are Rogues a dirty Fighter subclass ?

if so, then there's no room for a Rogue class.

Still, there's the Thief class, which is part-trade (the merchant) part-politician (the spy)

The rogue is the class that rolls the skill dice a lot.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

There's a thief class? 

I don't really have a problem with Rogue in combat being a dirty fighter.

I wonder if the combat chunk could in fact be separated? Probably not in D&D, but say, if you separated combat from the character.

If you have a mercenary or a soldier, they could then, fight with melee, ranged, their wits.. or even magic (in which case they'd be a battle mage, I guess). 

But, that's an entirely different system, I think.  
if dirty fighting was all the rogue had then you might have a point.

currently, and in all prior editions, the rogue has always brought something to the table other than fighting. it's its own unique concept that has a permanent identity in the core line up. 
The rogue is the class that rolls the skill dice a lot.



This outlook stops the fighter from doing anything meaningful out of combat.
How so? Fighters can still roll the skill dice.

The rogue should have ways to spend the skill dice to do other things. The rogue should be able to add his skill dice to the height and length of a jump, the distance of a climb, the length of a charm, the DC to a grapple, the bonus to escape, to initiative, etc.

But when it comes to rolling a check, the rogue is only slightly better than any trained individual.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I think it should be part of the Skills module, and not part of the bare-bones core -- since the Rogue seems to be inextricably linked to skills, it's just not meant for a skill-less version of the game. That means I still think it should be part of the core. I think Cleric, Fighter and Wizard makes for a decent initial line-up for newcomers to the game. If you want to play the stealthy archetype without dabbling in modules, a high-dex character does the trick regardless of which class. And if that's not enough, then you're already looking for more mechanics and the skills may be good.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
It was pointed out to me that the Rogue class features: Skill Mastery and Skill Tricks are useable without using the skill system.

They use the Skill Die. Maybe it's old-fashioned of me, but that seems like it's directly connected to the Skill system.

I think the way the core should be modeled is that the Skill Die isn't core; any feature that currently uses those in the non-Rogue classes (like wizards getting training in Knowledge stuff) is instead replaced with "add a 1d4 to rolls related to this." No scaling necessary, since the point of that feature is only to show adeptness relative to the PCs around you; if you deliberately play without skills, you clearly aren't looking for a progression of proficiencies. Then the Skill module would have sections saying how to modify those classes to make them use skills (basically, the way they look now)
But that bonus Feat thing is bugging me. 

Also a good point. Using feats is also pretty dumb, and a good additional reason to make the rogue not in the base core rules, instead as a class dependent on modules.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
I would have prefered any mechanic to fight not tied to weapon use.
Rogue is a military class, and I think it's a mistake to keep him this way.

In the current state, a rogue is just a light fighter, without any explanation to why he has lower hit points and restricted weapon access as he is a trained combattant (all rogue scheme requires combat training). For some reasons, he is better with at skills.

A rogue with the trickster scheme is a guy who favors weapons and sneak attack, not even assassinate or slippery target.

I just don't understand.
To Me at the moment:

The Fighter is the MDD/ED class and has the most uses for MDD/ED.

The rogue is the Skill Dice Class and has the most uses for skill dice.

The barbarian could be the Hit Dice class and have additional uses for HD (spent and roll a HD to Rage for the rolled amount of rounds, add HD to Str or Con checks, spend HD to power out a spell's effect).

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

How so? Fighters can still roll the skill dice. The rogue should have ways to spend the skill dice to do other things. The rogue should be able to add his skill dice to the height and length of a jump, the distance of a climb, the length of a charm, the DC to a grapple, the bonus to escape, to initiative, etc. But when it comes to rolling a check, the rogue is only slightly better than any trained individual.



Well, it's the whole principle that rogues are the "skill monkey" which basically sets it up such that fighters shouldn't do well with skills, and consequently that rogues are inferior combatants to fighters as compensation. People really do flip tables over fighters that can pick locks or disarm traps, as though that's somehow sancrosanct that only a rogue can do that. And consequently people hate it when the rogue becomes an actual combatant instead of a sneak attack machine.

As it is now, you can see that design at work. Both the wizard and cleric get bonus skills, the fighter does not.
How so? Fighters can still roll the skill dice. The rogue should have ways to spend the skill dice to do other things. The rogue should be able to add his skill dice to the height and length of a jump, the distance of a climb, the length of a charm, the DC to a grapple, the bonus to escape, to initiative, etc. But when it comes to rolling a check, the rogue is only slightly better than any trained individual.



Well, it's the whole principle that rogues are the "skill monkey" which basically sets it up such that fighters shouldn't do well with skills, and consequently that rogues are inferior combatants to fighters as compensation. People really do flip tables over fighters that can pick locks or disarm traps, as though that's somehow sancrosanct that only a rogue can do that. And consequently people hate it when the rogue becomes an actual combatant instead of a sneak attack machine.

As it is now, you can see that design at work. Both the wizard and cleric get bonus skills, the fighter does not.

This is one of the worst legacy aspects that is being included in Next. In 4E I had a blast playing a Rogue because it was very effective in combat and had meaningful choices. On the other hand, I am playing a Thief in 2E right now and it's miserable. It sucks at combat and the extra skills do not make up for this. Being somewhat better out of combat just keeps the character from being completely worthless.

When I'm choosing a class to play, I want to be free to pick which one is most appropriate thematically for the character I have in mind without being screwed over in one aspect of the game. Let ME decide where my character excels.

The rogue is the class that rolls the skill dice a lot.



This outlook stops the fighter from doing anything meaningful out of combat.



That's quite an exaggeration.  It stops the fighter from doing as many things well, and it stops him from doing things the rogue is best at quite as well.  But the rogue isn't going to be trained in every skill, or even the majority of skills.  The fighter is still perfectly able to contribute meaningfully out of combat unless you happen to have a rogue with all the same skills that the fighter took.

Saying that a fighter can't contribute meaningfully outside of combat because it gets less skills is like saying that a rogue can't contribute meaningfully in combat because it gets less hit points. 
I think people are missing my point.

Next currently assumes vs a DC

An untrained individual rolls a d20 and adds their associated ability score modifier.
A trained individual rolls a d20 and adds their associated ability score modifier and the result of their skill die.

A rogue just has more oportunities to roll their skill dice and can take the better of two roll while doing so.

Next is the closest a traned and untrained PC have being in a check in D&D*.

*well except for 4e where rolling a skill that uses your primary or secondary ability score can make up for the +5 training bonus. CLerics see everything, mang.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

the idea which lead me to this topic is "Fight Club" movie with Brad Pitt and it's popularity amongst young people; clearly it's "the way to Rogue" where Rogue just means what it's defination just says.