The argument presented is false. 'oh pure 5e is less fun'
There are no objective arguments presented by either side here that can be deemed true or false. Both camps (5e RAW is more fun) and (Changing 5e RAW can be more fun) are subjective opinions.
The only objective truth here is that 5E Raw isn't perfect, and neither is Larian's adaptation. However, it is perfectly reasonable for Larian to choose to follow their own subjective opinion over others, or what they deem to be the majority's subjective opinion.
Originally Posted by Scribe
They don't know that. They didn't implement it. It's as hollow a statement as the name drop Baldur's Gate.
BG3 is based on the fifth edition [of D&D]. We started by setting out the ruleset very meticulously, and then seeing what worked and what didn’t work – because it is a videogame, and D&D was made to play as a tabletop game. So for the things that didn’t work, we came up with solutions.
The cool thing we found is that a lot of what makes D&D, D&D, actually survived the translation, so I think that if you like Dungeons and Dragons and you want to play BG3, you’re going to be happy.
If we are to believe Larian, then they did start with RAW, but made adjustments prior to making it into EA.
You can choose to assume that they are lying in that interview. However, if that is your position, that one: they are lying, and two: they never had any desire to implement 5e RAW, then realistically, it might be best to disengage until you see an in-game update from them that proves this position wrong.
