So Bolty, when are the Diablo 3 Forums going up?

[Roland]

The point is, none of the characters in D2 were really *new*. They were all a rehash or refinement of the classes presented in D1, even the Necro.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that when it comes to the Necromancer. The rest of the original five are all extensions of one form or another (Barbarian and Paladin from the Warrior, Amazon from the Rogue, and Sorceress from the Sorcerer), but the Necromancer truly is unique (to Diablo). The Assassin is somewhat akin to the Bard, but still very different enough (especially in abilities and playstyle) that she's pretty unique, as well, and the Druid doesn't have a very direct cross, either (neither the Monk nor the Sorcerer really portray the same qualities as the Druid).

If you want to say that the Necromancer was just another "caster" class, and tie ALL caster classes to the Sorcerer, than yes, you could say he is just an extension of Diablo, but then Diablo itself was just the typical RPG archetype of the time. So, really, nothing original there. Diablo II at least expanded upon the archetypes a bit, and introduced some (for the time) new playstyles and mechanics compared with other games (at least, that I can recall). The Necromancer is not, and does not play as, your typical "wizard". The Curses tree alone is enough to prove that, even if the Necromancer is typical of any "necro" class these days.