I promised myself I'd never again comment on the 'miss' topic, but there seems to be a very simple-minded argument from a minority of people that if you remove miss, the game is easier. The game is easier because you can miss: enemies that should have turned you to mush just randomly miss, and you might as well be invincible. It's boring stuff. I would say enemies seem to miss more than I do, and I stop being able to take the game seriously because I'm untouchable.
Chess is also turned based strategy and requires infinitely more intellectual resources than a little fantasy game with goblins and liches and whatnot. You never miss in chess, because the 'thinking part' is all in the positioning. Imagine if all your strategic acumen in chess was inevitably foiled because you failed to 'hit' the king, after all that ingenius foresight.
Baldur's gate 3, even with all the geekery of D&D, is not a million miles from the idea of chess. Hitting an enemy is only a miniscule aspect of the overall gameplay. The more interesting part is the creative thinking that requires you to use the landscape etc to gain a better battlefield position than the enemy.
For people who want the lowest level difficulty, I'd suggest leaving the miss option on because enemies will never be able to hit you and you just steamroll the whole game.
