Reapersaurus-
I just haven't seen what you're talking about. IME, of the four primary core classes (Rogue, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric), the Rogue is easily the weakest in combat, and out of all the core classes, I would say only the bard and monk are weaker, with the monk being questionable. Sure, every once in a while the rogue gets a chance to shine by landing a key sneak attack, but really it happens just often enough to keep the rogues interested in combat.
And just because Rogues have more non-combat skills does not mean they dominate non-combat situations. IMC, the paladin has been key in non-combat stuff with her knowledge: religion, diplomacy, and detect evil ability. Both Rangers have had their tracking moments. One of the Rangers has focused on climbing which has come in handy several times (I allow no flight or teleport type spells, so going up a wall or across a chasm happens the good old fashioned way). One of the fighters has actually taken a fair amount of Craft skills (he's got INT 15), which has helped out here and there. The fighter/sorceror has helped out with his gather information skills a few times. Even though it's a class skill for Rogues and they have lots of skill points, neither Rogue has taken more than a couple ranks, so the figher/sorceror is the man for gathering information. The Wizard's knowledge skills have come in handy on numerous occasion.
Anyway, I've seen no reason to think sneak attacks are overpowered. They're good enough to make rogues useful in combat (which they weren't in 2E), but if a player wants to really dominate in combat, he should play a fighter, cleric, barbarian, sorceror, or wizard, IMHO.
