Which you prefer: Necromancer or Witch Doctor?

rolandd · Post by **rolandd** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:04 am

Diablo 3 is introducing a new character, the Witch Doctor which has certain similarities to the Necromancer we have gotten used to in Diablo 2. Although they have similar abilities, they look different and are offered as different classes of characters.

If it was up to you, which would you prefer to see on Diablo 3, The Witch Doctor or Necromancer? You can find a poll directly for this burning question and make your opinion heard here: Poll: Which character would you prefer for the final version of Diablo 3? - gaming survey

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:27 am

To me, the choice and balance of the skills is the important part, not the name of the class. They could name it frenzied babysitter for all I care, as long as the skill tree is well made.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:45 am

Dottie wrote:To me, the choice and balance of the skills is the important part, not the name of the class. They could name it frenzied babysitter for all I care, as long as the skill tree is well made.

With 20 ranks in angry boyfriend and a synergy from the 10 ranks in overtime-sitting?

As for what the classes offer as of now, Witch Doctor. Easily. It's skills are similar to the necromancer's, but with the extra fluff that makes it stand out even more.

Such as Wall of Bones versus Wall of pissed off zombies.

Salidin54 · Post by **Salidin54** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:58 pm

I don't think anything can be said about the preference of one class over another until we've seen the other classes. Who knows, they could put up another class that is like the necro, and we could find out that the Witch Doctor is nothing like the necro in party based game play.

terran698 · Post by **terran698** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:19 pm

necro vs. witchdoctor

i think that diablo3 is a bad idea from what i have seen. a mongrel?(isnt that what old ppl call a stray dog) i mean it looks like blizzard has decided to change its fan base. i mean diablo 1 and 2 and d2 exp were great, some blood, good graphics(at the time), and the eerie kind of music that when your walking around in a dungeon it scares you if your not being attacked. the graphic i have seen for diablo3 look too much like WoW. isnt that a game that is designed for younger kids? i think any game that involves you killing the devil and his brothers should at least be made for people 17yrs or older. that is what made the doom series and the original diablo's soo good. i think i will have to stick with the necromancer, but he needs all his skills updated (better synergies/damage/better weapons). i wont choose the witchdoctor because that sounds like something you would fight in a cartoon(hmm i notice a trend here). let alone the poor choice for the name of his creature(s)

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:41 pm

a mongrel?(isnt that what old ppl call a stray dog)

What's wrong with being able to summon a disease infested mut of a beastial creature to tear down and thrash an enemy to pieces?

Hell, they had little Pygmy's in Diablo 2 called Fetishes. I mean that was just beyond stupid. And no, Fetish is not originally a creature name or a species of any kind. Fetish has always applied to fixations and eroticism or stone carvings, not pygmy's.

As for the graphics argument. I still don't see it. I see absolutely, and I mean ABSOLUTELY no resemblance to world of warcraft. We're not talking about the difference between a cucumber and pickle here, just because a flash of poison from the witch doctor looks similar to a flash of poison from world of warcraft does not, in any way, make it resemble the game as a whole of WoW.

Currently I'm in agreement with Dottie, they could call the class the Gobblety-gookmeister as long as it's skills, abilities, and other attributes are well balanced. The look of a character class and the gameplay feeling are two totally different things, so the witch doctor may look a little kooky, but I don't care as graphics are never an important part in video games, at least to me.

El Flesh · Post by **El Flesh** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:42 am

There will be Players who had characters from previous games and they will doubtlessly want to use them again.
If Blizzard will make a goddam Barbarian, they they should sure as hell bring the other classes back; and none of this utter baloney about not having the room to do it. Bullcrap.
That's a cop-out.

Blizzard of course is under the marketing theory that new is what sells. Old won't sell according to them. Well it's going to work backwards in my case. I will NOT buy a Diablo game that does not have a necromancer in it.

Witch dr. players can go have a good time with the char; i do not identify with it, and I will NOT play it. I don't care if they keep the work to a minimum and import everything from D2 just to make us happy. Then I would play it. But there will not be a Necro, nor some of the other classes. (I notice a barb and a sorceress tho!)
So the ******* who decided to impose that on everyone can go to hell.

So. Thanx for leaving me high and dry Blizzard.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:22 am

I will NOT buy a Diablo game that does not have a necromancer in it.

Diablo 1 didn't have a Necromancer, and Diablo 1 was the best game of the series.

Having a necromancer doesn't make the game good, and it's incredibly biased to say that it's going to be a crap game just because it won't feature a necromancer.

Oh, and there is no sorceress. It's wizard. Granted, that's a basic parody of sorceress but if we use that logic, Witch Doctor is a basic parody of Necromancer.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:48 pm

Why not keep playing diablo 2? Then it will be exactly the same...

Mz_Trixter · Post by **Mz_Trixter** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:14 pm

So far, I've seen people argue 'n complain about how 'DII' necros are unmatched. Like mentioned before, Diablo didn't even have a necro to start off. Then when DII comes out and it's all of a sudden a necessity. Please.. what's so hard about trying something new and different? Where's the fun in being closed-minded?

Then there's those bickkering about how it's not in DII 'Lore'... I played the game looong before I seen or heard novels come out for it. And unless the book was written say.. 5-10yrs before the game's made (i.e The Witcher). I could care less how different they may be. If the gameplay is good, the storyline makes sense; I'll play it.

Some peeps are too set on "It's this way or no way" mentallity IMO. Making anything new and different simply come out as 'not good enough'. ..Open up it's DIII not DII. Let those who wanna try something new have fun doin it. While those who'd rather stay on the same old thing 'have their necros'.

El Flesh · Post by **El Flesh** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:40 pm

Where did I say that "it's going to be a crap game"?

I said I'm not playing the game without a Nec. Point finale. And I don't play LoD much anymore because I've completed it. Others of you want to try something new, hey - be my guest. But don't you dare presume to tell me how I should feel about it. I've told you. Don't go trying to change my mind. I know how I feel about it and I don't need someone who's never met me telling me I should be different.

They're making a game where they bring back sorcerer/ess and barb but NOT mine??? Ya. Watch my $$$$ go elsewhere. Wave bye bye, Blizzard.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:24 pm

Where did I say that "it's going to be a crap game"?

You didn't. You just implied it about twelve different times by saying "I will not buy it if it does not feature necromancer."

They're making a game where they bring back sorcerer/ess and barb but NOT mine???

Ok, first off, they aren't bringing back sorceress. A wizard is not a sorceress, and if you think it is because it has similar skills (fire, ice, lightning based) then what in gods name are you being biased about in the Witch Doctor as their is VERY little difference between the witch doctor and the necromancer, much like Wizard and Sorceress.

Watch my $$$$ go elsewhere. Wave bye bye, Blizzard.

That's your decision and opinion but I will say you're doing this for all the wrong reasons.

Not one diablo game has had a match in a set of classes. They've had similar ones, but not a match.

I'm not sure why you're upset with their being no necromancer. As I said, witch doctor is virtual identical, it features poison, bone and summoning based skills all around. That's a necromancer with a different name and character sprite. Same with wizard, it's like the sorceress but with a few differences.

Furthermore, back to my original point, a type of class is NOT what makes the game a good game. It's all the gameplay features combined together as well as the more important part, (even for action RPG's) the story and character development.

Saying you won't buy it because of one class of the entirety of the game is like saying you wouldn't go with Macintosh computers over PC's because it doesn't have the start button at the bottom left. It's not a real reason to dislike the game.

Xzeihoranth · Post by **Xzeihoranth** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:08 am

I havent read too much about D3 but i have read some. What i wonder is, with all the changes to the graphics and engine...will D3 have the same pace as D2. I'm sure we have all been in a sorc duel where both/all parties have 100% or faster FCR and the pace is just crazy. will D3 be slower like WoW...if so...i recommend Dungeon Siege 2.

Above all else, D3 has to keep its fast paced origins.

Mz_Trixter · Post by **Mz_Trixter** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:42 am

Xzeihoranth wrote:I havent read too much about D3 but i have read some. What i wonder is, with all the changes to the graphics and engine...will D3 have the same pace as D2. I'm sure we have all been in a sorc duel where both/all parties have 100% or faster FCR and the pace is just crazy. will D3 be slower like WoW...if so...i recommend Dungeon Siege 2.

Above all else, D3 has to keep its fast paced origins.

That might depend entirely on how they plan to set the 'online' portion of the game. Really no question 'if' there'll be an online b'cuz that's mainly where they made all their $$$. But looking from the trailers.. it looks to be around the same speed if not a bit faster than their prior games. The question most ppl still playing are worrying about is if or not it'll be pay2play like WoW was. If thats the case, I still wouldnt mind trying it out - but I doubt it'd hold much more of my interest as II did over the years.

flix · Post by **flix** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:47 am

Do you mean the pace of each fight, meaning mobs dead in 1-3 attacks vs. drawn-out strategic battles, or the pace of the game, meaning clearing every map of all enemies multiple times vs. just kill what's in your way to the next objective? In D2 a lot of times you had to spend time grinding just to be strong enough for the next Act, despite the fact that you had finished all the quests in the previous Act.

Frankly I like tougher, fewer battles, though this isn't really in the spirit of the previous games, where you're pretty much constantly cutting down hordes.

No thoughts on PvP cause I don't bother.

Xzeihoranth · Post by **Xzeihoranth** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:29 am

By pace (strictly PvP as PvM was pretty much just click+hold) you were constantly switching spells and casting, switching, casting...at a feverish pace. If its more like PvM where u choose a skill and hold it down until the thing is dead, maybe not so good PvP. Fast AS/CR and a teleport skill/item would be awesome.