Links to why Diablo 3 has different classes now?

[Outerhaven]

First post so be gentle! Plus couldn't find this anywhere else.. prob over looking it.

I just recently (4 months ago) bought D2 and started playing with some friends to try and learn some things before D3 came out. Up until now Im new to the game and was first time playing it. So was just wondering Why does Diablo 3 have less classes than D2? I would think more classes would make it a bigger game. Also why the name changes from like Scorc to Wizard and Necro to witch doctor? I couldn't find any links online to where the devs addressed these so maybe someone has links or a explanation to why the downgrade of classes and name changes..

[Kheirn]

First post so be gentle! Plus couldn't find this anywhere else.. prob over looking it.

I just recently (4 months ago) bought D2 and started playing with some friends to try and learn some things before D3 came out. Up until now Im new to the game and was first time playing it. So was just wondering Why does Diablo 3 have less classes than D2? I would think more classes would make it a bigger game. Also why the name changes from like Scorc to Wizard and Necro to witch doctor? I couldn't find any links online to where the devs addressed these so maybe someone has links or a explanation to why the downgrade of classes and name changes..

More classes make a bigger game.. Let's compare. 10 classes which are somewhat balanced with say 3 specs or 5 well-balanced classes with a myriad of specs? For example, a wizard can be a melee-wizard if he so wishes. Witch Doctors can choose to go with pets or no pets, and this is just very "basic" examples. The variations and playstyles are gigantic. To adress the latter; Wizards aren't sorcerers, Witch Doctor's aren't Necromancers. It's not a name change, it's a different class altogether. And why not? I find the new classes to be very exciting and I can't wait to really sink my teeth into them and explore all their quirks.

[Outerhaven]

To adress the latter; Wizards aren't sorcerers, Witch Doctor's aren't Necromancers. It's not a name change, it's a different class altogether. And why not? I find the new classes to be very exciting and I can't wait to really sink my teeth into them and explore all their quirks.

Yeah like I said, only like 3-4 months into playing for my first time.. so Im a bit of a nub at the game. Ive been told they were the same just different name. Ive only played a scorc on D2.. though I know alot of people are mad about the pally so thus why asking of the downgrade.

[Mammoon]

Keep in mind that Diablo 2 originally had 5 classes as well, and only in LoD did the druid and the assassin get added.

I am sure that if (or when) Blizzard decides to add an expansion for D3, they will add new classes.

[Kheirn]

It basically goes like this. Let's just use random numbers and say it takes 100 days to create and balance the classes. With 10 classes, that's 10 days each. With 5 classes, that's 20 days each. Twice the development time means that they are better balanced, have better ideas which are properly tried and better synergy. With more development time you can make a class become so much more than it would've been if you wouldn't have had that time. They chose to make fewer classes because in the end it would make the game a lot more fun. Diablo has always been about quality and D3 so far have proven to be magnificent.

[Wekapedia]

D2 had 5 classes originally as well. The additional two (Assassin and Druid) came with a much later expansion pack.

The Wizard of D3 plays different from the Sorcerer in the previous two games, instead of Mana they use a resource called Arcane Power, which is similar to Energy of WoW. According to lore Sorcerers are adepts taught in the arts of magic, while Wizards are uncontrolled magic wielders, always seeking more power.

[Outerhaven]

D2 had 5 classes originally as well. The additional two (Assassin and Druid) came with a much later expansion pack.

So this has already prob been answered before, but is there any word or belief that D3 will have more classes in later Expans? I know its too soon to tell but I think more options the better, personally

[Mayia]

At a guess the limited classes are like Starcraft 2, Less units = more expansions.
Why give for free when you can make an expansion almost exactly the same but with another class or two, EA is the master of releasing Trivial expansions that only add one or two things.

About the naming system perhaps they will use the previously named classes when the time comes, In the mean time they can water down the classes to basics.

[Nosonia]

I think blizzard has learned the value of expansions and are now developing new games based on expansions.

Perhaps they have another 4-5 classes they want to release, but are holding off so people will buy new expansions, and feel as if the game is new and interesting.

Even before SC2 came out, they said "an expansion to SC2 should come out 1 year later" .. this means, they had the content already, just didnt want to release it in the original game.

Blizzard has moved from quality and customer satisfaction to money hungry corporation...

[Archangel Tyrael]

Necromancers are nothing like Witch Doctors, and wizards and sorceres are a different thing, you can even read that on official diablo 3 website.

[Deleted]

Well, whoever told you the classes are the same as in D2 was horribly mistaken, and probably hasn't played the beta themselves but simply made assertions based on screenshots. No offense to them, but they are as wrong as can be.

The entire class mechanic system is being remade entirely for starters; instead of specs you have a myriad of active and passive abilities, and only a limited number of slots to specialize in. My favorite witch doctor utilizes firebats (literally bats on fire in a frontal cone) and pet zombie dogs, and uses the passive summoner perk which increases their effectiveness by 20% not much unlike how you'd spend talent points on flat stat improvements of your spells in D2. Someone elses favorite witch doctor poisons everything, and yet someone elses utilizes heavy AoE. Same thing goes with the other classes - they can all be played in many ways that are very different from one another. But very few of them are all that similar to the Diablo 2 classes. Just because necro and summons-WD both summon undead things that help them fight don't make them the same class, et cetera.

[Kheirn]

Oh my god not the "It's a conspiracy! Everything they do is to earn lots of money! Ahhh!" again.

Seriously guys, Diablo 2 had 5 classes then got an expansion. Was that expansion also part of the expansion-conspiracy-theory? Seriously though, stop spewing out a bunch of bullcrap. They're not holding off classes just so they can put them in an expansion and make money. Am I the only one that actually understands design structure and how to balance a game here? If you look at the classes in Diablo 3 they are extremely diverse. Blizzards design philosophy with Diablo 3 is one class, tons of different viable specs. They want you to have control over your character and play how you want. Very, very few games offer that to the degree that Blizzard has done with Diablo 3. Balance wise, Diablo 2 was a disaster compared to Diablo 3. Their philosophy with D3 is to make pretty much every spec (working spec mind you, not random points thrown about anywhere) viable in nightmare, hell and inferno. In Diablo 2, to clear Hell solo with a Sorc required a very specific build already from level 1, and that still came with many problems.

Ask yourself the question again, do you want an unbalanced game with lots of classes, half of which are utterly crap end-game and two completely overpowered ones or a game with few, very well-balanced classes with supreme diversity? If you pick the first option, sorry, but then you really are stupid.

Yes, expansions exist, because otherwise the game would never be released. They exist because when making the game, tons of ideas come up. Things you want in the game that you know the players will want, but the game has to be released sometime. You can't just sit and add, and add, and add, and add up to the point that the game is delayed 3 years. The only approach to it is to polish the game, release it, and then work on the next set of ideas that sparked up during the later stages of the game that didn't make it in time. That way the players have the game, they love it to death, and when the material that didn't make it is properly tested and polished, they have even more to play with. Expansions is a great idea because it gives the developer more space to create, a finished game isn't a completely sealed entity like on consoles.

Since the poster above brought up StarCraft 2 in this whole expansion-conspiracy-theory "debate", I actually like the idea. StarCraft has grown so large and is dearly loved by many. All have their favorite race, even those that barely play the game. The interesting thing with the "trinity game" is that they do the expansions to give us a grand story from three perspectives. Personally I found the Terran story to be a great deal of fun and I thoroughly enjoyed it. To experience the same with Zerg and Protoss, bring it on! It's such things that would just take too damn long time to make it into the first release of a game. It would've been released sometime during 2013 if they hadn't gone with the expansion idea. Would that be preferred by you?

"Hey guys, we have this AWESOME game going on, it's going really good, we have most of it done, but you'll have to wait for 3 years more or so because people don't like to buy expansions! Bravo, amazing idea.


TL;DR: You're not getting one, read my damn post.

[Caiada]

I think blizzard has learned the value of expansions and are now developing new games based on expansions.

Perhaps they have another 4-5 classes they want to release, but are holding off so people will buy new expansions, and feel as if the game is new and interesting.

Even before SC2 came out, they said "an expansion to SC2 should come out 1 year later" .. this means, they had the content already, just didnt want to release it in the original game.

Blizzard has moved from quality and customer satisfaction to money hungry corporation...

They have a game they have been developing for 10 years. It's a sequel to a game that is a national sport in some countries, and ridiculously popular in others. You think it'd be somehow logical to NOT have an expansion planned? Keep in mind that Brood War came out like 8 months or something after the original SC. This is not a new development.

[Flutterguy]

Barbarian is the only one that is basically the same lorewise.

The barbarian is a follow-up directly to what happened to Mt. Arreat. That's why they are in the game and an exception to their rule of not repeating classes.

[zaoly]

EA is the master of releasing Trivial expansions that only add one or two things.

Sure EA likes to milk the cash cows, but EA has nothing to do with Activation Blizzard.

Blizzard has moved from quality and customer satisfaction to money hungry corporation...

You should be more thankful that Blizzard is one of the last companies that still releases expansions instead of DLC's that add nothing but a few side missions in most games.

[Dispirit]

it's safe to they'll add more classes in at least one of the 2 planned expansions to the game.