My statement about popularity, wasn't that it should be implemented because its popular. I stated I'd like a D&D based game to actually be popular enough for it to get a successful franchise.
Again, it's irrelevant. You're not an authority on what's popular. And I really don't think you're going to change anyone else's mind on what
they enjoy by appealing to this.
I want D&D to be popular, but that's because I want other people to like the things I like. If it becomes
a thing I don't like, then if I care at all then I'll want them to hate it.
If you don't like skill slots/charges, or if your friends you want to share this game with don't like skill charges, then you can talk about that. That would be a solid argument and that's not an appeal to popularity. That's not quite what I'm hearing here.
Again, let Larian worry about what's popular. They can do their own market research and manage their own business. I will understand if they make a decision that I believe makes the game worse simply because they think it's more popular/safe (such as the DOS2-style "open" level design that stripped away the world map). But that doesn't mean I'll agree that it's better, and if they make too many sacrifices then they risk leaving me behind.
There's really no point being here to just advocate for what
other people you've never met might want. It just seems absurd.
And again, the part that really has me confused is that the fantasy RPG you seem to want -- DOS2 -- already exists. Why don't you just ask Larian to make DOS3 instead? It seems to be at least 90% what you want. What would you change about DOS2?
What happens if we don't change them.
1. AA slog battles.
2. Not being able to really appreciate your character in battle, always having to force yourself to hold back, and never truly being able to just unload on an enemy.
3. Rest cycles are entirely unrealistic.
4. You cant fine tune balance, meaning once we get to level 20 in this game or future expansions, all combat will be a slog, and or completely irrelevant, and/or those levels will continue to be locked off, because gameplay at those levels is just bleh.
Ah, the real meat.
Anyway, I could address these points, but I think they already have been. D&D is fun. Given that the Baldur's Gate brand is tied to D&D (which is currently interpreted as 5E), the burden is on you to justify why deviations from the D&D 5E model would be for the best.
The core burden you have is explaining how the element you're criticising fails in the context of Baldur's Gate 3, and why the best solution is to nuke it by completely removing/replacing the element.
What happens if options that have been suggested, are added on top of this poor mechanic.
5. Day/Night cycles will be so fast they will be unrealistic, or so slow that you have to sit around and wait for night time just so you can rest.
6. If you make it limited to 1 rest per 2hrs of play, you are forcing people to sit around and wait, creating even more of a negative experience for them, and making the game get bad reviews.
I agree that's a bad idea.
But what about the suggestion of having campsites at fast travel points with no day/night cycle?
