Infiltrator_SF

It should be pre-determined based on class+skill proficiency, and a bunch of miscellaneous low-grade equipment should be found in the next few rooms just in case.

Like said already, the game has specific modes that are far better than an arcade-y NG+.

I agree, stealth is more than just landing that critical, initial backstab, I am hopeful that some mud/dust in the eyes to incapacitate a warrior or poisoned weapons could also make it into PE. Quests that require exclusive class specialties also sound very interesting, and there's a myriad of those that a rogue can fulfill. I think it would be interesting that, in a large dungeon, a rogue has to be sent off to activate a door by completing a separate mini-dungeon (perhaps a secret passage) designed to take advantage of stealth and subterfuge.

Combat needs to be responsive, foremost than anything, but that comes at the price of some animation, in particular, finisher moves. Say you're doing a long finishing move - your character is basically stuck in that animation until he's done. Now, if the enemy is hitting him, he'll either twitch, or drop out of the animation - resulting in an awkward display, or he'll be invulnerable throughout the whole thing. Both outcomes are impractical when it comes to responsive and methodical combat, and that is why I am against such elaborated, hollywood presentations of combat - it may be fun to see the first time, but after the 20th, you realize that it's taking away from the responsiveness and tactics. Parry and dodge animations should definitely be incorporated, but I doubt they can ever make them authentic due to the many angles and weapons one might get hit with (how do you animate parrying something from behind, at an angle opposite to your sword hand?). Apart from having nice movement/combat, I want models to represent differnet models for helms, armors, boots etc. Picking primary and secondary colors like in IE games also helps make the party look like you want them to.

Rogues in DAO were mostly DPS machines and little else, quite underwhelming. But in BG2 a rogue was the guy that could potentially trivialize a very hard encounter by instantly eliminating a powerful mage out of the equation, not to mention trap detection, trap set-ups, pick pocketing, scouting, lockpicking etc.

Well, no one is trying to say any character should excel in every type of situation. A fire mage won't be good against demons, just like a stealth character won't be that good in broad dailight on open terrain. But there's always other things you can do, like pull out a bow or just let everyone else engage before flanking with the rogue/assassin/thief. I agree with Osivir, stealth from an isometric perspective is very doable and it has been already done well in games like Commandos before.

Magic is really difficult to do in isometric RPGs. I'd rather cut it than have terrible and awkward memorizing/sleeping to cast spells gameplay. If you don't like it feel free not to have any stealth characters. It wasn't ever mandatory.

Well, if a "surprise claymore" to the skull would be far more effective, people would eventually find ways to min/max their way to a position where they can stealth easily with a huge sword and we're back to square one. That said, I think rogues should be restricted to one-hand weapons. Daggers could also benefit from armor piercing, but be ineffective against certain enemies like skeletons. Absolutely, I agree with your assessments, an Assassin should be the most proficient character at eliminating single targets fast and reaching them with impunity, a Thief should definitely be the go-to person when you want to get your hands on good gear or gold early in the game and the scout/rogue should be the best at detecting enemies, traps and treasures, while also providing insight and perhaps different conversation options with enough charisma. For me, sneaking in BG2 was ok for the most part, except for the annoyances that I outlined in the OP. I would never even think about removing the stealth aspect from a cRPG, it's a core part of it, especially one that inherits from BG/PT/IWD.

It would be great if someone could shed some light on how Obsidian plans to incorporate this aspect in the game. I always roll a thief/assassin character in cRPGs and I am curious how it will turn out to be in PE. IMHO, BG2 had a very satisfying feel for the assassin - picking the right tools, items and skills, you could one-shot very hard foes before they got a chance to react. After that, you were kind of useless unless you had invisibility potions or items to do another stab, or it was running in the fog to re-stealth. The principle was very good and mostly satisfying but there were some pitfalls PE could learn from - first off, the one that most developers fail at - backstabing being based on weapon base damage / all weapons are equally good at stabbing. This must be avoided as a Staff of the Ram with huge base damage is an optimal backstabbing weapon no matter what. Instead, there should be a hefty bonus for daggers/short swords to make them the ideal weapon for such things. Dual-wielding should also amplify the backstabbing capabilities but should also have drawbacks compared to one-hand attacks. That said, a mace/sword rogue should definitely be a viable path and could have more consistent damage during combat as opposed to daggers that do a big initial burst but then perform worse as the clash stretches out. Another very important part is stealth and the mechanics surrounding it. I believe it's a consensus that the visual/audio hiding/checking should be merged into one, as no one would max one and leave the other low because that would still make sneaking impossible. Trying to go into stealth and "failing" was also mind boggling during the stages where your sneaking wasn't that good, requiring you to just sit there a couple of turns until you finally enter successful, so I think every attempt should be successful, it's just that lower levels would require you to be slower and more prone to detection. Visual cones is something that should definitely affect sneaking, as should walls and items that block vision (like in BG2). It shouldn't be too complicated though, a simple flat detection bonus should be applied if you are sneaking in front of someone as opposed to being behind them. Naturally, distance would factor in a lot as well. Anyway, I'll add more thoughts tomorrow, but feel free to add in or comment

On the contrary, it's a matter of "are we making a game where the player will pick one set of companions and play with them exclusively" or "are we making a game where we want ALL the companions to (hopefully) go with the player throughout the game, just not all at the same time". Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 were pretty much the former sort of game, where you pick your companions in the first half of the game and play pretty much exclusively with those companions in the second half. Oh, you might cycle one or two but your core party is going to remain. Whereas in Dragon Age I was constantly cycling people in and out depending on what I was doing. Nor are these the only two options. They could just flat-out dictate to you who you get when. I, personally, would actually enjoy playing a game like that, cause I wouldn't be perpetually missing out on neat companion dialog because the appropriate companion was sitting back at the base. They could make it so you only have as many potential companions as you have party slots. (Which was very nearly the case in Torment.) And, if you find the idea of companions who aren't in the party getting experience, why aren't you bitching that companions you get later in the game join your party at a higher level? Shouldn't they have to start at level 1 just like everybody else? No? So why is it so hard to grasp that just because they're not in your party right now, that doesn't mean they're sitting in front of the television eating popcorn. Heck, they probably have MORE time to train and perfect their skills than the poor schmucks stuck following your crazy butt all over the landscape. As with everything, it's a design decision. I don't really care what direction they go as long as they understand the implications of that decision and key the game toward it. Well. the former idea certainly helps replayability. It also makes you make tough choices, but RPG is all about that, come to think of it. A casual shooter lets you make quick adjustments and adapt on the fly, when you set your idea on a party composition, it should be for good - of course, if you play on easier difficulties, it shouldn't matter nearly as much as it would on harder ones (which should emulate "normal" and above BG difficulties IMO).

Uh, I never said anything about that - this was, by the way, also done in BG2 - characters would level based on your XP when you meet them (and that's fine), but from than point on, you were in charge of distributing XP. Also, Imoen was a problem that should have been balanced around so that she gets XP, because you don't really have a choice with her. Otherwise the system was fine.

There is no aimless or pointless grinding at all. Have you even played BG2? You can look at it as a journey/mission/quest regardless. You can mix them up all you want, but that flexibility will come at a cost of a lower experience value per party member. It's fair. It's how it should be. And I doubt a guy "training" will get enough experience as the party who just got out of the Underdark.

While it's unfortunate that some people are afraid of spiders, no quarter must be given to this sort of issue, because if that was the case, people that fear snakes, bears, wolves or other creatures would be considered as second-rate customers. Censorship must be cut down, not upheld.

2D, absolutely. The portraits made by an artist create a much, much better feeling of a character than some bland 3D model.

I think it's a pretty bad idea that seems to be used often in today's RPGs - characters gaining experience even though they are sitting out in the tavern/hub. PE should bring back the old system where, if you want to play with a character after you've been neglecting him for a time - you have to take along a guy who won't be on the same level as everyone else in the party. It's a matter of choice and consequence, not mix and match based on what you need at that exact moment.

ME3 was bad on so many levels I wouldn't even dare uttering the game's name on these forums. That said, I think fetch quests have to exist on some level, but as long as they are put in with the right context in mind they can make sense and not be a chore at the same time.

I fondly remember that BG2 quest where a bunch of newbie adventurers try to take you on, lose horribly, than "reload" the game