Neither do I see a problem with the rogue.
One more FC than the Adventurer, which in addition to the Universal sphere has its own Adventurer sphere, I would rather say that the Adventurer is slightly unbalanced, since you can choose some of the FCs.
The only way a rogue can equal a fighter in OB on level one, is by having better stats in ag and st. the fighter gets a +10 to a combat skill, whilst a rogue has to choose between all his FC and add a +5 to one of them, if he wastes that on combat skills, well good for him/her, but ambush? sniping? stalk&hide, very useful skills a fighter does not have access to as cheaply... balance just there if you ask me.
A fighter also has access to the Universal sphere, everyone does, of course he must pay 4 dps for a rank as opposed to the rogue?s 2, but there are more than spells in the Mystical Arts category, many which are more useful than spells, like Runes and Attunement, these are essential for magical items and deciphering runes (do'h).
Of course it can be munchkined, but that is more of a player-problem than a profession-problem, at least that is my opinion.
Rogues are good all-arounders, fair enough, but my own players have experienced the importance of having a fighter in the group, as opposed to a fighter oriented rogue, there is a distinct difference in martial prowess, perhaps not very much so at early levels, but the more levels you gain, the more the difference appear, the fighter gets faster and higher bonuses to combat related skills, whilst the rogue can choose the same, he should be tempted to put some of his skill bonuses into ambush, stalk&hide, riding, survival or tracking, something a fighter cannot, but is insanely useful for an adventuring group. In addition they will both have the same, or close to the same amount of DPs, and whilst the fighter have a more limited choice of skills, a rogue then has to spread it out thinly on all the "cheap" skills he?s got, and the players will be close to equal in power level, the fighter is the tank/killing machine, whilst the rogue can be a ranger-cross-over-thief-and-mystical-arts-jokey, or whatever is needed to fill in the gaps.
One thing though, if the player wants to play a fighter oriented character, but chooses rogue to be versatile, then ask some questions about background, where he was taught to fight and such, the fighter might not at first glance appeal to many players, but it is, in my own experience, a very powerful and useful profession. I once created a fighter, based on the spartans (300, yeah yeah...
) fighting with a spear, sometimes combined with a shield. Believe me, I was a charging machine; two handed hold on the spear and charge equals "death to enemies", at least most of the time:D I was in fact playing with a rogue, he suffered, believe me, he suffered bad!
So, all in all, I see no big issue with the profession as such, but I can understand reservation towards it, if players intent is to munchkin and min/max in a bad way, but this can be done with other professions too, like the monk and cleric too. It is my opinion though that this is not a game balance issue as such, the professions only need, perhaps, better players ("better" as in not intent on munchkining and power gaming) and more details on background and character concept.
