If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Triceron]

'death magic' and 'necromancy' are not magic classes in Warcraft, they are both Shadow magic. And Sub Rogues are 100% all about Shadow magic.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Magic_schools

Not entirely true.

Chronicles has outlined a clear difference between Necromancy and the Void (Shadow Magic).

The spell schools you refer to is mostly covering the game mechanic spell schools, ie what types of abilities get locked out when you get Counterspelled or Silenced. This isn't lore-binding information, just a translation of spell mechanics.

Necromancy is very much a different type of magic than Void and Shadow that Rogues and Priests use. Warlocks and Necromancers can use Shadow magic too, and that should be clarified that those spells specifically are assumed not to be Fel or Necromancy derived (at least as far as lore goes). There can be exceptions of course, where there may be a Fel or Necromantic ability that also overlaps with Shadow magic like some Unholy abilities which are under the Shadow spell school but not derived from Shadow magic itself.




In all honesty, the whole spell school thing needs to be renamed or addressed because it has direct conflicts with current lore through using the same names but without actually respecting it. Like a Mage's Fire and Frost is technically all arcane sourced. Yet a Druid's Moonfire and Starfire abilities are translated as Arcane abilities in WoW, though they are not Arcane in the lore as Night Elves do not traditionally use Arcane magic (only the Highborne do).

[Traveler Voltin]

'death magic' and 'necromancy' are not magic classes in Warcraft, they are both Shadow magic. And Sub Rogues are 100% all about Shadow magic.

https://wow.gamepedia.com/Magic_schools

so you chose to ignore the cosmic powers chart from the chronicles?

[Teriz]

Classes like the Necromancer, Tinker, Alchemist, Dragonsworn or Bard have the issue of being narrow in terms of fantasy and gameplay. they have, already, became integrated into other classes and professions or, simply, lack the lore background to justify their addition. There are, already, classes, specializations and professions, in game, that utilize necromancy, master technology and brew alchemical concoctions, like the Death Knight and Warlock classes, and the Engineering and Alchemy professions. Dragonsworn is nothing more than a non-canon RPG concept and Bards have no lore background, at all. I believe that the addition of these non-based and random class concepts is a waste of a class spot.

The Tinker class concept is many things, but narrow is not one of them.

You have the Mech-based Tinker based on Mekkatorque or Gazlowe. That could be a spec or something spread out in the entire class.

You have the WC3/HotS style Tinker with the Claw Pack. That could also be a spec or an entire class.

You have the "gunner" style Tinkers in WoW like Gnomeregan and Mechagon Tinkerers, Tinker Gizzlock, Millie Watt, Maleficent Manastorm, Skaggit in IE, or GG Engineering.

And then you have the combination of all three alongside the Goblin Alchemist possibly riding a Hobgoblin or an Ogre, or doing something Ana Overwatch style with healing shots/Sprays, healing robots, and bio grenades.

It's also weird to say that the Tinker and Alchemist are integrated into the professions when none of their abilities or attributes appear in either profession, and the profession system in WoW comes from the WC3 item system, not the hero units.

Meanwhile, classes that are based on Warcraft III Heroes (not the ones that haven't made an appearance in the official campaigns, like the Tinker, Alchemist and Firelord), like Blizzard has been pulling for the last 3 class additions, are prime candidates due to their weak representation within WoW classes.

The Firelord was integrated into the WoW class system though. So if there's really some sort of blocker to non-campaign heroes not being "lore", why would the firelord's concept and abilities be integrated into multiple classes but not the Tinker or Alchemist's? Not only did the Firelord become Ragnaros, but Scorch, Incinerate, and Soul Fire are all abilities spread out among multiple classes.

- - - Updated - - -

you honestly expect another death expansion?

Consider if this was 2019 and we knew that the upcoming expansion was going to be set in the realm of death, and we'd be journeying through the birthplace of Necromancy and a kingdom of vampires, and Azeroth's version of hell. Every class gets a Necromantic ability, and we'd be dealing with Kel'thuzad and other long dead friends and foes in the afterlife.

And to top it all off, the expansion starts with another scourge invasion because Sylvanas destroyed the helm of domination (hey, there's a reason for a Necromancer class right there).

Would anyone seriously say that a Necromancer class wouldn't fit such an expansion? If a Necromancer doesn't fit an expansion like that, one has to truly ask what expansion would a Necromancer fit into?

While we're at it, you can add Dark Rangers to that question as well. I simply don't see a better set up, given the events in BFA, an opening for Night Elf and Void Elf dark rangers on the alliance given the power vacuum left by Sylvanas and the end of the war, and Sylvanas herself being a major player in this expansion. Again, if Dark Rangers aren't fit to be introduced in this expansion, when would they be?

[Traveler Voltin]

Consider if this was 2019 and we knew that the upcoming expansion was going to be set in the realm of death, and we'd be journeying through the birthplace of Necromancy and a kingdom of vampires, and Azeroth's version of hell. Every class gets a Necromantic ability, and we'd be dealing with Kel'thuzad and other long dead friends and foes in the afterlife.

And to top it all off, the expansion starts with another scourge invasion because Sylvanas destroyed the helm of domination (hey, there's a reason for a Necromancer class right there).

Would anyone seriously say that a Necromancer class wouldn't fit such an expansion? If a Necromancer doesn't fit an expansion like that, one has to truly ask what expansion would a Necromancer fit into?

While we're at it, you can add Dark Rangers to that question as well. I simply don't see a better set up, given the events in BFA, an opening for Night Elf and Void Elf dark rangers on the alliance given the power vacuum left by Sylvanas and the end of the war, and Sylvanas herself being a major player in this expansion. Again, if Dark Rangers aren't fit to be introduced in this expansion, when would they be?

welcome back Teriz. you really need to stop getting banned.
i think i should revive my Tinker concept if i can find where i put the save file.

[Teriz]

welcome back Teriz. you really need to stop getting banned.

Yeah, I'll be making some adjustments to make sure it doesn't happen again.

i think i should revive my Tinker concept if i can find where i put the save file.

Please do so. I would like to see it.

[Traveler Voltin]

Yeah, I'll be making some adjustments to make sure it doesn't happen again.



Please do so. I would like to see it.

the clawpack gives me an idea on how to change it around some.
i remember that it was going to be 4 spec with the tank spec using mech and i called it Siegebreaker.

[cozzri]

Game needs another gun/bow/crossbow class; maybe tie it in with what Tyrande is doing with Night Warrior. Go 2 specs like with DH, only 1 DPS 1 Heals. I think a class designed around Tyrande's toolkit would be pretty fun to play.

[Teriz]

At the end of the day, I think the big question regarding any class is: Would people play it?

As much as a Dark Ranger is of little interest to me, I do think it would be a very popular class if added to the game. People have wanted a new ranged DPS class for the entirety of the game's lifecycle, and dark and brooding stuff has consistently been popular.

Saying that it has no abilities is absolutely true, but the fact is that it has no abilities because it doesn't exist yet. It's not like Blizzard would make a class and not give it anything. There's a ton of material that could be created that would fit the theme and the flavour. Remember, the absolute entirety of the Mistweaver spec simply did not exist before MoP. It was created for the expansion. It would be pretty simple to make at least a two spec hero class for the Dark Ranger and see it become quite popular.

Yeah, but with the Mistweaver you were working off the Monk concept that was absent in the WoW class lineup, and the Pandaren Brewmaster concept that was novel and unique on multiple levels.

We already have a rather robust Hunter class that uses magic and poison arrows, and that class had the Dark Ranger's signature ability for years with no problem. There really is no issue with simply reinserting Black Arrow back into the Hunter class instead of basing an entire new class around it. We don't really need another magical Ranger class.

- - - Updated - - -

the clawpack gives me an idea on how to change it around some.
i remember that it was going to be 4 spec with the tank spec using mech and i called it Siegebreaker.

I would truly love to see a 4 spec Tinker. I think that's the best way to handle all aspects of its concept.

[Traveler Voltin]

Yeah, but with the Mistweaver you were working off the Monk concept that was absent in the WoW class lineup, and the Pandaren Brewmaster concept that was novel and unique on multiple levels.

We already have a rather robust Hunter class that uses magic and poison arrows, and that class had the Dark Ranger's signature ability for years with no problem. There really is no issue with simply reinserting Black Arrow back into the Hunter class instead of basing an entire new class around it. We don't really need another magical Ranger class.

- - - Updated - - -



I would truly love to see a 4 spec Tinker. I think that's the best way to handle all aspects of its concept.

i thought of a melee dps spec within the last 30 minutes that might work for tinker.

[jellmoo]

Yeah, but with the Mistweaver you were working off the Monk concept that was absent in the WoW class lineup, and the Pandaren Brewmaster concept that was novel and unique on multiple levels.

The Mistweaver definitely has inspiration behind it as it's heavily based on Asian cinematic wushu mysticism. It's a great archetype that fits the Monk class well. It just, prior to MoP, didn't exist in Warcraft. It was created specifically for the purpose of the Monk class. It was added to the Brewmaster in order to flesh it out and allow more character archetypes to exist. Blizzard could have just as easily not created a healer spec for the Monk since there wasn't anything to base it off of to begin with.

We already have a rather robust Hunter class that uses magic and poison arrows, and that class had the Dark Ranger's signature ability for years with no problem. There really is no issue with simply reinserting Black Arrow back into the Hunter class instead of basing an entire new class around it. We don't really need another magical Ranger class.

I largely do not disagree. As mentioned before, I don't particularly want a Dark Ranger. The concept holds little interest to me. The only thing I am disagreeing with (not necessarily with you, but previously) is that one could not be made or that it is already perfectly reflected in the Hunter class. Could it be? Sure, I don't see why not. Is it right now? No. Could Blizzard create a Dark Ranger class that is different enough from the Hunter class to be a viable and popular option? Absolutely.

Whether they should or not is a completely different question.

[Teriz]

The Mistweaver definitely has inspiration behind it as it's heavily based on Asian cinematic wushu mysticism. It's a great archetype that fits the Monk class well. It just, prior to MoP, didn't exist in Warcraft. It was created specifically for the purpose of the Monk class. It was added to the Brewmaster in order to flesh it out and allow more character archetypes to exist. Blizzard could have just as easily not created a healer spec for the Monk since there wasn't anything to base it off of to begin with.

The thing is though that monk classes are known to have healing specs. Pretty much any monk class in RPGs is going to have a strong healing component. In short, it was highly unlikely that Blizzard would release a Monk class without a healing spec.

I largely do not disagree. As mentioned before, I don't particularly want a Dark Ranger. The concept holds little interest to me. The only thing I am disagreeing with (not necessarily with you, but previously) is that one could not be made or that it is already perfectly reflected in the Hunter class. Could it be? Sure, I don't see why not. Is it right now? No. Could Blizzard create a Dark Ranger class that is different enough from the Hunter class to be a viable and popular option? Absolutely.

Whether they should or not is a completely different question.

Well consider what a Dark Ranger does. Based on WC3 they control minds, raise undead minions, and disrupt enemies.

How does that play out? The final iteration of Black Arrow in WoW had the ability give a chance to raise an undead minion. That undead minion essentially operated as a tank that allowed you to sit back and continue firing arrows without having to reposition yourself. Hunter pets serve the exact same purpose, and Hunters can even tame undead beasts now.

Which leads us to the Dark Ranger's ability Charm/Mind Control, where again, the Dark Ranger would take over someone's mind and have that minion tank for them. How would that be any different than the Hunter's tame beast ability? It would pretty much operate the same way.

Then we come to the Dark Ranger's ability to disrupt. In WC3 this was done with Silence and Life drain. In WoW Hunters have Concussive Shot, Poisons, Nets, Traps, and the various abilities of its pets.

When you think about it, a DR class wouldn't be much different than what we currently have in the Hunter class. It'd just be a "darker" variant, which is more cosmetic than mechanical.

[shoc]

so you chose to ignore the cosmic powers chart from the chronicles?

Not ignoring it outright, but if we're talking about future class design it should fit within the parameters of the in-game magic system.

If they are going to create a class that uses Death and Necromantic magic the whole in-game magic school system is going to need some revamping.

I would love it if there was finally some consistency between the in-game magic schools and the cosmic powers diagram. Here's how I would do it.

Primary Magic Schools

Fire
Air
Earth
Water
Spirit
Decay

Secondary Magic Schools: Combination of 2 Primary Schools

Holy = Spirit + Fire
Fel = Fire + Air
Necromantic = Air + Decay
Shadow = Decay + Earth
Arcane = Earth + Water
Nature = Water + Spirit

Multi-Schools: Made by combining one or more primary and secondary spell schools.

Frostfire = Water + Fire + Arcane
Shadowfrost = Shadow + Water + Arcane
Astral = Arcane + Nature
Chaos = Holy + Fel + Necromantic + Shadow + Arcane + Nature
Elemental = Fire + Earth + Water + Air
Firestorm = Fire + Air
Plague = Necromantic + Nature
Radiant = Fire + Holy
Shadowflame = Shadow + Fire
Twilight = Holy + Shadow

[jellmoo]

The thing is though that monk classes are known to have healing specs. Pretty much any monk class in RPGs is going to have a strong healing component. In short, it was highly unlikely that Blizzard would release a Monk class without a healing spec.

Dunno about that. If we look at a game like Dungeons and Dragons, the Monk there is most definitely not a healer. Blizzard could have just as easxily created a class with three DPS specs, each spec representing a different Martial Arts style. Actually... That would have been cool...

Well consider what a Dark Ranger does. Based on WC3 they control minds, raise undead minions, and disrupt enemies.

How does that play out? The final iteration of Black Arrow in WoW had the ability give a chance to raise an undead minion. That undead minion essentially operated as a tank that allowed you to sit back and continue firing arrows without having to reposition yourself. Hunter pets serve the exact same purpose, and Hunters can even tame undead beasts now.

Which leads us to the Dark Ranger's ability Charm/Mind Control, where again, the Dark Ranger would take over someone's mind and have that minion tank for them. How would that be any different than the Hunter's tame beast ability? It would pretty much operate the same way.

Then we come to the Dark Ranger's ability to disrupt. In WC3 this was done with Silence and Life drain. In WoW Hunters have Concussive Shot, Poisons, Nets, Traps, and the various abilities of its pets.

When you think about it, a DR class wouldn't be much different than what we currently have in the Hunter class. It'd just be a "darker" variant, which is more cosmetic than mechanical.

It could play out however Blizzard wanted it to, really. Black Arrow could summon undead. Or it could revive dead enemies. Or it could create undead spirits that are little more than a visual DoT. They could have a variety of life draining powers. Or shadow summons and teleportation. Or specialize in ranged combos. Or use a variety of Banshee themed abilities if they really want to amp up the Sylvasnasness of it all. Who knows.

They only function like Hunters if you make them function like Hunters. Mechanically, they can be as different from Hunters as you want, with using a bow being the only real similarity. I mean, we have Fire mages who fight by throwing fiery spells at enemies along with Destruction Warlocks who fight by throwing fiery spells at enemies. They are similar, but mechanically different enough to coexist. Sure, if you make Dark Rangers a carbon copy of Hunters then they are redundant. But there's absolutely no reason you have to build the class that way.

[Alkizon]

Triceron
Not entirely true.

"entirely" is excess word.

I have repeatedly pointed out absolutely inappropriate retcon linking with rogue's artificial association with dark magic. Stealth they use was/is not shadow, but in order to "justify DH's usefulness" they gave them opportunity to "see rogues". Problem remains that everyone could see them anyway, depending on their level and position, which in fact puts DH and their ability in very stupid and contrary to logic position, even with what is available... it's not fel stuff (it could be ~death one if such mechanically existed, which would aggravate DH's situation even more, but it doesn't, so there's no precedent). As for rest of abilities like SS/CoS type, they were also not indicator of shadow school (offhand, I could give them more logical physical justification, but I won't, that's not the point now). Sub's main feature was decrease enemy's defense and bleeding (this was their weakness, they quickly fizzled out and bleeding compensated for their departure when passively "finishing off" the enemy - they would appear, scare, explode, and leave victim to die in agony watching after it while restealthing, and, if necessary, repeating whole procedure), then they were inappropriately tied with finishers' mastery. Assassins were the only kind of "a little deeper" magic users (which, among other things, was also in fact mostly implementation mechanics of useing "applied sciences", should I explain which ones?) and, as you know, it has nothing to do with shadow in WoW. So...*looking with contempt at shadow strike*

This inappropriate "shadow fantasy" is not only far-fetched here, but besides, nothing for which it could be stretched to such state won't withstand this deformation (and it realy doesn't). False, wrong and disguise...

As for death magic school, this is generally separate curiosity (we already discussed this fact about 3 years ago), since not only theme of current expansion is very "rough" retcon ("fairies, satyrs and unicorns" in world of death, what could be more stupid... *pukes aside* sorry), but this kind of magic itself has become big problem since "other" Twisting Nether "appeared". In essence, this is the very moment when they began to have global problems, and chronicles themselves not only didn't help, but rather complicated their own task even more.

As for aforementioned hybrid in form of "range sub", this is separate delirium of madman, there is no point in recalling any lore here, it's enough to point out basic concepts of class design as such. And that's all.

- - - Updated - - -

jellmoo
They only function like Hunters if you make them function like Hunters.

Exactly, this is main point of class design:

Moreover! this choice had no dictatorial impact for player’s individual preferences regarding “RP” component, and no matter what mechanics were chosen as preferred, still rogue with any set of talents could be just duelist or pirate, secret agent, ninja and anyone else at player's will. [Axiom] Class' names aren't what "they" are within game system component (just conditional separation), but key mechanics are. They are your class, which means they are mandatory for each of its representatives (and there can be even no talk in framework of this design about "modern way" understanding of specs; build is your spec here).

[LiPiNo]

Well, I still think, that something like this
could fit as one. Actually said same stuff, when "witch theme" was discussed:

After all, Garrosh's words (everyone remembers tumultuous debate, do you?) could very cleverly turn "one thing into another" with, on one hand, "encouraging" such concept, and on the other hand, making wording less aggressive/dismissive

So, it won't be called as DR, just witch, still something that could close this fantasy
- - - - -
in other words, it could have 3 dev.directions: banshee as spellcaster (hence justification for dark casual abilities), DR as direct fighter (give "using bow&daggers" as projection tool together with thematically appropriate fighting style) and third (here I would say "necromancer" - to justify corresponding complementary branch, but being afraid, that for this I'll be eaten alive for example) witch doctor as souls'user (direction with dark part of voodoo rituals)... kind of

- - - Updated - - -



I agree with ^ that.

I want to dual wield wands and shoot with them

[Teriz]

Dunno about that. If we look at a game like Dungeons and Dragons, the Monk there is most definitely not a healer. Blizzard could have just as easxily created a class with three DPS specs, each spec representing a different Martial Arts style. Actually... That would have been cool...

Unlikely. Even in Dungeons and Dragons Monks were a very versatile class concept with self healing and group healing abilities. It's quite easy to see how they would end up as a class that could do all three roles in WoW. DnD isn't the only RPG where you see this either. It's present in games like Final Fantasy Tactics, Ragnarok, Dungeon Fighter, Diablo 3, etc.

Heck, even I gave my Runemaster class concept a healing spec since they were largely based on Monks;

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...a-Runemasters!

It's also important to remember that the class is called a Monk, not a Brewmaster. When Blizzard created the class they were using a wide concept more than likely pulled from several other games and concepts. The Dark Ranger isn't very broad at all. It is HIGHLY specific, and thus very limited in possible scope and design possibilities.

It could play out however Blizzard wanted it to, really. Black Arrow could summon undead. Or it could revive dead enemies. Or it could create undead spirits that are little more than a visual DoT. They could have a variety of life draining powers. Or shadow summons and teleportation. Or specialize in ranged combos. Or use a variety of Banshee themed abilities if they really want to amp up the Sylvasnasness of it all. Who knows.

Well that's the thing; As a ranged class, you summon minions to tank for you in every case. Hunters do it. Mages do it. Warlocks do it. Even Shaman do it with their elementals.

The only class that doesn't do it is Death Knights, but that's because they're plated tanks.

Dark Rangers would almost certainly be in the same vein as Hunters in that regard. They would summon their undead minions and their minions would tank for them while they sit back and shoot them with arrows. It's the Hunter's gameplay style through and through. We know this because Hunters had Black Arrow in Legion and that's exactly how they operated, and their version of Black Arrow was actually more powerful than previous versions since it could summon undead as a proc without the requirement of your target being killed by the DoT.

They only function like Hunters if you make them function like Hunters. Mechanically, they can be as different from Hunters as you want, with using a bow being the only real similarity. I mean, we have Fire mages who fight by throwing fiery spells at enemies along with Destruction Warlocks who fight by throwing fiery spells at enemies. They are similar, but mechanically different enough to coexist. Sure, if you make Dark Rangers a carbon copy of Hunters then they are redundant. But there's absolutely no reason you have to build the class that way.

Well the difference there is that you're only talking about a specialization similarity. I'm talking about 2 entire classes being similar to each other. Warlocks and Mages as an entire package are very different from one another. Dark Rangers and Hunters would not be. Mainly because Blizzard has incorporated many Dark Ranger concepts into the Hunter class over the years. In the end, I simply don't see how you remain true to the Dark Ranger concept as presented in WC3 and HotS and even WoW without it slamming head first mechanics wise into the Hunter class.

[Alkizon]

I want to dual wield wands and shoot with them

yeah! *pew-pew* Jokes are jokes, but problem here is of different nature, it's quite detailed here. It's about their thoughtlessly removing 3rd weapon slot. This was done so wrong that now entire weapons' equipment system for classes design seems to me like tooth in nose.

[Cloudjumper]

Obviously need a pirate-themed class named Swashbuckler...
With a pet parrot, ride on wave, summon boat ability, etc.

[Teriz]

Obviously need a pirate-themed class named Swashbuckler...
With a pet parrot, ride on wave, summon boat ability, etc.

Just play an Outlaw Rogue.

[Imperator4321]

"entirely" is excess word.

I have repeatedly pointed out absolutely inappropriate retcon linking with rogue's artificial association with dark magic. Stealth they use was/is not shadow, but in order to "justify DH's usefulness" they gave them opportunity to "see rogues". Problem remains that everyone could see them anyway, depending on their level and position, which in fact puts DH and their ability in very stupid and contrary to logic position, even with what is available... it's not fel stuff (it could be ~death one if such mechanically existed, which would aggravate DH's situation even more, but it doesn't, so there's no precedent). As for rest of abilities like SS/CoS type, they were also not indicator of shadow school (offhand, I could give them more logical physical justification, but I won't, that's not the point now). Sub's main feature was decrease enemy's defense and bleeding (this was their weakness, they quickly fizzled out and bleeding compensated for their departure when passively "finishing off" the enemy - they would appear, scare, explode, and leave victim to die in agony watching after it while restealthing, and, if necessary, repeating whole procedure), then they were inappropriately tied with finishers' mastery. Assassins were the only kind of "a little deeper" magic users (which, among other things, was also in fact mostly implementation mechanics of useing "applied sciences", should I explain which ones?) and, as you know, it has nothing to do with shadow in WoW. So...*looking with contempt at shadow strike*

This inappropriate "shadow fantasy" is not only far-fetched here, but besides, nothing for which it could be stretched to such state won't withstand this deformation (and it realy doesn't). False, wrong and disguise...

As for death magic school, this is generally separate curiosity (we already discussed this fact about 3 years ago), since not only theme of current expansion is very "rough" retcon ("fairies, satyrs and unicorns" in world of death, what could be more stupid... *pukes aside* sorry), but this kind of magic itself has become big problem since "other" Twisting Nether "appeared". In essence, this is the very moment when they began to have global problems, and chronicles themselves not only didn't help, but rather complicated their own task even more.

As for aforementioned hybrid in form of "range sub", this is separate delirium of madman, there is no point in recalling any lore here, it's enough to point out basic concepts of class design as such. And that's all.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, this is main point of class design:

To be fair this wasn't exclusive to rogues, a number of classes got to some extent a redesign/shift in identity or theme in the name of giving them a more distinct identity/fantasy (or an replaced fantasy in the case of demonology), Discipline went from being about shielding to being about mixing shadow and holy magic to heal through damage which gave it a new dynamic with the Holy spec using holy magic to heal and the shadow spec using shadow magic to harm, the idea was that discipline combined the two, Survival obviously got a revamped into a melee spec that used polearms, Demonology became a Summoner style spec instead of the Demon Hunter esque design they had before.

For Rogues Combat became Outlaw which was given a heavy pirate/swashbuckler theme (saber strike, pistol shot, roll the bones, ect), Subtlety was given a ninja makeover (shuriken storm, shuriken toss) giving them more overtly magical visuals and abilities (shadow dance, symbols of death, nightblade) ties into that due to how Ninja in popular culture are often given mystical or supernatural powers (in wow's context this became using shadow magic to gain stealth), Assassination stayed the same since it already had an identity in bleeds (garrote, rupture) and poison (envenom) both common assassination tropes, so Outlaw, Assassination and Subtlety had Pirate, Assassin and Ninja as individual themes in addition to the themes inherent in their base class (stealth, dexterity, underhanded tactics).

Rogues having the ability to use magic also isn't entirely inappropriate for such a class, the 5th edition D&D rogue has a Roguish Archetype (think spec) called the Arcane Trickster (which had previously existed as a prestige class in 3e and a paragon path in 4e) which gave the rogue 1/4 spellcaster and limited them to illusion (fake sounds/images and invisibility) and enchantment (mind manipulation/control).