Cheapy,
My guys roll for stats. Assuming a 10 STR won't work. The average will be a +2. on the STR.
I was going without consideration of feats. However, if I were to make a first level rogue. I would choose weapon finesse and two handed fighting. We'll say 18 DEX (16 roll +2 from race) and 15 STR. So the attacks are at +2, +2. Weapon Finesse only requires the off hand weapon be light. So longsword/short sword combo.
Damage is (D8+2+SA:D6)+(D6+2+SA:D6).
Longsword Avg is 5.5 on a D8 plus 2 and 4.5(?) on a D6 =12 pts.
Shortsword Avg is 4.5 plus 2 and 4.5 =11
Total damage per round is 23 (21 if a D6 avg is 3.5)
Double those numbers if a second rogue is flanking on the other side. AND attacks raise to +4 with each weapon.Max PC hp with this group is 13. High AC is 17; low AC is 10.
See the problem?
Nope. You forgot to factor in the attack roll, and your dice averages are wrong. Your attacks start at -2/-2 (+0 BAB, -2 for TWF), then add modifiers. The longsword is not finessable, so it gets +2 from Strength. The shortsword is, so it gets +4 from Dex. Thus your attacks are +0/+2. If you're going up against AC 12, that means you have a 45% chance to hit with the longsword and a 55% chance to hit with the shortsword.
A longsword (d8) does 4.5 on average, and a d6 does 3.5. The offhand weapon gains half your strength bonus. So your longsword does 4.5+2+3.5 = 10, and the shortsword does 3.5+1+3.5=8. If both attacks hit, you're doing 18 damage a round. But you only have a 45% chance of landing the bigger hit (.45*10 = 4.5), and a 55% chance of landing the smaller one (.55*8 = 4.4). Thus your DPR is now 8.9, excluding the possibility of crits.If you add the flanking +2, your hit chances go up 10%, to 55% and 65%, which results in a critless DPR of (.55*10+.65*8=10.7).
Compare this to the critless DPR of a fighter with a greatsword (which has the same crit-range):
I'll give the fighter the same stats swapped. So +4 mod to Str, +2 mod to dex.
The fighter would have +6 to attack (weapon focus, BAB 1, and +4 Str), and would hit for 2d6+6 damage (50% more strength because of two-handing) (average 3.5*2+6 = 13). When you factor in his attack roll against AC 12, you get .65*13 = 8.45. When you add the flanking bonus, that jumps up to .75*13=9.75. Not as good as the rogue, yes?
Now lets make his second feat Power Attack. At 1st level, that's -1 to attacks, and +3 to damage with a two-handed weapon. So that changes our .75*13 to .70*16 = 11.2. Now he's doing more damage than the rogue, and he still has another feat to spend. That could be Furious Focus which gives him back the penalty to attacks from Power Attack (DPR now .75*16=12).
When you factor in crits (which I specifically excluded to keep the math simple), the fighter pulls ahead even more. His 16 damage becomes 32 on a crit, whereas the rogue's 10 only becomes 16.5, and his 8 becomes 12.5. So the fighter gains +16 damage, while the rogue only gains +9.
These are unoptimized builds. The rogue should be wielding a finessable weapon instead of the longsword, to avoid losing the extra -2 to attack with the primary hand. The fighter could be using a better-critting weapon. Stats could be better. But the fighter's still more damaging than the rogue, and doesn't require flank to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can be fixed by adhering to the requirement (which has been constant for the last 32 years.) to catch them off-guard. Of course, after the first round, the rogue would lose this benefit. If the rogue would like to have the extra damage, then take the precise strike feat like everyone else must do, or make it a class bonus feat. Combat manuevers should NEVER grant one class extra damage over any other class. Even 4E requires combat advantage to maintain sneak attack each round--there's a requirement to make it happen. Why should 3E or 3.5E or 3.75 be different than all other versions?
And 4e combat advantage is provided by flanking, IIRC.
Also, flaking is not a combat maneuver. Combat maneuvers are things like trip, sunder, disarm, grapple, etc. There are plenty of classes and races which get bonuses to those automatically. Flanking is a position. Saying that the rogue shouldn't get a bonus from their positioning because other classes don't, is like saying that an archer or spellcaster shouldn't get a penalty for their positioning (attacks of opportunity) because other classes don't.Before you do off-the cuff replies, take a moment to think about it. You're most likely going to struggle with the desire for the rogue to be combat viable. He is, but in the role he has been intended for since his inception. This makes the rogue the way the rogue has always been, a sneak in, cut-em, and leave, or a sniper with the bow, or a poisoner from the shadows. If players want to lots of melee damage then they should take a fighter class, not a rogue. This also, keeps with the description of the class in the Core book and all of the DnD versions to date.
A rogue is NOT combat viable if they can only get off one sneak attack every few turns. We've already shown how they fall behind even when they can do sneak attack damage on every attack. If they only can do it once a turn, then they may as well just twiddle their thumbs in combat for all the good they'll do.
Also, if a Paizo staff answers, please identify yourself as such. It would be greatly appreciated.
Look for the golem icon next to their name.
In a Kingmaker campaign in which I play, I played a rogue during the early levels. Early levels, I came across as a powerhouse. Of course, I knew better ... but gosh... a few well placed sneak attacks and people died quickly. Some lucky acrobatic rolls for avoiding AoO's when I fell down a hole filled with baddies...and bam, it looked like I was out fighting the fighter ( who happened to be rolling VERY poorly for a few weeks). During the raid of a group of baddies, my toon really stood out, well, until all the lil' fellows were dead. Big bad baddies were left to the fighter as I couldn't avoid AoO's from them to get into flanking positions. (Reach is a Beach).
As the module progressed, it quickly became apparent that it took rounds before my sneak attack ability could come into play. I had really good initiative, but often was too far for it too matter. Readied actions vs my snipes, kinda ruined the range sneaks. Positioning to Flank sounds great, but darn those bad guys for not standing still for it. :< By the third round, with positioning, I could usually get in one batch of death dealing. But often times by the third and fourth rounds, combat was already over.
Current group, just creates situations for the Ranger(archer build) to dominate. :)
Just some anecdotal tossed in the mix to show that some of us have played rogues and not just DM'd em.
Personally, I see nada wrong with the sneak attack. And now with UC offering HiPS to rogues, I am much happier with the rogue love. Got tired of the rogue being a dip only class in 3.x.
As for not liking the flank thing because rogues don't have to pay a "feat" for it and it is "just a class ability", I got nuttin'. Not certain where your antipathy towards that stems. I like it. Makes sense to me. Felt it was the natural evolution from backstab.
Some people ( myself included) prefer a Pathfinder is modeled after E6, most don't. And I cannot express it much beyond "it feels more like D&D to me".
So, if your homebrew is different, and your players are happy, awesome.
But flank and sneak attack is accurate according to rules, and not overpowered for the majority of the board members posting on the many rogue threads.
Greg
|
So rogues get extra damage from a manuever while other classes can only spend feats to do the same thing. This is what makes it a broken rule.
I'd like to point out the rogue gets a die of sneak attack at the same time the fighter gets a bonus feat. Food for thought.
I would be interested to see a playtest report posted here after you've used this houserule for awhile, and how many of your players actually play rogues, and how satisfied they are with it all.
|
And Sorcerors get access to bloodline powers, monks to flurry of blows, Summoners to Eidolons, Druids to wildshape. Every class does something special.
I finally figured out why this sticks in my craw so much. All the discussion here has been wonderful. Thank you all.
The reason it bothers me is because the rogue is getting extra damage from doing a flanking action, a combat manuever. What other class gets the same benefit? Yes, feats can be taken to do this for the other classes (precise strike available with BAB +1) AND both flanking characters have to have this feat. It is at that time, they get extra damage. FEATS are required.
Sorcerers shouldn't get access to bloodline powers without spending feats. If a monk wants to flurry of blows, he should spend feats to two-weapon fight like every other class. Druids should just take the wildshape feat too.
Sorcerers shouldn't get access to bloodline powers without spending feats. If a monk wants to flurry of blows, he should spend feats to two-weapon fight like every other class. Druids should just take the wildshape feat too.And Sorcerors get access to bloodline powers, monks to flurry of blows, Summoners to Eidolons, Druids to wildshape. Every class does something special.
I finally figured out why this sticks in my craw so much. All the discussion here has been wonderful. Thank you all.
The reason it bothers me is because the rogue is getting extra damage from doing a flanking action, a combat manuever. What other class gets the same benefit? Yes, feats can be taken to do this for the other classes (precise strike available with BAB +1) AND both flanking characters have to have this feat. It is at that time, they get extra damage. FEATS are required.
Lets just make everything a feat, and give every class one feat every other level. That's the best way to balance it, right?
Sorcerers shouldn't get access to bloodline powers without spending feats. If a monk wants to flurry of blows, he should spend feats to two-weapon fight like every other class. Druids should just take the wildshape feat too.
Not sure if trolling ...
Part of the balancing and richness of PF/DnD was the classes gave you a grab bag of both combat, fluff, and utility abilities. Sure, you'd spend a feat for flurry of blows, but who would do it for high jump when you could get weapon focus or anything else.
When sneak attack got added, the whole rock paper scissors dynamic changed. Comparing the rogue to the fighter is an incomplete view... the fighter is the most stable class.
Rogues hurt a lot, assuming they can position themselves properly. They're also more fragile than a regular combat class (d8 hd), light armor, 3/4 BaB making them more vulnerable to maneuvers and not too accurate unless they can pull off some major situational superiority.
Compare a rogue to a barbarian, the rock to his scissors. The Barbarian has more health, faster, has the skills to find (and follow) the rogue, and has uncanny dodge so unless something paralyzes him, the barb can't be sneak attacked.
Then compare to a sorcerer, who by level 6 can fling fireballs with whimsy and the like. The rogue could quite likely kill the low health, no armor, no perception spell caster in one round.
|
|
Sorcerers shouldn't get access to bloodline powers without spending feats. If a monk wants to flurry of blows, he should spend feats to two-weapon fight like every other class. Druids should just take the wildshape feat too.Not sure if trolling ...
Part of the balancing and richness of PF/DnD was the classes gave you a grab bag of both combat, fluff, and utility abilities. Sure, you'd spend a feat for flurry of blows, but who would do it for high jump when you could get weapon focus or anything else.
When sneak attack got added, the whole rock paper scissors dynamic changed. Comparing the rogue to the fighter is an incomplete view... the fighter is the most stable class.
Rogues hurt a lot, assuming they can position themselves properly. They're also more fragile than a regular combat class (d8 hd), light armor, 3/4 BaB making them more vulnerable to maneuvers and not too accurate unless they can pull off some major situational superiority.
Compare a rogue to a barbarian, the rock to his scissors. The Barbarian has more health, faster, has the skills to find (and follow) the rogue, and has uncanny dodge so unless something paralyzes him, the barb can't be sneak attacked.
Then compare to a sorcerer, who by level 6 can fling fireballs with whimsy and the like. The rogue could quite likely kill the low health, no armor, no perception spell caster in one round.
I wasn't trolling, I was being ironic. That's easier to spell than facetious.
In addition, it often isn't that easy to set up a flanking situation. The Rogue (or the rogue's partners) would usually need to maneuver quite a bit, especially in the early rounds, to set up a successful flank. Often it isn't possible without taking one or more attacks of opportunities on the way, or not possible at all.
|
|
In addition, it often isn't that easy to set up a flanking situation. The Rogue (or the rogue's partners) would usually need to maneuver quite a bit, especially in the early rounds, to set up a successful flank. Often it isn't possible without taking one or more attacks of opportunities on the way, or not possible at all.
Sometimes it's not possible at all. Guess who wins, two CR 10 rogues, or a CR 10 barbarian?
...(which has been constant for the last 32 years.)...
A) Constant is not the same as a good idea.
B) It was constant in the fashion you describe for 29 years, 1974 to 2003. For the last 8 years flanking has allowed sneak attack.
C) The rouge is, compared with most other classes, weak. If you don't want them flanking to sneak attack that's fine, but just flat out ban them. Don't gut the class and leave it in as a trap for PCs to take.
Do us a favor keep a log of every game you run with this. Try to run several if you can. Do it honestly and sometime around Jan. come back nad tell us how many Rogues you have in your parties.
How about my party just might learn to get rid of the video game/powergaming mentality and learn how to play the class as its described in the Core Rulebook?
Hmm...imagine that thought...
Do us a favor keep a log of every game you run with this. Try to run several if you can. Do it honestly and sometime around Jan. come back nad tell us how many Rogues you have in your parties.
Actually in a video game the rogue would be outdamaging the fighter who's job is now to stand there and make the badguy hit him over and over.
Could you please show me where in the rules your positon about the rogues role is supported. i don't even think the fluff would support your positon.
Also if you like 2nd ed so much you can always keep playing it instead of trying to convince the rest of us that the rogue is living up to its flavor.
But we have left the "rules" question now right? We are into homebrew suggestions? OP knows rule but doesn't like it and wants to modify it.
Or did I miss something?
Greg
Oh, and PS from the PRD just to egg the battle on :)
Rogue: The rogue is a thief and a scout, an opportunist capable of delivering brutal strikes against unwary foes.
Not at all!!! I think he should start a new thread under suggestions showing some of his ideas for modifying the Rogue class. This thread should stay here because it answered the question posed and gave the OP food for thought on some ideas for his campaign.
More threads!
Greg
Leo, if you don't have anything useful to say, quite simply, don't.
Seriously is someone who thinks that rogues getting multiple sneak attacks is overpowered? I mean seriously?
Even with god stats (which greatly benefit the twf rogue), a rogue can't overshadow the full BAB classes (except cavaliers, i don't know about them), and in fact i have seen it in a game with god stats, we were playing Kingmaker and i was playing a switch hitter ranger, near at the end of the game you know who was on par with my damage and maybe a little more? the magus when he was going nova, the rogue had problems getting sneak attacks and most importantly hitting the enemies, you know because he has 3/4 BAB and no to up his attack roll like the full BAB classes have.
Do you also believe that rogues shouldn't get sneak attack with big weapons like the falchion or the greataxe?
It's just as useful as starting this thread and not accepting that the last thing rogues need is a nerf.
Anyone thinking that core monks or core rogues are underpowered lacks a basic understanding of the way the pathfinder system works.
And if you think that the core rogue is overpowered then clearly with APG they became broken right? with talents like that one? and archetypes that allow you to sneak attack after moving 10 feet or making a charge? the rogue is broken, that's why everyone plays a rogue. The ninja surely puts the 3.5 CoDzilla to shame in terms of power.
How about my party just might learn to get rid of the video game/powergaming mentality and learn how to play the class as its described in the Core Rulebook?
Or how about you, as the DM and the person who should exemplify the rules over everyone else, just let your players play the class exactly as it's described in the rulebook?
Hmm... imagine that thought...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forget it guys, Janzir has proven by now that you can say whatever you want, he's not willing to accept that his initial view on the matter could have been wrong, and obviously he's the only one seeing the truth and all of us are blinded by rogue propaganda.
Best just ban the entire rogue class from your game and be done with it, if you hate it so much, because frankly with that houserule noone will play it anyway.
Do sorcerer's only get their bloodline if they take the Eldritch Heritage feat line too in your games? I mean if my cleric wants some of those bloodline powers, he has to take a feat, that's so unfair Sorcerer's get it for free. And they can cast spells without preparing them already. So unfair.
Or hey, the ranger. Why can he ignore feat prerequisites for his combat style feats? Noone else can do that. Except the monk, who's overpowered too. I mean he gets TWF without spending a feat, and can do lethal damage with his fists without taking IUS. And have you seen how much? 2d10, with one hit! Away with all that, let them take the feats! That will just be fair to those other classes that need feats for that too.
Except the monk, who's overpowered too.
Funny thing, i remember (pre-UC, maybe after UM) one poster saying that he has banned the monk class because he (and his group?) considered it overpowered.
What weird things some people believe...
|
Berating a poster and their arguments will only make them dig their heels in more, Allia. If you haven't the patience to respond seriously, better you stay your hand from the keyboard.
Yeah, I agree. This forum has been a hotbed of hostility for a time now and this thread exemplifies that turn perfectly. It's like the place, particularly the rules and advice side of the boards was suddenly enamoured with a bunch of admittedly pretty nasty internet personalities.
I don't agree with the OP's disregard for the paradigm shifts between 2.5 and 3.5 either, but some of you guys get pretty damn entitled and confrontative when he proposes something for what is afterall just a home game. Suggest, nitpick and disagree as much as you wish, but attitudes should be kept in check.
Bobson,
This mentality is the problem. People seem to think "falling behind" from fighter damage just shouldn't happen. That mentality is just wrong. The class is not a head-to-head melee class. He excels at catching people unaware, slipping that poison dagger between the ribs real quick and leaving. Sitting round after round after round until the opponent is dead in toe-to-toe (or toe-to-heal) combat goes against the role as described in the Core book, not to mention the entire history of the class.
You're missing my point. There's a difference between "Falling behind" fighter damage, and being the worst damaging class in the game. At any level a rogue is going to do less damage with the maximum number of RAW sneak attacks than a fighter. It's too late to keep it from "falling behind." But if you say that as soon as the rogue attacks, he doesn't get sneak attack until he's had a chance to spend a round moving away and hiding (two move actions), and then another round sneaking back up and attacking, they are effectively twiddling their thumbs every other turn in combat in order to benefit from their signature class ability. That drops the rogue's damage from "worse than a fighter" to "flat out abysmal".
Flanking is actually under the heading of Combat Modifiers. The rest is semantics. No other class gets extra damage from because they receive a combat modifier without taking a feat first. There's no consistancy in this rule with anything else, history of the class, sneak attack requirements, or extra damage available to the other classes. That makes this rule unbalanced all around.
As others have said, what about monks, who get TWF while flurrying without needing to spend a feat? Or sorcerers who get bloodline powers without needing to spend a feat? Those are both things that there's feats for, but which those classes get for free. Both of them have less history than the rogue getting sneak attack on flanking - rogues have almost 10 years of history in that, while the others are new to Pathfinder.
As I stated earlier, House Rule will require the the feat of precise strikes (I'll add it as one of the rogue bonus feats and they will recieve their SA damage in accordance with the requirements of the feat. That is, flanked by somone with precise strikes. Lacking this, to get the SA, the rogue will be required to catch the opponent unaware as with all sneak attacks.
This solution restores the consistancy of the class, maintains the history of the class, and doesn't give one class an adavantage doing the same thing another class can do, i.e. flanking.
Can you please explain where the bolded statement comes from? As I recall correctly, in prior versions, rogues didn't have anything called "sneak attack," they had a feature called "Backstab". Backstab required surprise. Sneak attack is an entirely new ability which works on stealth or flanking.
Let me end with a quote:
Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition renamed the ability from "backstab" to "sneak attack". The main reason for using "Sneak Attack" instead of "Backstab" in later editions of Dungeons And Dragons was because it was no longer required to be 'behind' the enemy to use it; you simply had to catch the enemy off guard (signified by any situation where the enemy doesn't get a DEX bonus to AC). In 4th edition, this is called gaining "combat advantage." Also, the early backstab had to be performed with a dagger or shortsword, weapons one could easily stab someone in the back with, while later editions removed the weapon restriction (weapon restrictions which 4th Edition brought back, probably because of people wondering why more assassins didn't carry around battleaxes instead of daggers).
I notice you're not advocating going back to the "dagger or shortsword" requirement.
|
Berating a poster and their arguments will only make them dig their heels in more, Allia. If you haven't the patience to respond seriously, better you stay your hand from the keyboard.Ok, who are you and what have you done with the real TOZ?
It's the US.Army subliminal programming kicking in. TOZ's gonna tolerate and hug the hell out of us now.
|
It's the US.Army subliminal programming kicking in. TOZ's gonna tolerate and hug the hell out of us now.Berating a poster and their arguments will only make them dig their heels in more, Allia. If you haven't the patience to respond seriously, better you stay your hand from the keyboard.Ok, who are you and what have you done with the real TOZ?
I don't think the US Army PsyOps teams are that good.
The rogue, exactly as written, does less damage than the fighter.
The rogue, if nerfed any further, will be essentially unplayable.
It appears that Janzir is okay with this. I would just like to hear him acknowledge these facts -- the numbers show them very clearly.
Janzir: You complain that the Rogue as written gets a damage bonus from the "flanking" combat modifier. Do you also complain that the Rogue as written gets a damage bonus from the "concealment" combat modifier (which includes stealth)?
All of the conditions for sneak attack are combat modifiers, except being flatfooted from not having acted yet.
However, the rogue does the flanking maneuver and gets extra damage automatically with no cost in feats. It's lauded as a sneak attack, but does not adhere to the normal sneak attack rules. That is, you have to catch them off guard (flat-footed, No DEX bonus).
Of course the rogue gets to do sneak attack while flanking without any cost in feats. He pays for it by accepting a 3/4 BAB, a weaker selection of base weapons, lower hit points, a lot fewer combat feats, and less skill with armor than the fighter. Getting extra damage for good positioning is the trade off he gains for taking those limitations while still having to hold his own in a violent encounter the same way the fighter does - with martial combat rather than with spells.
What you have to realize is that D&D's view of what the rogue should do in a violent encounter changed 11 years ago in the transition between 2nd edition and 3rd edition. They were no longer expected to hide for a round or two, move into position, make a single backstab if the target was surprised by them, and then desperately suck for the rest of the combat (including having terrible saving throws - what was that about?). As of 3.0, they were expected to contribute a lot more, both more frequently and earlier in a fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this still being debated?
This is clearly a troll post. It has been objectively shown through math that the rogue is not overpowered, at all.
Sneak attack is when the target can't adequately defend themselves. It's not when the target isn't aware of them. When someone is being flanked, they can't defend themselves adequately. Everyone benefits from this, since everyone gets +2 to hit from it. Rogues just get more from it.
Why do they get more from it?
SO THEY CAN REMAIN RELEVANT IN COMBAT.
Rogues are the weakest class in the game. A fighter can out damage them in almost any circumstance but the absolute most optimal cases. Hint, that case is when the rogue is somehow targeting touch-AC while two-weapon fighting an opponent denied dex or being flanked. Even then, the rogue will just barely out damage them.
A wizard is far better at sneaking than any rogue. Oh, you have +8 to Stealth at level 3? That's cool. The Wizard has +25 from Invisibility. At level 3.
Alchemists can do almost anything a rogue can do, and so so much more. They can even get sneak attack! And spells! And awesome mutagens!
They hit less often in combat due to 3/4ths BAB and no class abilities or spells to boost it.
They can't stay in combat for long due to the d8, light armor, and no other methods of defenses such as spells.
Their class heavily pushes them to high dex, meaning they can't do good amounts of damage, since they don't have great strength.
The only way to even get close to a fighter's damage output is to go into Two-Weapon Fighting, which is very feat intensive.
Didn't the 3.5e Ninja class have the Sudden Strike class ability? Similar to Sneak Attack, but no flanking? It then immediately (like, 2nd level) gained the ability to turn invisible, thus guaranteeing that he was allowed his sneak attack damage on-demand.
I could see a class alternative (maybe an archetype) working with a more limited form of Sneak Attack.. but it would definitely need something in return.
And I really do not think that the idea of the Rogue getting extra damage while flanking someone is inconceivable in concept.
I mean, we are already letting the Rogue get this extra damage on Constructs and Undead.. things without vital organs even.
The point is that the Rogue is focused on being "sneaky" with his attacks, instead of direct like the Fighter. He is good at targeting weak points.. whether it's a hamstring or kidney, or simply a joint or thin part of the shape.
Only mostly amorphous objects (Elementals and Oozes) are immune now.
For this reason, only needing the target to leave himself at least a little open (divided attention or loss of Dex) makes sense for the Rogue to get in his "called shot".
It's not so much that the person flanked is giving up his backside for the Rogue to kick in, it's more that the Rogue has learned dirty fighting, and can spot when the flankee is about to respond to another person's attacks in a way that lets the Rogue get to that weak point.
Rogue Talents like Opportunist show how this is the mindset of the development of the Rogue class. A fighter trains himself on how to use his weapon the most effective way, evenly against any opponent. The Rogue is constantly looking for that weak spot, and capitalize on it as much as possible.
Ultimately, the class was made a lot more "general purpose" in 3e compared to previous editions. This should be very evident in the name change ("Rogue" vs "Thief").
There are a lot of builds these days that focus on the "Dirty Fighter" or "Thug Brigand" type of combat that the Rogue class is perfect for emulating.
In fact, a Fighter/Rogue multiclass is an amazing way to get that kind of kick-you-in-the-groin dirty fighter.
.
Ultimately, you can still play the Rogue character as a Thief if you wanted. It's not like you have to go out of your way to benefit from flanking sneak attack damage. Or even being damage focused at all.
This is the real paradigm shift that happened in 3e. The game was designed to be a lot more open in the concepts that you could play. This was evident in their multi-classing rules, demi-human caps removed, skills opening up to a more "anyone can try, some can excel", things like this.
The base classes were broadened to allow a lot more character ideas than before.
The changes to the Rogue simply reflect that.
However, if a player asked for a Sudden Strike ability instead of Sneak Attack, I'd be okay with making the modification and seeing if there was something we could add to balance the scales of that change.