / lightning, they are indeed playstyle wise, the same.
Same could be said about Necro and Witch Doctor, they both fill the summoner class but are radically different characters. The similarities begin and end with the fact they both surround themselves with a barrage of minions. Otherwise, unlike the Wiz / Sorc, I believe there are no skills carried over from D2 Necro onto the D3 WDoctor. Except maybe terror and confuse, which are still under different implementation this time round. And even the lore is radically different, unlike Wizard which was trained under the Eastern mages from D1 and D2, so there are *some* similarities, The Necro and WD have far more different lore and roles in the Land of Sanctuary, and share very different backgrounds.
Roflbawlz
25-10-2009, 22:34
I don't think of it as a stereotype, I think it just makes sense. If you were a powerful wizard who could manipulate matter and forces of nature with your mind, why would you bother wearing something as heavy and uncomfortable as a suit of armor?
I don't like the D&D perspective where wizards don't wear armor because it interferes with their abilities. I think the fact that wizards typically wear robes is a sign of their power, not of their weakness. That's exactly why Dr Manhattan walks around stark naked in Watchmen... if you have that much power, what's the point of wearing clothes at all?
Blue dong for the loss... LOL
Anyways Wizard or sorceress/sorcerer they will still be your pure casting type of class, which is the class I am going to play.
HerlockS
26-10-2009, 13:49
One word springs to mind here - Comfort.
Call it a dressing gown or a bathrobe, I don't think there's a piece of clothing more comfy to wear - lots of people don't get dressed when they're off work, simply because they don't need to - and that's the second point I want to make.
The barbarian is in melee all the time - he needs the armour to prevent damage - a sorcerer/wizard would rely on not getting hit in the first place...
And, remember - the D2 sorc finds melee combat vulgar, so why should she kit herself out for it?
Doing Martial Arts myself, I know for a fact that I'd not like the idea of attempting a roundhouse kick in a full suit of armour :P
In D&D, the reasoning behind restricting armor for caster classes is two-fold. one, all the time spent studying and training in magic leaves little room to train to wear heavier armors or be physically strong enough to. and second, most spells require a somatic component to casting the spell (such as hand gestures, drawing on the soil or in the air with body parts, etc.) and having heavy armor impedes the user from completing complex maneuvers required to cast spells. Imagine trying to lift your arms above your head wearing the full plate armor of a medieval jouster.
Armour isn't as restrictive as you're making it out to be, you should have no problem getting your arms over your head in a suit of platemail.
Grumpy Old Wizard
01-11-2009, 21:56
You definately would not be adept at making precise and delicate arcane gestures while wearing full plate mail, including plate gloves. Or even chain gloves. See if you can get a chance to put on some full plate sometimes.
Have you ever even worn a pair of leather work gloves? Your fingers are not very nimble in those either.
actually I do work regually with thick gloves doing complex work in an isolation hood. You do get the hang of it.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.