I see many discuss how BG3 is bound by rules of dnd 5e but thats not the case , the game is build more or less on those rules but they can balance whatever they want, if they want to.
They could do whatever they want (within the bounds of their contract with WOTC) but they've been very clear that they're basing the game as close to 5e as they can, with some modifications to make it fit a videogame over a tabletop.
I spent 60 $ on an act1 of the game that isnt actually a game i expected, as did many.
It is a shame you are upset, it seems to be mostly that you wanted a direct sequel to BG2 complete with 2e systems. It was pretty clear that it was never going to be that and there were a lot of previews of the game by the developer. I'm not sure how they could have made it clearer.
First of all Baldurs gate is not a table top game its one of the first most succesfull ROLE PLAYING GAMES, and those who say that you dont chose your path obviously dont understand what role playing is..
Baldurs gate 1 and 2 were build off of the tabletop, the same way that BG3 has been. Outside of tables that run very open-world sandbox games the choice in D&D RPG always comes down to deciding between the branches offered to you. There's a huge scope of choices in BSG3, far more than you'd get at any table and I suspect that BG1 and BG2 didn't have more options than BG3.
When you create your character you plan ahead who this character is and what he will be like, so rolling dices is fine as long as the game remains RPG.
Why would dice roles make something not be an RPG? Dice roles have been a part of RPGs since they were invented, long before computers. When CRPGs appeared they still used dice roles but it was calculated behind the scenes. The fact that BG3 has made the dice roles explicit is an aesthetic choice to bring more of the feeling of a tabletop.
Okei okei killing 1 flaming fist wont yield breast plate but what if i use the new evolutionary feature of the knock down, and KNOCK DOWN THE WHOLE squad of fisties do you think i can manage to undress a 1 piece of intact armor from them??
If I was your DM I'd say that knocking someone down doesn't mean their armour is undamaged, particularly if they've been hit with multiple spells and melee attacks. The real reason is balance. Getting new armour is supposed to be an achievement, you're not meant to be drowning in plate mail at level 3.
Its not about realism its all about what developers decide to do, and what reasons are driving them, if they want the game to look like BG there are a lot of things on the list i wrote that should be changed.
BG3 is pretty clearly meant to be a spiritual successor to BG1&2. An adaptation of D&D (which in our current year is 5th edition) with an adventure set in and around Baldur's gate. Their aim was never to remake BG1&2.
