Here's just some random thoughts I had on the Rogue's sneak attack ability. I'm just curious to see what other's thoughts are about this.
In situations where the opponent is not aware of the attack, it seems reasonable that the attacker has the time to "line up" a vital strike area.
1. When openly fighting an opponent, should an attacker be able to "line up" a vital strike area? An opponent who is flanked, still threatens all squares and is generally deemed to be constantly moving. Would it be as easy to hit a vital area in this circumstance? (I know, I need to stop thinking in real world physics).
2. Should a rogue attempting a sneak attack on a flanked target have a "to hit" penalty, since the target is still moving around? Perhaps the penalty should just negate the flanking bonus? (Or for simplicity, don't allow a flanking bonus when trying to hit with a sneak attack?)
3. Sneak attack is a class ability, however when used as a tactical fighting maneuver (extra damage when flanking an opponent), how come a fighting tactical expert, such as a the fighter class does not gain a similar damage bonus?
4. Should sneak attacks be allowed when flanking an opponent, and instead only allow them for in situations where the rogue is striking the opponent without the opponent being aware / able to react to the rogue?
Well, I'm with you 100%, esp. with regards to flanking fighters not getting a bonus (the reply, "fighters aren't sneaky, so they don't get sneak attack" really misses the point; I'd call it "flank attack" anyway). See this thread .
But we're in a minority view.
I agree with you. I think that it is WAAAYYYY too easy for a thief to get a sneak attack. By fifth level they are doing more damage than a fighter with any weapon they choose> I am within 30 ft. I throw my spork. Oh cool 1d2 +4d6 damage< I was discussing it last night. Why should a thief get a sneak attack on an opponent who knows you are there and is reacting against you. Even if they are fighting someone else they aren't going to forget about the wesely guy with the spork lurking behind him.
I have no problem with it being whenever the opponent is caught flat footed or loses his dex bonus. The party surprises a group of monsters, before the monsters can react the leader topples with a dagger in his eye. It's almost textbook.
It's not as if there aren't enough ways for a thief to get his sneak attack already.
Improved initiative or high dex. Eat dagger.
Dodge and mobility. Peek-a-boo I'm behind you, splurk.
Feint. You thought I was going to knife you in the kidneys. Dagger in the eye. It is a skill that is very easy to improve.
Caught off guard. All unarmed opponents are considered flat-footed to your attacks.
Stunning defence. All opponents hit by your attack are considered flat-footed until the end of your next attack.
I think rogues are very cool. They have neat tricks and feats but I think that allowing a sneak attack just because they are standing beside someone is a bit over the top.
Rogues get SA because it's all they have. If you remove it or seriously nerf it then what you actually end up with is the party rogue sitting in the corner hoping nothing decides to eat him for lunch.
Rogues are dexterity critters. They aren't strength beasts. If you look at most rogue builds- their sole damage dealing ability is based on SA. it is IT. The complete totality of it.
The point of the flanking idea isn't that the person forgets about you- the point is that they have divided attentions. If you have someone come at you from the front, and you fight him, and then someone comes at you from behind at the same time: you can Know about both all you want but chances are you are about to get gutted. Why? Because you have two forward facing eyes verses two opponents who can move around you. You can't keep your front to them both if they are "flanking you". (hence the term- flank.).
Rogues get SA instead of fighters because fighters don't need it. They aren't usually primary damage dealers, they are sword and board folks. Yes, it's a stereotype. It's a valid one. Stereotypes exist for a reason. Raging two hand wielding power attacking barbarians do damage roughly on par with the weak little dual wielding SA using rogue. Why? Because the two classes are damage dealers.
Fighters are damage soakers, especially in Paizo. They get the best armor, they get the best armor classes, they have feats to round it all out. Fighters don't need SA. Rogues need SA.
I agree whole heartedly that they should not have buffed SA in Paizo RPG. I truly do. I think you shouldn't be able to SA an undead or construct without special magic or extensive feat investment: but nerfing it to once a round, or when the opponent is unarmed or truly unaware of you is just asking the player to sit in the corner and munch on cheetos and ask to be notified when combat is over so they can get back to checking for traps. A rogue without the ability to sneak attack his or her opponents is a rogue who is not able to participate meaningfully to combat. This is Not nearly as true at level 1-4 as it is in later levels when strength bonuses and feats greatly widen the gap beyond what just an enchanted weapon can do.
I do understand that you all think SA is too powerful but I also ask that you thoroughly test some of these changes in actual game play and see what happens to the Rogue.
-S
I AM SOOOO WITH THE OP!!!
And about: "Rogues have SA because they have nothing else":
Well then I have to ask, WHY?
Rogues should be more than just skill-monkey sneak attacker. That's just lame combat-focused BS (sorry but my op.)
Why the hell don't get rogues a bunch of cool (maybe skill-related) talents?!
Where is the infiltrating-master-spy-rogue?
And don't dare telling me too take a Prestige Class for doing that!
Again: Sorry for being a bit enraged, but I just hate what they did to the poor old thief.
A very simple change is to make Sneak Attack a standard action. You get only one attempt per round and if it fails, you have to try again next round. We have a fighter/rogue in our group with two weapons, who constantly is making 4 sneak attacks per round. I think it's really getting out of hand there.
I also dislike that you can make sneak attacks while flanking, but removing that makes rogues almost non-combatants and though I like that, it's probably not a solution for every group.
Rogues get SA because it's all they have.
That's a problem of groups that have established that the game is about fighting and everyone participating in it. Not that it's not a valid style of play, but other styles of play are meant to have warrior-classes as the only ones who excel in brawl fighting. But there's also the cleric, which causes a huge crack in this paradigm, and the druid,which completely shatters it.
(Though in my campaign, there's a priest class instead of a cleric, which is basically a divine wizard, for that very reason. That also makes fighters and barbarians very valuable in the party. They are the guys who protect you from being hacked to pieces. :D)
Rogues are still THE skill monkeys. Period. No one else can do what they do with skills.
But there's only so many skills you use in battle, that actually change the course of battle.
You can tumble around but that largely only effects YOU.
If you remove the ability of the rogue to do damage in battle then you have made the rogue WORTHLESS in battle. I for one don't want the rogue relegated to using Aid Other or walking around shoving potions down the throats of team mates who go into the negative.
Sneak attack is already relatively difficult to accomplish until you are at high enough levels where everyone is doing substantial damge all the time anyway.
If you want to nerf SA- not that it needs it, but if you want to nerf it then you need to nerf things like Imp Invis that allow the rogue to SA with impunity.
If you remove SA, if you nerf SA, all you are really accomplishing is to turn the rogue into the combat water-boy of the group. All you will really end up with then are one dip-rogues who do it for the trapfinding and such, who then move on to other classes who can contribute in combat.
Combat is Not the end-all-be-all of the game. It is A component however, and removing someone's ability to contribute to it is something I wholeheartedly discourage. No other class is told to sit out of combat becausae it can do things outside combat. Why should the rogue be made to?
-S
Then something's wrong with the game or the whole class, I say.
Question: Since when, every class should be equally capable in Combat?!
If it comes to interaction there are only a few classes capable, so where's the problem?
That's just the POINT about Classes! Every class can do things (better) than others. That's why they need to form GROUPS!
Ok. The Rogue might not the best fighter in direct combat (with or without SA), but that's not his turf anyway. The rogue is about smarts and clever and surprising ideas. Produce an avalance in the mountains, trip an enemy when his not expecting it, throwing alcemical potions from sideways... That's how a rogue should fight, not: "Launch in flanking position and start the happy dishing." That's neither inspiring nor very creative.
Some Points about Rogues:
1) Trapfinding for rogues only is stupid. When my character excels in searching AND Mechanics (Disable Device) he should be as competent as the rogue in finding hidden mechanismns. Either remove the rule or make it a feat at least.
2) Sneak Attack, as is, just makes NO sense in NOT having the fighter the same ability. I am not speaking in terms of Game Balance! This can be accomplished other ways than giving the rogue some weird extra damage dish (usable MOST of the time, in my experience. And it's getting worse with Invisi etc.)
The best solution would be to remove the Flanking Possibility. This way, the enemy must be cought of guard to deliver those nasty blows.
EDIT: One word: FEINT!
3) Where is the skill monkey? Rangers and Bards get nearly as many skill points! For me, skill monkey doesn't mean "Can do many things equally good" but "Can do several things BETTER THAN NORMAL". Meaning: Where are the special rogue talents for stuff like diplomacy, bluff, disguise,... well, ok: Disable Device (see 1), but than again: MAKE IT A FEAT!
I don't think people want to get rid of it entirely. I think they just want to make it so that it take smore than merely flanking an an opponent to do it. There are lots of ways to get a flat-footed attack that are available to thieves. Maybe I think that the thief shouldn't be getting into combat. I picture thieves garrotting and stabbing unaware guards and the like. Maybe thieves should take the time to get feats that help them to do that. From memory thieves can use bluff to enable themselves to hide. They would then get a sneak attack because the opponenet was unaware of them.
Thieves can also get feats that let them use dex instead of strength for attacks and damage, use magic items if they spend the points and so on. Now they can even get magic as a rogue trick.
I think Sneak Attack should be available but standing on the other side of someone isn't a 'sneak' attack. It is a pretty screamingly obvious attack.
Using non-core feats as a reason for Paizo to nerf SA is, imo, not the right way to go.
If non-core feats break SA then get rid of the non-core feats.
And make trap finding a feat?
So lets take away or nerf SA, and give their prime non-combat ability away. hmm.. Lets not, aye? Why not give spell casting as a feat so everyone can do that, and why not divine grace too?
Fighters don't get SA because fighters aren't primary damage dealers. Fighters are damage soakers. Granted-they don't get mechanics to do it very well but it was their intended design.
Heavy armor, heavy shields, and the feats to take advantage of them both.
Rogues and Barbarians are the two main melee damage dealers.
Barbarians through PA and 2WF and rogues through Dex and TWF.
SA needs to be good enough that it offesets the risk of the rogue going into combat. If the damage the rogue does is so slight that the chance of him getting creamated in combat is greater than the offset of his damage then he won't enter combat.
Don't believe me? Go poll your wizards and ask how many will enter melee with their staves. They won't. Why? Because statistically the damage they do in melee won't offset the chance of them getting their brains splattered out. Mages have other roles in combat- Magic.
Rogues have a role in combat. SA. Typically through dual wielding. If you remove or significantly nerf SA then you have removed or significantly removed the chance that they will enter combat at all.
*No one wants to be useless in combat*.
I repeat.
*No one wants to be useless in combat*.
Not one single person plays D*&D and says "man I hope I can't kill anyting!" or "man I hope i'm easy to kill!"
Of course not! People play to be effective. Not necessarily to power game, but to be Effective. A person who is isn't effective in combat isn't contributing to combat and therefore raises the party ECL without providing any meangingful offset in combat.
Skills.
The rogue gets the most skills in the game currently, and they get trapfinding. They are, by default, better than anyone else at detecting traps. No one else can do it as well as they can. Period. They have, by default, an edge in that skill that no one else does.
You choose to make your definition of skill monkey one that states he can do skills better than anyone else. WoTC and Paizo so far at least, have made the choice that skill monkey means they get more skills than anyone else. Not only more skill points- but more skill Choices. The majority of the things rogues will do, they'll get the +3 bonus for doing. Alot of them (but not all) have Dex as a primary component meaning that the rogue will also likely be the best at That too (seeing as how rogues tend to be kings of the dexterity score).
Put a ranger or even a wizard (who eventually tends to equal out skill points with the rogues due to int) into comparison with the rogue in the skills the rogue excels at and you'll find that the Rogue usually will far surpass the others unless the others spend feats to be better, or take non-skill measures to get better. (such as spells.. which have durations, and other limitations).
I'd rather have a rogue hiding with me than a ranger. A ranger has other things to worry about- like wisdom, and armor.
The rogue does his job and he does it well, both inside combat and out.
Any perceived "fix" is actually a nerf that does far more bad than it does good to the game and can usually be "solved" by getting rid of splat-book feats that change the way the mechanic is supposed to work.
Feinting and such.
Feint/bluff to Sa or Hide do work well except even when feated they still only allow the rogue *one* attack as an SA.
Feint: Your next attack will. (etc)
And you are only "Hidden" for your first attack even if you hide one round and full attack the next, only the first one hits.
Not bad options but leaving those as the *only* options is SO serioous a nerf to rogues that you'll *entirely remove them* from melee combat.
If you remove flanking- and that really only leaves feint/bluff and hiding in combat- what you'll see happen is a complete removal of the rogue from melee combat. SA is 95% of their damage. No rogue attacks because of his nifty sword, he attacks because of the SA. If they can Not get multiple SA they they'll stop entering melee and the only rogues you'll see will be armed with bows and will attack from range.
It isn't "we'll nerf them so they'll fight and do less damage" its "we'll nerf them and change the entire way rogues interact in combat".
Us "picturing" the rogue.
I too have a fond image of the rogue wandering corridors, killing things in one hit and such. Thief was a fun game that helped enforce that stereotype. Unfortunately D&D doesn't take advantage of that sort of thing because most people have more HP than one SA can effectively deal with. Few melee classes can consistently walk up and one shot anyone. (and in turn, few NPC's can walk up and one shot the PC's. It's a two way street that's good for both).
That leaves us the problem of our preferred stereotypical rogue not working at all, especially in a group. Afterall, a one-man rogue campaign would be fun but most of us actually play in groups of 4-6 people and most combats aren't against 1 foe who you can sneak up on and 1 shot. It is a very good stereotype and mental image to have but D&D mechanics just don't bear it out.
Instead they have the ability to strike vital areas while their opponent is otherwise distracted- while hoping that foe doesn't turn around and splatter their brains all over the floor.
</wall of text>
-S
Yeah... well... I don't think so.
[...]
Fighters don't get SA because fighters aren't primary damage dealers. Fighters are damage soakers.
[...]
Rogues and Barbarians are the two main melee damage dealers.
[...]
Really?
I don't understand this concept.
I always thought that Fighters were supposed to be the ones good at fighting. And "good fighting" was being able to deal damage AND survive the battle. Not standing there waiting to get bashed...
A Raging Barbarian deals more damage? That could makes sense, since this class is more about brute force.
... but the Rogue? Are we talking about the halfling, specialized in hiding and dealing with traps (and surviving them!). This small adventurer, not so strong or resistant (lower HP) and not good at attacking (lower BAB), should get on the front line to kill the Colossal Beast?
hum... seems strange.
If the concept of the Rogue is really to be a primary damage dealer, than the whole Rogue class is broken, and the Fighter class too.
So instead of a complete redesign of two class, I think it would be better just to tweak the Sneak Attack. And removing flanking might not even be enough. Greater Invisibility, attacking a grapple opponent, or just acting first in combat can all lead to a very abusive situation with a rogue.
And nobody wants to be useless in combat, I understand. By the way, D&D is not a fighting game, it is a ROLEPLAYING game. Are you saying that if a Rogue is in a fight against a creature immune to sneak, he should do nothing?
When a Ranger is not against his Favorite enemy, is he useless? Is a Paladin fighting neutral creature useless? What happens when a Bard is not playing music, nothing? Does a Cleric sits down in a combat until someone need healing?
The main combat role of the Rogue is to sneak attack... but they should not be primary damage dealers. If the are, then they should also have an higher BAB, to reflect this role. One way or the other, there is something not working with the sneak attack concept.
Rogues already do nothing against foes who are immune to sneak attack.
Even if they are trying to attack, the damage they actually do is negligible, even assuming they can overcome the DR of what they are fighting. (lets face it, alot of SA immune foes have hardness or DR of some variety).
No, fighters aren't primary damage dealers. They do damage yes, but not as a primary function. They can be built to do damage if they choose, but in so doing they typically give up a good bit of the defense they really excel at. If they pump everything they have into it they can be fairly good 2hF'ers but then you need someone else in the group to take the punches.
I usually discuss from teh frame of how the rules were desigend: that is to say, the 4 person adventuring party. Meat shield, skill monkey, arcane person and divine person. The "extras" (ranger monk bard paladin barbarian) tend to fall outside the main categories somewhat, blurring the lines.
Barbarians for example tend to have a LOT of HP (making them fairly good meat shields) and they also do alot of damage.
Paladin tend to do good melee damage, they tend to have moderate AC with high Saves and good HP, making htem a good "middle of the road" type charater unless they are built specifically to take advantage of one road or another.
Rangers and bards are both oddities in that for the bard especially their contribution to combat seems to be more indirect than direct. They use bardic music to boost the combat of others rather than being a person who goes in and wades through combat themselves.
Rangers tend to be very good archers but poor melee'ers. If you build them for dex to take advantage of their skills then they are lacking in the strength that makes mon-SA dual wiedling worth doing leaving them largely in the role of an archer. Which they tend to excel at, even when you don't have the favored enemy gig which is just a bonus.
Rogues and SA aren't a attack on. Isn't something extra. It's all they have.
The typical rogue, who wants to excel at being a rogue, doesn't have the strengh score to do the real damage with the 2 handers and low-strength dualwielding is just as pointless. (dual d6's no matter how often you hit just isn't impressive, sorry.)
No, D&D isn't 100% combat but for most campaigns Combat is at least half of what's going on. Most of the rule books are built around the rules for combat. Most character rules involve things you do in combat.
It's dungeons and dragons not diplomacy and forgery. You delve dungeons and kill dragons. It's not The game, it's Part of the game and as such people need to be prepared to deal with it.
Paizo has already gotten rid of cross class skills. Any class can take any skill with practically no penalty. So now anyone *can* take part on the non-combat aspect of D&D.
And, I'd like to thank you all for keeping this civil. It's *very* nice to be able to discuss something without it resorting to name calling and "well I think you suck" and all that rot.
Cheers.
-S
(in regards to rogues needing full bab)
IMO: SA needs to stay as it was in 3.5 core.
It was just about perfect in 3.5 core. While I generally agree with the buffs most classes got, Rogues really didn't need the SA buff.
SA was one of those mechanics that just worked well as written. They need to remove the buff so that SA doesn't work against everything under the sun. Then leave it as it is.
Giving Rogues full bab would mean more attacks and more attacks actually hitting successfully. This would greatly over power the rogue class. Rogues *need* to be middle-bab to keep them in check. Middle bab keeps their main attacks and their off hand attacks in check, as well as the subsequent attacks that the class gets as levels progress. Giving them a bab-bump is a baaad idea.
-S
OK, please, stop with the whole Fighters soak damage and rogues are damage dealers things. Cuz this is NOT the case. Yes, fighters get the most HPs and best armor, they also tend to have high STR's to go with it and plenty of feats for dealing damage.
As for Sneak Attack, simple change to it makes it where it is still useful but not overpowered- limit it to the FIRST attack the rogue makes. At lower levels, this is the rogues only attack, and when he gets multiple attacks, he only gets the SA damage on his first attack. Its useful, but does not turn the rigue into the main damage dealer, which is NOT the job of a rogue.
As for the buff to Sneak Attack, well, they should keep it, but be more specific. My group has limited the types of undead that you get SA against- Mummies, Vampires, Zombies yes, liches, wraiths, skeletons, spectres, no. And I think constructs should keep thier immunity to sneak atack
[...]
No, fighters aren't primary damage dealers.
[...]
I mean... Really?
Maybe we should ask Monte Cook what was the intented role of the classes when he work on the PHB:
PHB p.37-38, FIGHTER
Role: "... charging into the fray while his comrades support him..."
PHB p.49, ROGUE
Role: "... They arent't capable of prolonged melee combat, so they focus on opportunistic sneak attack or ranged attack..."
When I read "opportunistic", I understant ONCE IN WHILE. Not 4 times in the same round, in consecutive rounds... And when I read "aren't capable of prolonged melee combat", I understand SHOULD TRY TO AVOID MELEE ATTACK most of the time.
I don't think that the intent behind sneak attack mechanics was to make the Rogue the primary damage dealer. It was just something that happened because of missing rules to balance this feature.
Yes, I said "balance". Nerfing is not nerfing when it is balancing something out of control.
I already proposed 2 tweaks in another thread to balance SA.
*Tweak 1: Decreased number of D6 of sneak attack by 1 on next hit in the same round. (5D6 first hit, 4D6 second hit, 3D6 third hit... reset at end of round, and exclude AoO)
*Tweak 2: Make number of D6 of sneak attack EQUAL to Rogue level (5D6 at 5th-level, 10D6 à 10th, 20D6 at 20th...), but make SA usable only once per round (but NOT as a standard action, to allow for Spring Attack and/or AoO)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The only reason rogues can stand there and dish out buckets of sneak attack round after round is because DMs aren't running monsters and NPCs realistically.
If I'm flanked by fighter A and rogue B and fighter A hits me for 15-20 damage per hit while rogue B is hitting me for 40-50 damage per hit, guess who I'm going to smash the s+%& out of first? The rogue! If your rogues are just moving into flanking positions and delivering massive damage, make them pay for it. They've got light armor and mediocre hit points. They won't last very long when every single monster they try this trick on suddenly starts smashing their faces in at every turn.
|
I agree with you. I think that it is WAAAYYYY too easy for a thief to get a sneak attack. By fifth level they are doing more damage than a fighter with any weapon they choose> I am within 30 ft. I throw my spork. Oh cool 1d2 +4d6 damage<
Remember that you cannot "flank" with a ranged weapon -so the only way a rogue with a ranged attack can use sneak attack is if the target is unaware of the rogue and withing 30 ft. If the rogue was hiding or under an invisibility spell, then ONLY the first such attack gets SA damage - he's considered no longer "an unseen attacker" after the first attack is made.
I know that Imp. Invis does increase the liklihood of this - but thats a 4th level spell lasting only only 1 rd / lvl, and that means that the party is working together in that the wizard is casting it on his rogue friend - and I'm sure the wizard doesn't have too many of those in a day.
Robert
|
|
The only reason rogues can stand there and dish out buckets of sneak attack round after round is because DMs aren't running monsters and NPCs realistically.
If I'm flanked by fighter A and rogue B and fighter A hits me for 15-20 damage per hit while rogue B is hitting me for 40-50 damage per hit, guess who I'm going to smash the s#!! out of first? The rogue! If your rogues are just moving into flanking positions and delivering massive damage, make them pay for it. They've got light armor and mediocre hit points. They won't last very long when every single monster they try this trick on suddenly starts smashing their faces in at every turn.
I was just going to state that, FS.
I know the potential is there for a rogue to get full attack SA dmg - but if it's happening too often, then the bad guys are not doing a good job preventing these. They need to move away from being flanked.
(I'm only using the "flank" aspect of the SA in my response because that was where the OP had his most issue with.)
Robert
The only reason rogues can stand there and dish out buckets of sneak attack round after round is because DMs aren't running monsters and NPCs realistically.
If I'm flanked by fighter A and rogue B and fighter A hits me for 15-20 damage per hit while rogue B is hitting me for 40-50 damage per hit, guess who I'm going to smash the s%~& out of first? The rogue! If your rogues are just moving into flanking positions and delivering massive damage, make them pay for it. They've got light armor and mediocre hit points. They won't last very long when every single monster they try this trick on suddenly starts smashing their faces in at every turn.
What if Fighter A grapple? How can the monster attack the Rogue B?
Or what if the rogue is invisible? Will you try to hit fighter A or hope for a hit on Rogue B with 50% conceal (considering you know which square he is in)?
Or what if you can strike back because you are already dead because of ridiculously high damage from Rogue B?
|
|
For those that feel as OP does - in that Flanking should not automatically mean "distracted to the point that SA is imminent" I have another 'fix' you can try.
Borrow an MMO idea - (I know DDO does this - but that is the only one I've ever played). The target of a flank-oriented Sneak Attack, diverts his attention "aggro" onto the rogue - and thus prevents the rogue from flank-based sneak attack.
However, doing so opens him up to more vulnerability to the guy on the other side of the flank. Say, for instance, that others attacking him gets a +4 to hit against someone who does this (making the flanking bonus to +6 total for the person flanking with the rogue), and that critical threats are automatically confirmed. And/or the creature can ONLY attack the rogue on his turn and/or makes it so that he cannot threaten anyone else that round (no attacks of opportunity) (these are just examples of mechanic-based penalties for doing something like this - but by all mean has not been playtested or necessarily the ends all answer - just ideas).
So the creature is basically more concerned with the rogue to the point of making himself more vulnerable to anyone else attacking him. Kinda like a pseudo-uncanny dodge against that one assailant.
Taking this one step further, we could make such a decision to be something akin to fighting defensive in that you can apply that logic against ANY one attacker. Obviously it makes rogue sneak attacks null, and his +2 to attacks for flanking null, but what about applying it to a non rogue? Negates power attack damage? Prevents critical hits? Adds AC to that one attacker?
Robert
|
|
What if Fighter A grapple? How can the monster attack the Rogue B?
The fighter can only grapple one foe at a time - while the rogue is taking his cheap shots at the creature in the fighters grasp, the creatures buddies are taking cheat shots at the fighter - or keeping the rogue busy. I rarely use a combat with only one foe - and when it is - it's usually something the fighter is going to have a helluva time grappling.
Or what if the rogue is invisible? Will you try to hit fighter A or hope for a hit on Rogue B with 50% conceal (considering you know which square he is in)?
Even if the rogue is invisible, I would still MOVE away from it - I would not just stand there and allow a full attack sneak attack as you suggested. Furthermore, the OP was concerned with SA from flanking - not from "unseen assailant." He seemed willing and able to accept that as satisfactory criteria.
Or what if you can strike back because you are already dead because of ridiculously high damage from Rogue B?
Well if he's already dead, then there's no reason for the guy to worry about it - his troubles are already over. Trying to attack the unseen rogue is the least of his worries, and sneak attack damage is useless against corpses. ;-)
Robert
I am a little confused about the claims that fighters aren't primary damage dealers as well. Paladins are better meat shields because they can heal themselves. Clerics get access to the funky armour and can boost it using spells. What about PA, cleave improved critical, ovarhand strike etc etc etc. Aren't all these feats designed to do more damage? Yeah, the fighter is going to hit more and get hit more as well to make up for it. He needs the good armour.
I just don't like flanking and getting SA. It means the rogue is getting the equivalent of a fighters critical or better on a flank attack.
The argument that the rogue is doing nothing if he can't flank attack is rubbish. He can still help other characters get a flank bonus. He can still bluff and feint so that he can get a SA. Heck, he can still trip monsters, throw flasks, thunderstones, caltrops, smoke-twigs, aid another, snipe at mages or clerics, help other party members overpower opponents, manouver for an attack. At high levels he can use his 'use magic items' skill to use wands, scrolls or spellbooks. Heck he can probably tumble through the melee using dodge and mobility (or just tumble) and go toe-to-toe with the enemy wizard if there is one. With his evasion and good reflex saves it means that the wizard will probably struggle against him, especially thanks to the great rogue tricks.
Alternatively, he can sit at the back and feel sorry for himself because he can't do anything.
A monk doesn't get sneak attack and is also penalised by having more skills that they have to divide their stats amongst. They also do less damage,can use a smaller range of weapons that are generally useless, have less skills and can't use as many magic items as a rogue. Why aren't people saying that it is unfair to be a monk compared to a rogue? The monk is still expected to go into combat despite lacking a sneak attack.
The only reason rogues can stand there and dish out buckets of sneak attack round after round is because DMs aren't running monsters and NPCs realistically.
The rogue! They've got light armor and mediocre hit points. They won't last very long when every single monster they try this trick on suddenly starts smashing their faces in at every turn.
Or what if the rogue is invisible? Will you try to hit fighter A or hope for a hit on Rogue B with 50% conceal (considering you know which square he is in)?
Or what if you can strike back because you are already dead because of ridiculously high damage from Rogue B?
I think you might be forgetting a few things. There are a lot of characters that only wear light armour and with proficiencies can use a shield. Also no-one is wearing a badge that says 12 level thief. The monsters should go for the fighters first because those are the guys who THEORETICALLY hit the best, are hardest to hurt back and are easiest to get to and are usually standing in the way of the squishier members of the party. That guy in light armour may be a rogue, or he may be a bard helping out, a ranger (supposedly a semi-frontline fighter) or even a sorcerer of some sort. It only takes one sneak attack for most monsters to be largely knackered if you throw in tricks as well. As for attacking the rogue, what if they are doing it using sniping. The thief makes a stealth roll at minuses and remains hidden. Let's really confuse the monsters and add a fighter/thief to the mix. Which of the two big guys in armour do you attack first?
Some of your suggestions may work when the monsters choose the combat but what about when you surprise the monsters. All their best plans go out the window.
Of course if there is anyone out there who thinks sneak attack isn't too powerful have them go up against a party of high level thieves with maybe a spell-buffer as well. Lets see how long it takes for a powerful party to be whittled down by ranged sneak attacks.