If spear and shield interests people it could simply be a faction of the amazons. The oracles trained in the art of spear and shield and time magic to battle the new threat. (first pick even over druid for me.)
Hell knight. A fallen holy warrior with sword and shield. Since heavens closed he binds and uses demons.
Death knight. Necro with shield and whatever.
Sorry to the crusaders, templars, paladin fans, but i think it would be way more interesting than any old class with rehashed skills.
They are but I think theyâd be the least likely candidates in that regard, that is unless Kormac actually succeeded with what he intended to do by the end of Diablo 3 RoS, in which case theyâd be equal with the Crusader and Paladin.
Something worth mentioning is that holy and/or light magic/energy should still exist for humans to use within Sanctuary even with the gates of Heaven closed. Most of the classes that draw upon the power of light do so from within themselves, rather than the Heavens (at least thatâs the case if weâre to look at some of the Diablo 2âs paladinâs skill lores, and Diablo 3 monkâs items). So a holy warrior class making a reappearance for Diablo 4 is very much possible.
That said, I do agree that having something new, would be nice, although I wonât complain if the final unrevealed class the gameâs launch is another returnee from the previous games.
Thats also a possibility, so i wouldnât cut them out complitely. But as you wrote maybe the base game will have old characters, and the expansions will have some new.
Well, your post is in the spirit of the dark four, where there is very little light: one monastery hires rogues to collect ears, another order of monks in fractured peaks [or the same one] seeks the path of light in the darkness, its symbol is shown in the pale knight, diablo is always a fight for path to light.
I mainly describe weapons and armor that were never or little used in the skills of the heroes, since in the fourth series there will be a binding of skills to a certain type of weapon, then the spear and shield were less often used by different skills, and the spear was generally used by a useless ally and the only skill "spear ancient "at the barbarian in d3 and not tied to this type of weapon. Btw, a knight with a spear on a horse looks great in the spirit of medieval realism, which the blizzard team is doing now.
These kinds of âreply for the sake of replyingâ infuriate me tbh cause people fail to realise whatâs at stake here
IF they release a Paladin (for the sake of releasing a Paladin) then there wonât be anything new, and not just that but thereâs a further issue of âused resourcesâ that diminishes the path of creativity forward
âLightâ can exist in many forms, Priest is lame(±ish) sure but the important point is that as long as the light âthemeâ itâs not TIED/coupled to the S&B âarchetypeâ there are still OPTIONS for creation
Relase the Paladin (SnB + light) and your hands are âtiedâ (with very limited options), and itâs kinda bad that people donât see it from that point of view
Itâs really ESSENTIAL for us to see that limitation moving onward (for the sake of the game, on the long run) overall
Well yes and no. Thereâs wisdom in what you wrote i give that but, if you look at D3 most of the character arcetypes are a mix, and over lap each other. For example the holy warrior type branches in to two. The Crusader and the Monk. Both melee, only the fantasy behind them devides them, and the main stat.
Iâd argue itâs that they had the space to add a Crusader because they released a Monk first, if it was a Paladin then that train wouldâve been gone
I mean sure, one can still âcreateâ but again, the more means are used the harder it is to âcome upâ with something new
Letâs just say hypothetically instead of a Paladin they come up with a âHoly archerâ, now you can release a fighter from up close that is more darker-themed, or say they released a âclassicâ warrior with Spears, SnB and Crossbow (sort of like Conquistador) that opens up space for a more âlight centricâ mage fighter, e.t.c.
I guess your example with Monk/Sader does hold a point but again, Iâd argue that there was the room for both PRECISELY BECAUSE the more âunconventionalâ was released first
I think untill thereâs a convetional and unconvetional form of the same base type, it dosenât mater which comes first, if there are features, caharacteristics, and the fantasy behind them, that seperates them from eachother. It has to be a verry conspicuous difference tho.
There is nothing sacred in this dark and bloody four. Truly dark times have come, a cult of blood with sacrifices, murders and robberies. If there is a knight, then certainly not a saint, like the following classes.
I agree with this take to some extent. If you exhaust your archetypes with things weâve already seen before then it makes fitting in truly new classes much more difficult. Having said that, there is a way in which this might not be a problemâŠ
Iâm hoping for something from PoE (and a bunch of other games) to find its way into the Diablo series for the first time, and that is class ascendancies or specializations. It would be really interesting to see D4 build their endgame progression around such specializations. It would also explain the lack of apparent build depth in their skill tree system if it is just determining the base build that can be further refined/specialized in endgame.
I actually dislike the concept of class specialization, as it often feels as though the class gets shoehorn into predetermined builds (not saying all games with specializations does this). I think that any kind of specialization should be determined by the playerâs gear, build, and skill/talent choice, rather than a subclass acquisition.
Letâs face it, while all the ascendancy choices look great on paper, just like D3, most just google best x build and copy that. The new patch video for PoE even said players just play the top builds.
This is more of a player problem though. No matter how many choices players are presented with, most will seek the easiest path. One of the reasons I want to like PoE is because of the options since I like to do my own thing. I make mu own builds in ARPGs, I build my own decks in TCGs, and I play how I like in MMOs.
Though all that end-game stuff may be cool I still prefer that the game itself becomes an âendgameâ (by itself) earlier
Ofc. the 1-shotting shouldnât be a thing, but something (some mechanic) which determines whether next hit you take is gonna be lethal or not and is quite interractive/dynamic should probably be a thing
Either that, OR, slow down the combat (like quite a bit) and hope that the Blessing/Curse and CC/cleanse cycles determine more the âoutcomeâ of a battle rather than a direct damage hits IMO⊠Ofc, most lethal hits should still come at melee range but stuff that âpecksâ you from afar (or further) should probably make you take more damage from hits up close (in a direct or indirect manner) rather than be lethal in an independent manner
It might not sound as cool or âdiverseâ to some but think itâs the better route to âsoft forceâ almost all classes/builds into a more closer combat and more melee-on-melee sustan battles, thatâs probably the only way to not force the game into super late game and then âget cheatedâ to get beaten⊠It would also probably be more different compared to other games in the genre ATM tbh
So ONCE that is kinda âdealtâ with, donât think that âendgameâ is a separate issue⊠Ofc, curious to see what the devs actually come up with (at the next Q update afair) but even without a âspecificâ endgame system, the game could be designed to be more âhigh risk high rewardâ from earlier phases overall
Ofc, it may not be one of the goals that Blizz âhuntsâ but itâs a nice way to make the game different from the other games that are there though
None of that matters for the sake of âmore options/creativityâ because the paladin is just objectively a more popular class than any other âholyâ archetype they could come up with. The paladin isnât my go-to class but its certainly a class Iâd actually play and would also rather play than a lame monk or priest. Besides the paladin was skipped over in D3 technically so it has been a while. Iâd like to see its return with some new tricks since its D2 days.
As far as thinking ahead, if D4 is going to be a supported game for many years ahead due to a well monetized microtransaction shop to help pay for that then I expect to see MANY additional classes down the line.
Interestingly how you dismiss the âcreativity issueâ I brought, but then followed it up with even greater a concern (at least in my view), mainly with the following statement:
My gripe is mostly with said âholyâ archetype. I know most people are afraid of change and just want to see their comfortable classes back with new graphics.
But my opinion is the complete opposite. Bring archetypes in fighting style back but with new themes at least. I guess itâs a matter of opinion but in every damn RPGs out there you always have the rogue, always the warrior, barb, always the paladin, always the priest or druid or elementalist or necro. It gets old.
Now D4 reuses all of these classes and brings them back from their own franchise. They need to have staple skills and it takes the place away from novelty.
Why not a bard thatâs also great with all weapons.
A battle mage thatâs not holy.
An holy archer.
My elaboration would be that if this game gets consistent support I donât see why they wouldnât release another 5 classes or more after the first 5 whether its in tandem with expansions or just releasing a class with a little bit of additional content in-between expansions, which leaves plenty of room for new creative classes that are different imo. I have no doubt they would like to add in some fresh classes that havenât been seen before.
