05/30/2012 04:14 PMas if he doesn't belong at all.
Posted by Wolf
Personally, I don't think any of the classes really "fit."
D2 was cool, because it had classes we all understood before we played:
*The pally was obviously a male knight with a hallowed side.
*The zon was a chick with mad skillz.
*The necro was a dude with a corpse fetish.
*The sorceress was a chick with magical talents.
*The barb was a big dude that grunted a lot.
We all know what these classes are because of ancient folklore and the fantasy realm.
But, what are these new classes?
* To me, a monk is a dude in long brown robe and a funky haircut.
* A wizard is too much of a no-brainer.
* Then we have the demon hunter, which while self-explanatory, is also a mystery.
* The witch doctor, who didn't really
even come into existence until the 1600's.
* And, the barb, who is still just a big dude (or fat chick) that grunts a lot.
What do all the new classes have in common? Nothing, aside from the fact that Blizzard created them.... well, let's say they "redefined" them.
I liked the old classes, because they were all from ancient folklore, and we knew what to expect. The new classes aren't clearly defined, and I'm assuming no one feels any real connection to their toons, like we did in D2.
When I first heard about the demon hunter class, my eyes rolled numerous times, because not only is a demon hunter a totally new fantasy character, but it also typically only hunts demons... hence the name "demon hunter," which makes me ask "Are all mobs in D3 demons?"
The answer, of course, is: "If a demon hunter is hunting all mobs in D3, then all mobs in D3 must be demons," but I don't think they are, are they?