My own feedback on this point is something I wanted to go into in more detail at some point, but for now:
Larian have made comments about how missing isn't fun. Sure, maybe, BUT, in 5e, missing regularly isn't actually a major problem, in my experience. You succeed more than you fail, generally speaking. (A base level character will have on average a +5 to hit, and so will hit an AC14 creature (the generous average for CR1 targets), slightly more than half the time. A level 20 character will reasonably have a +15 to hit, and will hit an AC22 creature (average AC for CR 25-30 creatures) notably more than half the time) bounded statistics serve the purpose of not required characters to be super-specialists and use all of their growth options on 'given necessities' just to have a chance at being effective against on-level targets, especially at higher levels, and it works. Super-specialists still have an advantage, of course - that level 20 archery-focused sharpshooter might have a +21 to hit, and will very reliably hit even Tiamat, but people who haven't sunk literally all of their growth into laser-focusing one thing will not feel like they have no chance to contribute either.)
Despite this, they've tried to 'address' this perceived problem by reducing AC and increasing hit point, and another poster elsewhere has already gone into great depths on why that's a terrible solution, which only succeeds in devaluing other aspects of play, and channeling players into specific courses of action over and over again, because they're the only things that are effective uses of their turns. In particular, they've increased the success/fail ratio artificially for ONE side of the offense equation, and completely greatly devalued the other - it's no easier to succeed when you're forcing saves, and when you're forcing saves for damage, that damage is devalued by the increased hit points... so with saves, you'll fail more, and achieve less when you do succeed...
The real issue is not with the game rules and mechanics, which Larian are hacking apart (badly) to try to fix their perceived issue. The issue is with the computer RNG that Larian are using.
No computer RNG is truly random; it's still a code based formula for deriving values. Some, however, are better than others, and if you spend enough time with one, you can get a feel for the way it churns its values out. The rng that Larian are using is not a good one. It's not 'bad luck' when it's consistent and reliably predictable - it's a problem in the code.
This isn't about missing on an advantage roll when you only need a 3 or higher to hit... this is about missing multiple times on advantage rolls when you only need 3 or higher to hit, specifically when you're targeting boss or low hp targets, and having this occur *Frequently* and *Consistently*. I've been watching my combat logs for the past dozen sessions and noting situations - and it has been far, far, FAR too consistent where cases of rolling under 5, even with advantage, upwards of eight times in a row (that is, four attack rolls with advantage), on creatures that are on very low hp, or are boss-like creatures. It's not 'bad luck' when it happens this reliably. This happens to players too (enemies trying to down you), though to a substantially less pronounced extend (maybe only 40% as frequently).
Larian needs to invest in a new RNG to run their system. That would, quite probably, solve a great many of the 'too frequent missing' problems... The other would be to actually revert their ridiculous house rules and run the actual 5e system, so that they aren't creating imbalanced gulfs without understanding that they're doing so. Please, Larian - get a new RNG to run your system, and *Trust* the base 5e rules and statistics to create an engaging combat.
