The reason why fitting in an 8th hero would result in benefit for all

General Discussion
1

I’ve touched on a number of these changes over recent threads but I have 4 major changes to the other heroes that would allow for a Nagi(sea witch) to fit in to the game. And here they are.

  1. Necromancer’s Magical Bone skills would be changed to 33% physical damage and 66% magical damage.
    Corpse Explode would be changed to 66% physical damage and 33% fire damage.
    Getting off of a complete and pure magic skill would allow an 8th hero to be represented with a similar skill more properly, and leads in to the next change.
    (black damage is physical damage type of a spell and should really never be 100% physical but the prior represents “black magic” damage properly anyway)

  2. Druid’s Tornado would be changed to 50% physical and 50% fire.
    This has always been needed but kind of conflicted in proportional identity with corpse explode.
    This is a proper change when one realizes that there’s no problem with cross elemental synergy between fire and ice.
    A lot of key druid elemental skills don’t have that many synergies like fissure for example and could benefit from a mastery effect that enhances burning speed by 50% once 3 fire skills have been maxed(synergies)

  3. Barbarian’s Berserk would be changed to physical damage and reduce enemy physical resistance based on skill point investment and also enhance life steal %.
    Also has to do with getting away from pure magic damage.

  4. Amazon’s Magic Arrow would be changed to a bow mastery that reduces enemy physical resistance but also reduces life steal %.
    Has to do with a Magic Arrow theme that would be on an 8th hero Nagi.

And with those 4 changes that only enhances the quality/niche of each hero’s skills, it would also open up enough room for the Nagi.

And I have 4 different images that I’ve worked on recently which show why adding an 8th hero as a Nagi is both legitimate and necessary.

https://ibb.co/0KqZ3kj           

https://ibb.co/McWwqXZ

https://ibb.co/F8cp2kd

https://ibb.co/bJqpcpZ

So I want to explain these images.

The first image shows that you can start with one extreme archetype which is the barbarian @4LPV in this case(probably an Aiden inspired start) and then end on another extremely different archetype, which is the Necromancer @2LPV at center and then cross those two heroes with a 3rd archetype at center in opposition to the barbarian in order to translate the proportioning of stats and styles in to a unique contrast of emergent identity. The Nagi would have a contrast between Hight Strength and Low HP pool but still be inspired by the ranger(or bowazon) style. The hope is that the contrast between the high strength and low hp pool could yield an opportunity to experience a virtuous quality with this archetype perhaps revolving around will(attention sustaining), skill(technique) and thrill(risk to reward).

It’s important to note that when starting with a 4LPVP hero and emerging virtuously tense heroes beyond the 7th archetype that you end with a progressive distribution of LPVP values.

The ideal example is that we end with 4x 2LPV, 3x 3LPV, and 2x 2LPV heroes. That’s 9 different characters that could fill up the trinity fractal to a maximum capacity of character in good theory, but after an additional hero like a Nagi with a signature contrast between strength and vitality, what would be the 9th possible hero then? That hero would have to have 4LPV for starters. It might indicate high vitality and low strength, but I think the hero would be going back and forth between losing and gaining life a lot while tending to stay around a half full life capacity. A conjurer, or demonic inquisitor and blood mage come to mind. But then that gets you 9 heroes with a LPV value distribution of 2x4 3x3 and 4x2 which is the goal as opposed to 3x4, 3x3 and 3x2.

The simplest way to justify an 8th and 9th hero is by how they emerge from the “true rogues” that are a % warrior and mage which are the barb, necro, and bowazon archetypes. One emerges from going through the 3 heroes one way, but then the other emerges by going back through them. But the Nagi seems to be the inversion of the barbarian’s mage and warrior proportions while the “Demonic Inquisitor” seems to be the inversion of the Bowazon’s mage and warrior proportions. Here’s another image to bring home the point.

https://ibb.co/nBJGKXx

And another image to make a final statement about an 8th and 9th hero.

https://ibb.co/CsCTbtQ

It seems that the Nagi is the “mage dominant barbarian” with a bowazon style (2/3rds mage)

And that the Demonic Inquisitor is the “warrior dominant bowazon” with a barbaric style (2/3rds warrior)

The second image shows how a line has been crossed with the cow level where the 8th archetype could have a mage or warrior interpretation, and of those 2 critical interpretations when combined together end up paralleling everything that this armorless upright 2 handed cow represents with immoral and unethical impression. A Nagi as a larger scale female archetype body makes more visual sense and seems safer, so I would not visually head in the direction of something that is dryad inspired with an 8th hero.

The third image considers how an 8th archetype also might emerge by combining surrounding archetypes.

The fourth image translates current archetypes with a DnD chart to reveal how exciting new virtuous heroes could emerge from a progressive melding of archetypes.

Bonus point: One thing that I read about a Nagi is how they could have 3 body types that might be a natural way of supporting 3 different skill trees. Full human body. Half human body and fully Serpent forms.

2

I dont see any reason for this change. If anything bone necro need just little % damage boost to his magic dmg spells and also cut the synergies from bonewall and boneprison.

Why?

Why? If anything it should be cold dmg because of other linked skills.

Game doesnt have burning state so they wouldhave to add it but like i am not agaisnt it.

This just doesnt make sense at all. Skill being magic is what it makes it different. Without it its just another one hit skill like concentrate. Berserk is well designed skill, no reason to change it.

Nah, she already has multiple passive skills where some could be even reporposed to what you suggest., this can easily provide Insight skill instead.

Rest of text is some weird stuff aboit unagi or what not so i will ignore that :slight_smile: i am interested only in skill changes.

1 Like
3

This is the way :+1: 2020202020

2 Likes
4

3 more images and then I’ll respond.

https://ibb.co/3CXFXD1

https://ibb.co/wz0j95v

https://ibb.co/8dpkPpZ

(A = Azure, S = Sapphire)

First of all it’s Poison and BONE skills, not Poison and MAGIC. There’s an interesting opportunity going on here. Black magic is just physical damage that is casted by spell and not from weapon. This means that we would now be able to say that the Necromancer wields “Black Magic”. This seems entirely proper.

To more properly distinguish itself from bone spear and convey a greater sense of “black magic” theme with Necro.

Physical is associated with heat due to friction. Corpse explode understands this. If they brought back Hurricane prerequisite for Armageddon(a two sided conflicting concept) they could put cross elemental synergy in to this skill tree as it is necessary. And then Armageddon would just cast hurricane with it automatically every time. Therefore if cold can be part of fire then fire can be part of cold.

Fissure appears to do X amount of damage over a duration. A mastery for at least fissure exclusively would say enhance it’s damage by 50% which is really just enhancing the speed of the “melting” let’s say.

From a perspective of realism the Barbarian would be like 1/3rd mage and 2/3rds warrior. The barbarian already has damaging warcries just like a mage. For Character’s sake I can see your point but not for Virtue’s sake. Pure magic damage berserk let’s an arch-tank be offensive and the barbarian sacrifices to wield that offense, but I don’t think pure damage must be necessary here. You can VIRTUALLY do the same thing with a progressive reduction of enemy physical resist based on skill investment. Maybe adding a %life steal enhancement would be overkill when using a shield. Maybe that would only apply when using 2 handers. It’s really just the same thing, but critically not the same thing in order to fit a new hero as a Nagi in. The Nagi would already be sacrificing armor and doing pure magic damage with a bow. Of course not exactly in the same manner the barb does it with Berserk. Have to get creative.

By your reasoning you would put Magic Arrow in to the Passive and Magic tree because it’s “Magic”. This conflict of reasoning cancels itself out and means that bow mastery instead of magic arrow is entirely feasible.

5

Not really adressing what i said. Yes they are bone skills because they literary have bones in animations but diablo 2 doesnt have dark damage, they do magic damage and there is no reason to change it as there is not many magic immunes in game so adding portion of dmg being physical would basicly nerf the skills for no reason. There has to be reason in game for changes,real reason, not philosofical one.

rest of the stuff you said is virtualy same thing. You fail to understand that Diablo 2 Resurrected as game is done so any future change basicly is or will be done based on functionaly of game, power of skills and stuff like that. Now is not the time to change things because of philosophical reasons.

You are 20+ years too late dude with this, now its not the time for this.

1 Like
6

You know it’s kind of funny because if offensive bone skills were changed to 33% physical damage then that would be up to a 40% offensive buff when using amp damage curse. But if you shift the synergies over from bone prison and bone wall to offensive bone skills then it ends up being about a 42.8% offensive buff while not mattering what curse you use.

There’s also a few things you’re not considering. The Necromancer is a sensitive hero. In the trichotomy of tank, soloist, support he leans dependent/soloist but he probably tanks better than a barb/druid/amazon when using an act 2 merc(which I’ve criticized) and with no penalty to his own life when say one of his summons dies. The Necromancer is the “do it all” hero. The intelligent way of regulating that is by commitment towards the direction one chooses to invest in. Your suggestion does not honor this essential principle while mine does. Plus each skill tree excels in each role of the trinity. The PSN & BONE is the cannon, Summon is the Tank and Curse is the Support but the Necromancer does each in an extreme/pure way because he primarily a dependent at 2 life per vitality point which fits in more with the druid and sorceress. This also means he is entitled to a mastery effect just as the druid is when compared to the sorceress.

So before buffing the “diversity extreme potency” that is already superior with the Necromancer, we really have to look at adding a proper mastery effect when mostly devoted to poison or bone. 60 points makes sense. So upon maxing out all 3 poison skills you’d get a buff that enhances poison duration by 50% let’s say. It’s easy to understand what the mastery effect would be for Necro Poison or Druid Fire but for Bone it is harder to conclude what it may be. What initially makes sense to me is that corpse explode auto casts upon killing a monster with bone.

I would say that I could see your buff happening if bone spear functioned weird like tornado and blessed hammer. I still say that 100% black damage spell on any hero is not respecting the physical damage of weapons, especially when tornado doesn’t require something like a corpse. If any hero should be close to wielding full black damage in a spell it should be the Necro and not the Druid because the Necro is more limited in a way that makes sense.

The game is already being changed by D2R and with Diablo 3 and Diablo 4 influence. It’s not suppose to be the sequels that influence the original. If anything it should be the original that influences the sequels. Things are being done backwards here. It’s not exactly ok to go back and change a 20 year old game in the direction that YOU desire which is not the direction that has been clearly left perfectly available to us by the original game designers and why fitting in a couple heroes only brings positive and proper enhancement to the other classes.

And please, don’t use the word philosophy when you don’t understand it.

7

David Brevik mentioned via Twitter there were plans to introduce a new class “Cleric,” for the second expansion.

https://twitter.com/davidbrevik/status/798272710061092867

8

I imagine the Cleric, (which of course would be physically larger than the sorceress following the pattern of the game so far) would be a tanky mage. But does the game need a tanky mage when the Barbarian already fills that role by 1/3rd at least and the Druid seems to fill that role completely? (druid is the high life/mana hero)

I think it would depend on how well it would fit in to the game and I think the 2 heroes I previously suggested might make even more sense.

I will say this though. I think that there could be room for another hero at center with the Necromancer. Instead of being overly intricate and extreme like the Necromancer it could be over simplified/moderate. I imagine this to be something like 5 skills per skill tree. I think being at center would also protect the hero from being too specialized and incomplete. The hero would need to be special if just a mage/tank. Filling all 3 roles by a quirky and meaningful proportion would seem critical to the appeal of that kind of hero.

quoting google " The Cleric is by far one of the easiest spellcasters for the player to learn ," probably speaking for DnD.

9

I would have loved to see a Bard class for D2, but sadly that will never happen. A scoundrel type character that uses magic, inspires allies, demoralize foes, creates illusions, heals wounds and master of songs. His class specific items would be musical instruments.

10

Think about the Druid. The one in Diablo is not a healer or a treehugger, like in DnD and WoW; he commands the destructive forces of nature.

Like the D2’s Druid, the Cleric does not necessarily mean a pious healer. I rather imagine Cleric as the current caster Paladin, using Holy Bolt, Blessed Hammer, FoH. Maybe also (holy) fire-themed, as an inquisitor destroying demons and undead.
Remember, BH has become OP only after the introduction of synergies in 1.10, and Holy Bolt/FoH after 2.4 buffs. Earlier Paladin was supposed to be a mainly a melee class.

1 Like
11

Most of the heroes in Diablo 3 are either the same or spin off archetypes from Diablo 2. The only real new archetypes that we got were basically the Wizard and the Monk. The Bard must be in some region of classification of extreme supporting beyond the arch support Barb, which is probably why the hero doesn’t fit in well.

I believe I have shown quite clearly how some new and virtuous archetypes can and have emerged from the 8 archetypes(7char) of Diablo 2. Neither of these are like a Cleric at all, so the only hope for a cleric seems at the center of the hero circle.

One thing that you have to remember is that a hero has to be male or female, but as they say, there is always some exception to every absolute rule. That’s why I think that the Demonic Inquisitor is a great idea since we are familiar with the Character behind the archetype and has earned a special and pedestalized place in our admiration as a full blown rogue.

Here’s my major point. Whether the Cleric would have been the 8th hero or the 10th hero at center, the hero would make the most sense as a female in either case. And since my thorough evaluation would place her at center with the Necromancer as a 10th hero, then there ends up either being one of two possibilities of revelation. Either it shows us that the Cleric is a Titan, which we’ve probably never made that connection. Or, when a Cleric and a Titan are merged together you end up with something totally new.

The Titan concept is key here and is unavoidable because you have to try to imagine what the exact opposite of the Necromancer is in theme and structure/function. It’s like the Necromancer unites as one simple and powerful being that represents the light rather than the dark. This does seem to give a Cleric like impression for hero 10 conceptually but more literally a Titan.

What if we go back to the DnD archetype sheet and merge a Cleric with a Barbarian?

That archetype is called a Herald.

Whoa… that’s a term we are even familiar with in Diablo.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ea/b0/6d/eab06de153eb91aec03362cbf9836d30.png

Boom.

Maybe Bard could be a mercenary… Maybe we don’t realize how much sense that already makes if the Barbarian class itself is a merc…

You know?

Maybe a herald would be more of a shorter ranged spell caster with magic damage and instead of conjurations maybe temporarily projected summons that are like spirits that can overlap in positioning.

Maybe AOE magic damage is always too good, especially on a spell caster and the “conjured projections” do pure magic damage but can be attacked and destroyed.

3 new heroes across 1 expansion might be an economically awkward value though. There could yet still be room for a “simplicity everything” hero like a Titan for an 11th. Say it’s the Blizzard way of competing with the Scion from PoE. Let’s put the stats and proportions of these 4 additional heroes in to perspective.

Nagi - high strength, low vitality, 2/3rds mage & 1/3rd warrior, Rogue Ranger(bowazon)

Inquisitor - low strength, high vitality, 2/3rds warrior & 1/3rd mage, Rogue Barbarian

Herald - higher strength and vitality(inversion of Necro), heavily mage(as Necro leans warrior), simplicity hero with lesser quantity of skills in theory.

Titan - Somewhat higher all stats. Half mage/warrior, simplicity hero, maybe even just 2 skill trees to represent mage and warrior.

Baard merc in a new act

There could be 2 expansions and a 2nd expansion could release Herald hero and a Bard merc, or it could be the Herald and the Titan.

Note how I described the Herald as “heavily mage” and at the hero circle center with the Necromancer. Well this hero addition would also benefit the Necromancer because it would apparently push him to be more of the warrior that he should be.

  1. we’re missing scythe necro
  2. you think curses are a mage thing? Curses are support and the hero that seems to be more support than any is the paladin and the paladin is a straight warrior. So curses may even be an indication of warrior class than spell. I feel like the fact that curses are cast without restriction or weapon relevance is more of a necessary character thing rather than a virtue thing.
  3. The Necromancer is the Glass Cannon Warrior of the game. There is no other glass cannon warrior. The Druid is a mage that can cast a spell to turn in to a warrior. There is a big difference. Now the Necromancer can be called the Glass Cannon Warrior Soloist of the game.
  4. Pus Spitter.
  5. Teeth, Spear. Probably should be weapon related and regulated in one way or another.

Now for a Herald that conversely seems like a warrior but is a mage aye?