Should DA4 merge Warriors and Rogues into one class?

Absolutely not.

More weapon choice for warriors, I would support. I could even see offering some cross-class skills like DAO had (or D&D-based games have). But merging rogues and warriors completely makes no sense to me skill-wise. Warriors get into the thick of battle and rely on brute force to cause damage. Their role in the party is, partially, to absorb damage and get aggro so that the squishier members can cause potentially massive damage unmolested. The rogue relies on stealth and finesse to execute devastating attacks, but rely on the tank to get and hold enemy attention so that the rogue can get into position. The (admittedly limited) experience I have playing rogues suggests that the play styles must be completely different in order to take full advantage of the rogue's abilities. Merging the two would lose everything that makes the rogue special.

Who knows, though. Maybe I am in the minority with this opinion.

(Also, I think I am misunderstanding what you mean by "passive abilities," because DAI still has them.)

If the Mage has indeed been simplified in order to balance it with the Rogue and Warrior, then I don't think merging the Rogue and Warrior is the answer. (I say "If" because I've never give this thought, and can't argue intelligently for or against the belief, at present.)

If this is the case, simply beefing up each class would seem to be the solution. Return to the Mage its goodies, and beef up the Rogue and Warrior to a corresponding degree. As dragontartare said, the Warrior and Rogue have different roles in the part that would be lost if they were combined. The Rogue can be easily built,buy a relative newb like myself, to drop a High Dragon in 6 seconds flat. It will be shredded in melee, though, if you get caught up in a slug fest. The Warrior, on the other hand, loves a slugfest. While the Warrior can be built to slaughter High Dragons, as well, it won't be in 6 seconds, to the best of my newb knowledge. The warrior can, though, stand toe to toe with that dragon, even solo. Same deal with mobs of enemies. They're very different types of characters, best left separate.

Fair enough, another reason I considered merging the classes was so it could correspond with the lore better. Beefing up the classes would be better but I worry adding extra weapons would mean too much animation to insert in the game, still that shouldn't be a problem now that we left last gen behind.

I would be opposed to such a merger.

The changes to the classes that began in DA2 and solidified in DA:I were touted as making the classes more distinct but I feel they have had the opposite effect.

In Origins I had 3 rogues played to completion (two DW and one archer) and 3 warriors (S&S, 2H and DW/archer). The last one was Dalish and could not have been more different from the rogues if I'd tried.

Allowing rogues and warriors access to all the same combat abilities with warriors getting their higher health and dedicated "battlemaster" line and rogues getting...well...rogue-like abilities vastly increases the possible builds with those two classes.

Well if anything, I'm hoping for more classes to start with, with each class feeling unique and not having shared skills.
Rogue, Warrior and Mage doesn't keep me entertained for 4 games straight.

I'd honestly sacrifice other aspects of the game for a game with excellent combat and in-depth leveling system. But that's now what DA is about, so eh, whatever.

I agree. Gameplay is always this series' glaring weak point, in my opinion. (I know many don't necessarily agree.) DAI is a long game, which is both good and bad. 150 hours is a long time to spend with a single character. It's longer when build options are limited. It's longer still when one doesn't love the gameplay from the start.

As someone who prefers rogues, no.

Part of the reason I greatly dislike DAO's rogues is because by sharing the dual weapon tree with warriors, rogues got stuck with skills that were varying degrees of useless for them.

And that's without the bullshit Archery tree or the mostly useless rogue specific skills.

There should be some crossover but not a complete merge

Warriors should have bows as an option

Both should gave the ability to bash/kick open doors

Rogues should have 2 sword and other combos as one handers

Should be other ways to open chests

Rogues should get more scoutlike abilities (scout ahead, lay traps etc)

Wrong solution for the right problem.

Mages weren't "held back" any more than warriors were "held back" with respect to peak damage, the domain of rogues. Yes, compromises were made in the name of balance, and that's where I think you are on the right track.

The root of the problem isn't warriors/rogues vs. mages. The root of the problem is the D&D heritage of DA.

D&D has rigid class distinctions. That was an outmoded tabletop idea as far back as 1986, when GURPS was published, and arguably earlier than that, since GURPS had a lot of earlier influences.

Do away with rigid classes and the problem you're talking about is solved.

Let any character pull from any skill tree. If balance is necessary, give a skill point discount to characters who lock in a career, or whatever you want to call it. So there will still be warriors and rogues and mages, because those people settled on those careers. But if you really want to be a double-dagger spellcaster that can pick locks and bulldozer mooks with a Chevalier's Charge, go for it. It will cost you in skill points and you may end up being a jack of all trades, master or none, but the game system won't stop you from doing that, if that's what you really want.

Sustained abilities were a step in that direction, but for some reason, they went the other way. They should have gone further and done away with classes as rigid classes altogether.

I'm confused here, are you saying they get rid of classes completely and anyone can use magic or that mages be allowed to use weapons ability trees? Because the first option breaks the lore of the game and the second greatly overpowers mages at the expense of the other two classes.

The notion that warriors can't be rogues and rogues can't be warriors seem to be just a gameplay dogma by now which is obviously not supported by any kind of reason NOR realism.There is no reason for a warrior to be unable to use stealth,poisons,traps or other kind of rogues related skills.
Well guess that it doesn't matter at all for me i have always modded the game to fuse warriors and rogues exactly Like in the DKS saga of Divinity.

Your description.... I gave Kingdom of Amalur a shot because you could be a thief mage or a magical thief, or even a tank mage. And fiery chakrams are cool. And if you ever wanted to swipe and re build, you could do it (similar to the amulets in DAI letting you do a reset of skill points.) I dropped the game for now, but that was a huge selling point.

The only problem with the melding of the classes is that Thedas definitely has a "You were born a mage or you weren't" lore. Unless the Veil totally falls and literally everyone becomes a mage, I'm not interested in that lore being dropped to make others happier with the classes.