I always find this kind of remark interesting - not only because of their eloquence, but because they leave a lot to guess above true meaning. Is this:
a) "No thanks" - I do not like this proposal and I would not use that option if available, or
b) "No thanks" - I do not like this proposal and NO ONE ELSE should have an option to use it either ?
In other words, if there was voting on this suggestion it is clear that above would not be YES vote, but it is not clear if it would be NO vote or DO NOT CARE/abstaining from vote.
What I find remarkable here is that suggestion itself would not change a thing to those who like current way, and yet many DnD veterans would clearly vote NO for this, even if it does nothing to their own gameplay ( not assuming if you are DnD veteran, just general observation ). I guess this boils down to who Larian is catering more - diehard vocal DnD players, or non-DnD gamers.
Personally, I'm certain that implementing of this suggestion would NOT cause DnD players to stop playing BG3 ( after all, by default it would be OFF ), while I'm reasonably sure that not implementing will cause number of normal gamers to avoid BG3. And I'm also sure that number of potential non-DnD gamers is far larger than number of veteran DnD gamers, even if on these forums most vocal are DnD veterans, so it should not be in Larian's interest to ignore non-DnD gamers. But it is hard to estimate what fraction of normal gamers would find this issue bad enough to prevent them from buying BG3 so, as always, its up to Larian's priorities.
