I didn't catch that was your argument, and wasn't responding to it, but to the idea of balancing/differentiating fighter & rogue by making the former a defense specialist and the latter an offense specialist. In terms of the evolution of D&D and it's derivatives, that started with 3.0, AFAICT, and was most strongly supported by 4e, prior to Essentials.
No version of D&D have come even close to giving Rogues the DPS crown. Except for 4E, no version of D&D have provided any real crowd control abilities to Fighters.
Remember, giving the Rogue a (small) edge on Fighters is not interesting in isolation. If Warlocks, say, are even better at DPS, the point still gets lost. Remember, the thinking "only magic users get the cool stuff" still holds strong, so even if Warlocks (again, example) only achieve DPS parity that still invalidates the Rogue's claim, given how Warlocks likely do their damage at very long range and might even get even better bonuses (taking 5E as an example: dealing force damage is a huge benefit. Getting riders such as pushback is a medium benefit that at high levels turn into an overwhelming kiting ability)
Put simply. For a martial squishie to enter melee (which is what the archetypal backstabbing rogue is all about) its DPS needs to be not just top tier but
unparallelled. I'm talking easily twice as much as the next guy.
The notion that rogues do well in cities with lots of hiding places, confined spaces and low-armored foes, while fighters reign supreme on proper battlefields with greatweapons and plateweapons holds a strong sway over martial class design - still.
Even though D&D is not at all about "in some battles you have the upper hand, in others I hold it". Except for unusual circumstances the Rogue is ALWAYS given the hose. D&D simply isn't complex enough to model "close quarters". It is entirely uninterested in giving Fighters lots of circumstantial penalties.
So what's needed is what WoW invented (or at least popularized) all those years ago. A model that actually takes real play into account.
Put simply: all classes nearly always operate at peak effeciency. (Fighters with poor ranged weapons is possibly the greatest exception). If you're a Rogue with no tricks like Invisibility or Shield up your sleeve, and require proximity to your target (in 3E sneak attack was limited to 30 ft range I believe), you'd better bring unheard-of DPS to justify bringing such a frail chassis within range of the monsters.
Giving Rogues magic is not the solution. I personally am sick and tired of solving balance issues by giving everybody magic.
Giving Rogues supernatural stealth abilities is not the solution either. Again, that only encourages the player to take actions that isn't compatible to spotlight-sharing group play. Which is what D&D is all about.
That is, I don't want to see the Rogues getting evasion and stuff as justification for medium damage. The whole point should be that the rest of the group should have "keeping the Rogue alive" as a goal, so his top notch DPS keeps flowing. Giving the Rogues the ability to save themselves defeats this purpose!
(Thinking of the Moon class in Gloomhaven. Talk about the perfect example! Yes he's powerful. And yet so boring! Why?
Because he doesn't play well in a group)
I'm still waiting for the time where the Rogue isn't held back by old concerns of legacy or realism.
This is why we're still waiting patiently for the idea that "Rogues get pickpocketing and whatnot, so they should be seond-tier combatants" finally goes away. Sure, give me detect traps or open locks but don't expect me to accept even the smallest reduction in combat ability to pay for it. Those abilities benefit the group, so if there is a price to pay, the whole group should pay it.
The notion Rogues steal for themselves is simply again something that D&D isn't about. We vanquish monsters and loot their hoards together. That the Rogue can burglarize homes is an entirely background ability. Just like any other character, having an "income while not adventuring" statistic is fine. Such income should always remain entirely dwarfed by adventuring income. And the Rogue doesn't get to do solo adventures! There is no fun in giving Rogues more gold and more magic items just because he puts himself before the group. Again that's directly counter to the D&D experience.
How could an official version of D&D be irrelevant to that?
I don't believe you have missed my posts on this subject, and I do not intend this thread to be about 4E, so I will simply ask you to scroll back and read what I wrote
again.
I also missed that point, too, but it sounds interesting. Shifted in what way, and how is that shift apparent?
Sigh.
You come across as not having read anything I have written.
Know what, I'm not going to repeat it. If that makes you think I consider you sealioning the thread, so be it.
If not, feel free to ask questions that follow-up on my existing posts.
I totally give 5e credit where it's due:
Assuming you don't mean "nothing" you forgot to actually give any credit...