Rogues are by far one of the strongest classes in EA.
I wouldn't change anything.
But
why are they so strong ? This is not a rhetorical question. I didn't play Rogue that much.
The one thing I'm aware of, is that they get a 2nd Bonus Action (which is specific to BG3's Rogue, it's not there in 5E), and that the current state of the game allows us to use that 2nd Bonus Action to take a 2nd Off-Hand Attack. Thus, a BG3 Rogue can do 3 attacks in a rounds (the 5E rulebook says you can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, and so a Rogue could make only 2 attacks). Also, given the ridiculous Backstab mechanism, in the current state of the game, it is not too difficult to have Advantage on those 3 attacks.
So if the answer to "why so strong" is just that other (hopefully temporary) mechanisms are a bit bonkers and allow for a super-strong Rogue, then the Rogue is in fact super-strong only temporarily. From what I've head, 5E Rogues are supposed to be good at dealing damage anyway. But right now, it feels as if BG3 Rogues are so for wrong reasons.
Overall, I'd prefer
not to have dubious tweaks added to Rogue in order to compensate for a balance that is displaced/disturbed/changed by another dubious general rule. I think it might be better to first have a good set of general rules for everyone, and then see whether Rogues need a boost to be good damage-dealers.
Please Larian, Do not! "Simply just auto-add sneak attack , when it would apply" Do not!
Well, I hope they do. Or at least, that they give us a switch to activate/de-activate it. Like Dual Wielding (although the QoL Dual Wielding is currently poorly implemented, so it's not the best example).
Because I don't see a lot of situations where it might be interesting to not use Sneak Attack if your attack is eligible for it.
