Except these changes aren't good. They aren't even well intentioned in the less direct meaning of 'good'. They are made to make the game play and feel more like DoS, and see my previous point #2 why that is bad for BG 3.
That's where the subjectivity comes in. BG 1&2 were of an older edition of D&D rulesets and even then there were adaptations made in that game that differed from the ruleset.
Through the success of DoS 1 & 2 they Larian was recognized as bringing back that "old school" RPG combat back into the mainstream, so much so they were compared to BG 1 & 2 and were encouraged to keep going and have now taken over for a BG3. If the gameplay was good enough for people to recognize them then, and then when they do what got them here again, why is there a sudden rejection from the community?
A lot of adaptations of their DoS engine have been adjusted to be closer to 5e rules, but there are changes they made to keep their own flavor as well.
Subjectivity is on if it is good or bad.
Broken mechanics on the other hand very well should be addressed or things that are overpowered to the point it is game breaking.
The emotions on many make them feel betrayed by not a perfect rendition of 5e rules by a bible. Adjustments are made to match 5e without having to completely rewrite their engine from scratch, and I am sure there is some amount of shoehorning going on for some mechanics.
Firebolt on the other hand I can go either way on. Surfaces as a whole do not bother me. Shove being a bonus action may be too powerful with the high inclusion of elevation in the game and the dramatic distance shove moves a target. Throwing enemies is fun and strength based but again is abusable, and probably should be adjusted more for a roll for success or by adding grapple prior to a throw maybe? Dipping weapons I think is probably bad as a design as a whole.
