| Peshgil |
Consider this:
You are a first-level rogue who put all of his skill points into disguise, escape artist, and appraise. You approach someone who is knowingly hostile and who is looking right at you. As you approach, you tell him you're going to attack. You tell him how and where you will strike. No matter.
At that very moment, he is being attacked by an angry, normal, lizard on the opposite side -- perhaps the Geico Gecko. It can do damage, so you move in to the opposite side. By rule, you are "flanking."
Therefore, by ridiculous rule, you are "sneaking."
You are nude carrying no weapons, so you attack with one fingernail.
You scratch him for one HP of damage.
But by rule, you get an extra d6 with that fingernail because you have made a NON-SNEAK "sneak" attack. You can do 6x as much extra damage with your fingernail. He had 5 HP, so you killed him with your fingernail. Why call in a 20th level martial artist ("monk"), when a first-level pickpocket will do?
NO OTHER CLASS can do 6x extra damage at first level with ANY weapon, but every single "rogue" can do it (even one in a wheelchair with only one hand) just because someone writing rules didn't know what they were doing.
The situation above is no different from how many players currently exploit this rule.
----------------------------
Thieves (PC term: "rogues") are not designed for combat, and they should stay out of it. NO, they are NOT experts at finding weaknesses; that rationale is historically and tactically wrong. It was designed by a thief-lover to make rogues into fighting machines. Strike it. This rule needs to be completely revised. If rogues want to enter combat, let them use magic items to gain extra bonuses -- the same way other non-combat classes do.
The whole notion of walking straight up to someone who is looking directly at you and getting a "sneak" attack is not rational. Let alone being able to shoot someone from 30' away, then attack multiple times in melee ... all while someone is aware of your presence and defending against you. This repercussion is clearly an unforeseen error that should be corrected.
I have no problem with a true SNEAK attack being treated as such and gaining extra damage. D&D had that going on all the way back to the first edition, and it made sense originally. It's the "flanking" situation that seems to makes no sense. Someone's at each side, and the rogue just goes to town. This is unrealistic, and the combat system was SUPPOSED to have an element of realism to it.
I have no problem with the +2 flanking bonus ... provided that
a) the defender opts to defend against BOTH (all) threats. If the defender actively defends against the rogue and lets the gecko attack at will, then ONLY THE gecko should get the flanking bonus. This would be up to the defender.
or b) the defender chooses not to defend against the rogue.
To be counted as a SNEAK attack, one of the following needs to hold.
a) the opponent is unaware of the rogue's presence -- regardless of location AND DISTANCE. This applies to the first round of combat ONLY.
b) the opponent is surprised, stunned, asleep, etc. (defenseless) AND flanked. This applies to any round of combat.
I suggest that the extra damage be restricted only to the following situations, since the additional damage dealt is also problematic.
The damage should be limited to additional damage die for the weapon used (levels add extra dice, as they do now), and again, you should only get a "sneak" attack if you really sneaked up on someone. I'm also okay with replacing the additional damage with an enlarged critical threat range. That makes sense too.