As a note, RAW in D&D since 3rd edition is a Nat 20 is only auto success in attacking and the same with Nat 1.
The idea of Nat 20 and Nat 1 being auto success/failure in skill rolls is a frequent house rule, but it has never been RAW.
That said, the general rule of GM etiquette is "if 1 can't fail or 20 can't succeed....don't make them roll."
D&D player hand book page 194 for rolling 20 or 1 in combat...
D&D player hand book page 197 for rolling a 20 or 1 for death saves
While most checks do not have a specific rules for 1's and 20's many items in D&D state a roll of 20 will do etc... And most campaign guides also state the DC rules and exceptions if a 1 or 20 is rolled. Especially at earlier levels. And in my opinion a simpler and better way of doing this is just to have 1 always fail, and 20 always succeed. Instead of making or not making a new rule for each interaction. As it is just too much work. The official rule is that the DM decides the difficulty of any check. So it is not a house rule to make 1s fail and 20s succeed. It just isn't written in stone. A big difference. And most players who read the rules without a degree in D&D will assume 1s are always bad and 20s are always good. Unless explained and shown in greater detail. Even players in the show critical roll don't seem to understand that. When matt (the DM) doesn't fail them for a 1 on a check, they seem completely confused. So why not just make it so? It isn't really a house rule. It is more or less a miss understand of sometimes this scenario 1s and 20s have these rules, but not always.
While I'd love to have cover, a lot of the stuff you list as cons for combat I consider pros and are things I've implemented in tabletop games for literal decades. Because active environments are fun. Surface effects for the most part are not auto hit, the exception being burning which...makes sense really...you don't walk through fire without getting burnt. I do sort of wish my fire resistant tiefling would have less trouble, but eh, it's minor.
In RAW D&D grease bottles and such have always had the same effect as spells but with lower save DCs and usually smaller AoEs. Having played a lot of NWN and NWN2 I can say that the effect of grenades in this game are roughly on par with the effects of grenades in that game. And I can also say, having played characters that do the Alchemy skill thing to churn out thunderstones, tanglewebs, and such, that are comparable with the effects you get in tabletop.
Spells start outpacing grenades at around 5th to 6th level, and we don't get there yet.
Ok. And you expect every player to be an alchemist with loads of bottles from level 1? Also they way out perform all melee in the game. And I don't see that changing at any level.
Look I didn't like NWN. I liked BG 1 & 2. There is a reason NWN didn't do as good as BG. And isn't considered as good as a game when looking back. Well by most people anyways. Despite both having high ratings. And I could care less how they did it in that game. This is suppose to be an extension of the other BG games by name.
The characters in this version are a lot better designed than the characters of past CRPGs for the most part. (notable exception for Neeshka of NWN2 who is one of my long-time favorites).
Inventory management is a mess, yet, and I have yet to see a CRPG where it is not a mess. But, to be fair, the inventory management here is better than it was in Baldur's Gates 1&2, Icewind Dale, Gold Box games, NWN, NWN2, or Sword Coast Legends.
The story is a cheap novel story, but again, that's expected. There's a lot going on in the development of a video game and even the "good" storylines rarely impress me too much. There's one or two video game storylines that really understand how to tell a story in the medium, but for the most part it's a Saturday matinee where you push buttons. This storyline is on the side of competent and enjoyable so far and the one spoiler you mentioned is predictable because to do otherwise would be a poor gameplay decision and this is, first and foremost, a game.
This statement is all opinion. And your opinion. I disagree with it pretty much. I didn't find my inventory annoying in BG 1 or 2. Hell even dropping stuff on the ground was easier in those games. And was absolutely great for the time/age it was created in. BG3 inventory seems a few steps back compared to the original. And technologies and examples of other systems are out there.
I am not going to bother comparing the game to games out side the Baldur's gate name. Might as well compare it to anything at point.
And at least the characters in BG 1 & 2 didn't try to kill me on site. Oh you just held a knife to my neck. Yay why don't you come stay at my camp? That won't end poorly. Like really? The story is crap. Like really crap. That is my opinion. But to each their own. At least your comment suggested you actually read and considered my post for what it is. Most people here aren't even worth responding too. So you do deserve some praise for at least standing by your objections. And I would like to say your are more than welcome to your opinion. And if more people are like you. Than by all means let the developer see it. Isn't that the whole point of EA. To get early feedback. To most of the rest of you F-off. Your not worth my time or effort.
