Our Beloved D2 Classes

[Cheeseflys]

After reading the character class suggestion thread, I cam across a person who qouted the site that hinted that the Necromancers were the cause of Diablo's coming. So, if that's true, it probally takes out the chance of a character called the "Necromancer" with the WD to replace him.

Like in Diablo 1, the warrior made Diablo come back, and the rest of the classes became a sort of boss in the next game. Sorcerer(The Summoner) Rouge(Blood Raven) I think I similar fate will befall our beloved classes from Diablo 2, maybe the Barbarian was the only one immune to the affects of Diablo's magic?

Maybe the Amazon fled back to her homeland to find that Diablo had already demolished the place, and she became corupt by the evil forces still in the area.

Or the Druid had no where to go and being a man of the wild, he wouldn't be able to survive in the harsh enviroment, and let Diablo take over his body.

And the Assassin, well, I haven't thought of much yet.... But, from what the manual said about their background, they probally went through the same fate as our beloved Sorceress.

The Sorceress, (And the Assassin maybe?) went back to her land to find it being under attack, and maybe being able to live out until our Diablo 3 heroes come to rescue her under Cain's orders?

And my most hated, and alot of peoples favorite... The Paladin. I think he might have been taken by greed of the Dark-Side(Star Wars baby!) and knowing he couldn't live without the help of darkness, went along with the others.

With all the things they said about new places, I belive they would HAVE to take us there, it is one of the few things I wanted to see more then anything!

If your wonder why I didn't mention Necromancers, well I did at the top when I talked about what Blizzard said... But, if you want more detail on my thoughts keep reading....

Ok, I belive the Necromancers were planning to have Diablo rise again after his second death knowing that he would be more powerful then ever. And using the gem the was left in Diablo's forehead, the Necromancers were able to use it's power to resurect the beast from Hell...

Ok, i'm done! That took awhile to type. :coffee:

[Hello Jim]

While are you troubling to figure out what happened to classes?
The only 2 classes that the faith of ALL of their kind has been knows and was part of the game were the Necros (in D3) and the Barbs (Act 5 in D2).

Or are you talking about the story that describes the hero class, like they did on D2?

[konfeta]

Technically D3 will follow the same format as Diablo 1-->2 transition: they will use what are classes in the previous game as basis for backstory or something else.

For example -

The "Warrior" was possessed by Diablo.
The "Sorceror" became the False Summoner in the Arcane Sanctuary.
The "Rogue" became Blood Raven.

We know that the Barbarian from Diablo 2 is actually making a return as PC - if you play the Barbarian in D3 you will be playing the Barbarian you did in D2. This probably explains why he is so old looking now, just check out his artwork and in-game model.

He is asking how are the other such characters treated, who is the canonical slayer of the Prime Evils, etc.

This actually raises a very interesting question... What about the male/female versions? Will the female barbarian have a separate origin story, or will they retcon the backstory if you pick her (as in the D2 barbarian was female if you choose to play the D3 barbarian as a female).

[ThulRasha]

Even if they retcon the backstory, the female barbarian should also be old, and the blonde curls clearly show that she isn't. So a seperate origin maybe, looking for her old daddy/older brother who never returned home, wich would be the barbarian you played in D2.

[Cheeseflys]

Well, I think with the way D3 looks, the female/male versions are just survivors that happened to stay alive by staying near there male/female superior. Or somthing around those lines. :P

[SirMoogie]

I'm guessing the canonical slayers of Diablo will be the multiple heroes (potentially 5-7) that Cain traveled with. Reading his journal reveals that he traveled with more than one hero (starts on page 18). The journal consistently uses the term "we" to refer to Cain and his companions. He mentions that the heroes he's traveling with made quick work of Mephisto, and though it is not specific about Diablo, his companions are mentioned to have started an immediate assault once reaching Mt. Arreat.

Since the third game's story is heading more towards the individual classes (and genders) representing one unique hero, and not a class of individuals, I'm guessing the journal is reflecting this change by having each potential "class" in the second game being an individual character, and not a community of barbarians, amazons, etc .

How this works out when you have multiple individuals playing the same "class" and gender combination, remains to be seen, but I presume it won't be a problem as the story dialogues will probably be private between one's character and the NPCs.

[Cheeseflys]

Well, I would guess every Class and it's specific gender would have seperate dialouge... Unless the NPCs refer to you by class...Like in D2, Alkor for example.He just refered to you as Necromancer, if there was a female version, it wouldn't matter too much.

[Swiffer]

This actually raises a very interesting question... What about the male/female versions? Will the female barbarian have a separate origin story, or will they retcon the backstory if you pick her (as in the D2 barbarian was female if you choose to play the D3 barbarian as a female).

With D3 being 20 years ahead of D2 they won't need to retcon something like this, because they have a 20 year gap in which to explain the changes.

[konfeta]

Explain the changes? I thought Sanctuary didn't have transgender spells...

[Thirty-Thirty]

I don't think you'll be able to play as a 'toon that defeated Baal. Firstly, Blizz might think that would estrange new players (of whom there will be many, since it's already a 7 year gap since LoD) to some extent. Secondly, you'd've lost your powers, starting over at Level 1. It's explicable, I guess, but easier to just omit. So while the barb might be one of the guys who was meandering around the Bloody Foothills, I don't think they'll be Slayers.

I think konfeta's other point is more interesting: how will the classes of D2 be used as story characters in D3? I wouldn't be surprised if we visit the home of the Amazons, or can hire Assassins or something.

[Saint Anger]

I doubt any character will have made it through unscathed - not even the barbarian. He appears to have aged alot through the ordeal - not only physically, but mentally as well. The artwork shows him to appear troubled, brooding - though the same can be said to a certain extent about the original character in d2 proper, of course. It also fits in nicely with the theme (I doubt the theme would cause characters to run around with happy faces), so this troubled appearence needn't necessarily be something that ties in with d2 itself (=this "old" barbarian needn't be the same one as we played through the game with).

Though they were once misunderstood as simple, bloodthirsty invaders, the long and noble history of these proud people is now rightly acknowledged. And therein lies the greater tragedy here, for those of us familiar with the nobility of the barbarians remember too what they call their "vigil", the concept that lay at the very heart of their culture. The barbarians consider it their sworn duty to protect Mount Arreat and the mysterious object within. They believe that if they fail to uphold their duty to the great mount, or are not given a proper burial upon its slopes, they will be denied a true warrior's death, and their spirits shall roam the land without honor for all eternity.

If there are any barbarians left alive, they must truly be without hope. Perhaps this is the genesis of the rumors of monstrous things reported to resemble the barbarians in size and ferocity, but that are in reality nothing more than unreasoning, inhuman beasts. Could the destruction of not only their home but also their very beliefs have actually brought this magnificent race so low?

(taken from the official d3 website, part of the barbarian class description)

[Cheeseflys]

Now, we've been talking alot about the Barbarian here, and we never touched on how the other classes affected the story line. (Other then my lead post of course.)

The Barbarian never interested me, but i've always hated the bulky people, I prefer the agile thoughtful characters.(Sorceress, Assassin.) Or just the plain genious.(Necromancer :D)

But i've been wondering what the Witch-Doctor has to do with the story....

And Blizzard also mentioned Class-Specific quests. I've been thinking, maybe somthing around the replacement for the Sorceress decides to visit where the magic all started, and needed to learn deep in the art. So, maybe the Sorceress replacement gets to choose somthing like Frozen Orb from the old sorceress who remembers some of the old spells... Or the Paladin replacement went wherever the Paladins trained to learn the mighty skill of a Hammerdin! (Muhahahaha? I hate Paladins.....)

[SmittySixTen]

From what they have said about the characters, each one will have their own individual story. From the sounds, male and female characters will have different stories, but acquire the exact same skills and have the exact same stats to begin the game.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say the Paladin likely will go crazy, simply because it was his order that allowed Mephisto to free himself, and in turn open the portal to hell. However, where Blizzard has always wanted Diablo to e a co-op franchise, I can see him returning simply because of the overall survivability he brings to a party.

The Barbarian, as people have said, is more than likely the same guy returning from D2. The female might be his daughter or something easy to write like that.

The Druid I see becoming a recluse that you have to find for information of some sort, if he is not a playable character. I can very easily see him being a playable character, though. If he is, I would hope that Blizzard would do away with summons and focus heavily on Shape Shifting and Elemental skills. We're talking a total wreaking machine when shifted and a force of friggin nature when focused on Elemental skills.

The Assassin is a bit harder to peg. She is much easier to "turn" evil than the other classes, I think. However, where she is also taxed with enforcing the law (in a manner of speaking), and her shadow abilities focus around a purity of mind, I doubt she would be as easily manipulated. However, I'm really hoping for a true Rouge type character, so if the Assassin is playable I hope they totally rework how she operates overall.

As for the Amazon, I can very easily see her staying on as a playable character. Blizzard will want to keep a bow class alive, and there's no reason to think they will come up with a third race that specializes in such a thing. They have the rouges from D1, now the Amazons from D2. If D3 has ANOTHER specialist that would just be overkill. Keep in mind, the Sorcerer and Sorceress are basically two sects from the same guild that separated centuries earlier (from what I remember about Diablo lore anyway, I may be wrong).

Which, of course, brings me to the Sorceress. There is going to be some sort of magic class in the game. There's no way around this, and I'm guessing the male version will be a sorcerer variation from D1, while the female will be the sorceress from D2. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

As for the Necromancer, I don't see him returning. Not because of the Witch Doctor, but because he is the most corruptible and the hardest to pull off a male/female variant. However, not including him AND making him a villain is very predictable, so I don't know if Blizzard wants to really go that route. Either way, I don't see him being a playable character, at least not until the first expansion.

That's my take on it, but I'm sure I'm way off on a lot of those.

[Cheeseflys]

Well, if they do have an exspansion...(Which they will) They would of course, put a new act in of sorts.... And maybe the Necromancers gave up their evil ways when Diablo Resurected Baal (IF it happens of course...) And decided that Baal wouldn't care for the Necromancers, so they're only chance of survival was...ANARACHY IN THE U.K.!!!!111one!!!1 Ahem... You get the idea; right?

And Smitty, I agree on your idea of the Female Barbarian just being the male version's daughter, and just having a different backstory. But, I don't belive any of the other classes will be returning. It wouldn't be the "Blizzard" thing to do, they would simply make another variant to that class. The Amazon could simply be replaced by a Ranger, which could also take on the Amazon/Druid hybrid, no?

I don't think the Sorceress died, but won't be playable, but be a NPC somewhere in the game.

But, I still belive Adria(<<<If that's her name...) the Witch from D1 will return, she just has to! Or atleast bring back Farnham... Because in Tristram in D2, you didn't see Adria, Farnham, or that healer guy... Just Griswold and the Wirt kid...

I always get Adria or that D1 lady confused with Adria, or that D2 lady! Gah! >.>

May take you awhile to read the line above this one, so read it once or twice. xD

[Kanji]

As for the Necromancer, I don't see him returning. Not because of the Witch Doctor, but because he is the most corruptible and the hardest to pull off a male/female variant. However, not including him AND making him a villain is very predictable, so I don't know if Blizzard wants to really go that route. Either way, I don't see him being a playable character, at least not until the first expansion.

An excerpt from the Diablo 2 game manual

"Although their art is considered "dark," and the people of the outside world shun the priests who practice these arts, these mysterious cultists never suffered the epidemic of corruption that plagued the ancient Mage Clans. Pragmatists in the truest sense, they are above temptation. They see death merely as a natural part of life and do not seek to deny its arrival. Their singular knowledge of the unknown allows them to face death without fear. These ideals, coupled with an understanding of the natural balance between Order and Chaos, explain why they have not fallen prey to the influences of evil."

The one thing I always liked about the Necromancers in D2 is that they weren't super duper paragons of evil, like in pretty much every other RPG ever. They aren't really "good", either, they're rooted firmly in the middle and are totally satisfied with that. They hate how heaven and hell and constantly vying for control of Sanctuary, and would probably jump at the chance to kick both sides out for good. If war between Heaven and Hell really does erupt in Sanctuary in D3, the Necromancers will probably be the first to get caught in the crossfire; there's no telling how powerful they are, and both sides would probably love to see them out of the equation.

I don't know if the novels have retconned or altered any of this, but if Necros have been slanted into typical evil, bad guy types, that's a huge loss; I think they're way more interesting as pragmatic, misunderstood eccentrics.

[Cheeseflys]

Well, if you've seen my "What's your favorite class" thread, you would see I am a Sorceress and Necromancer fan. But, even though they are indeed neutral, Blizzard said themselves that the Necromancers resurrected Diablo. So, if you consider this, the Necromancers wont be playable until an expansion of sorts comes out with a story twist. Like the Necromancers were betrayed and now they're back with his trusty Barbarian to do all the tanking for him. :D

People always get confuse necromancers with liches. Liches are evil, while necromancers are neutral. A simple Chart would be like:

Good: Clerics; Neutral: Necromancers; Evil: Liches.

But, Necros lean more towards the liches then they do to the clerics. If the clan had to decide, they would simply go with the liches.

And your qoute does suggest the necromancers aren't evil, but I don't belive anyone said they were. I just belive they're 35%Good & 65% Evil. Or maybe 15%/75%, I don't know.

I also play Guild-Wars, the necromancers are simply fighting evil because they're in their way, I belive that goes for all Necromancers in most games. They side with whoever gets in their way and sides with the other side, if they're both neglected, i'm guessing it's suicide. :P

[SmittySixTen]

But, even though they are indeed neutral, Blizzard said themselves that the Necromancers resurrected Diablo.

I think I must have missed this bit of info. When was that revealed?

[Telzen]

I guess talking about this:
"Master DeSoto is certain the origin of the walkers, and of the Festering Wood itself, can be traced to the foul doings of necromancers, who he claims are responsible for much of the evil that has befallen our world. He expounded in full to me his theory that the "whole Diablo incident", as he called it, was tied up in their dark arts as well."

http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/world/bestiary/gnarledwalker.xml

Which of course does not make it true. Since of course the necromancers do have a bad reputation and are misunderstood.

[Cheeseflys]

True, but i'm using the info at hand, it would be the greatest thing ever if the Necromancers were in D3 as playable characters!

[lionheart]

Well read the books and you see that their role is far greater than just to eliminate whats in their way. They are there to keep the balance in the world of sanctuary. They believe in Trag'oul that is an entity that basically watches over sanctuary. So their role is not evil at all, and in one side u cant consider them totally good either. They basically want to keep the essence of humans as it is, with both good and evil in it kept in a balance.

[Cheeseflys]

I guess you basically just repeated about what I said when I mention that they were neutral... But, you were more elaborate with it...

[lionheart]

For the sole purpose of some people that dont know the exact background story and start making speculations on erraneous beliefs. Sorry if it bothered u in any way...

[Cheeseflys]

No, no, it didn't bother me in anyway. But, can we get back on topic and have posts about the future of our beloved D2 classes? :P

[Grunthex]

With the necromancers that dedicated to neutrality, there's a certain logic to their flipping to the evil side. I mean, 3 Prime Evils and 2 Lesser Evils got stomped flat. Then at the same time you have the broken Worldstone allowing Heaven just as much access to the playground as Hell. Seems like Good might have the upper hand, and the necromancers are just straightening things out.

Course, that leaves lots of room for Evil to tip the pendulum back in their favor, and have an excuse to release playable Necromancers in an expansion, if the outcry is strong enough.

[lionheart]

Yes but the thing is that in concern to sanctuary they are both evil. Fighting against heaven if they attack would be turning to the evil side, would just be the same as fighting against hell. The concept of heaven in regards to sanctuary is a little different than what we might have from our religion...

[KiLLJOi]

And my most hated, and alot of peoples favorite... The Paladin. I think he might have been taken by greed of the Dark-Side(Star Wars baby!) and knowing he couldn't live without the help of darkness, went along with the others.

Hmm, I thought they were all very religious, defenders of good, and the "light" side of things

[Millionflame]

I'm not sure if I would say that the necromancerS, plural, all banded together to resurrect Diablo. If indeed they would be the ones responsible for it, I think it's more likely that there would be a schism among their ranks, with part aiding the Prime Evil, another aiding the forces of Heaven, and a third trying to remain neutral. After all, Nihlathak was a necromancer, and him selling out access to the Worldstone to Baal certainly wasn't acting in the interest of cosmic neutrality. He was acting to save his own hide.

[PlasmaTorture]

Where did the idea that Necromancers revived Diablo come from? The Gnarled Walkers page seems to be talking about the events of the past two games when it refers to "the Diablo incident." It's just a crazy guy with a tinfoil-hat blaming Necromancers for everything.

[lionheart]

I'm not sure if I would say that the necromancerS, plural, all banded together to resurrect Diablo. If indeed they would be the ones responsible for it, I think it's more likely that there would be a schism among their ranks, with part aiding the Prime Evil, another aiding the forces of Heaven, and a third trying to remain neutral. After all, Nihlathak was a necromancer, and him selling out access to the Worldstone to Baal certainly wasn't acting in the interest of cosmic neutrality. He was acting to save his own hide.

Cause they always have to put a "bad" guy that goes against what he is supposed to do. There was a necro like this Karybdus i think, dont remember the name well, in one of the books as well. This is acceptable, but to say that all members of that class turned into wrong ideals is a little far fetched...

[Twistedmill]

One should be able to rule out some of the character classes thanks to the fact that each class in d3 will have both a male and female version. Who came up with that lame idea? This automaticly rules out some of the classes.

I doubt the necromancer will be returning. I think he is to similar to the witch doctor.

The Amazon will not be returning...i mean a male amazon, now that would be retarded.

The sorceres probably won't be returning because her clan only consist of females, so the mage class character will most likely be from one of the other clans. However i don't know if the other clans allow females to be accepted in their clans. What i'm trying to say is that it probably wont be the same kind of sorceress(not all elemental spells).

I don't think the druid will be returning for the same reason as the necro(resembles the witch doctor to much).

Assassin is a possibilty, but i'm personally hoping that won't happen. Hated that class.

Paladin is also a possibility.

It all depends on what blizzard means when they are saying that 3 characters from d1 and d2 are returning, do they mean "exact" copies like the barbarian with some old and some new skills or do they mean like a vizjeri mage, whose skills could be very different from any of the mages we have seen in the earlier games even though the mage in d1 was from the Vizjeri clan. They have quite a wide range of spells to pick from(I would love to see the stone curse spell return).

The warrior was a class which in a way consisted of many classes. The barbarian is a warrior for instance and so is the paladin. So no warrior class.

If the rogue class is returning, then it will have to be a new kind of rogue and not one the old ones since the old ones were members of the sisters of the sightless eye which only consists of women.

I think the other new class will be a ranged one. A Ranger perhaps...

If any of this holds true, then that leaves us with:

paladin

assassin

Vizjeri mage

as two of the other returning classes.

However nothing is written in stone yet. I'm hoping that there will be more than 5 classes, maybe 6. 3 old ones and 3 new ones sounds much better to me.