This cracked me up, ngl. If people want changes, they're a stupid minority who's stupid and Larian will never listen. If people get chances, they're entitled snowflakes whom poor Larian had to give icecream to. Damned either way, i guess. People, obv. Not Larian.
Your example also leads to combat or cutscene death on failure, btw, no matter how many words are used to describe it. Should have rather gone with the Priestess Gut situation.
Nice try portraying me as some Larian fanboi for attempting in vain to inject nuance to the clearly extremely negative bias some people, yourself included, have right now. I argued rather lengthily for my stance and why this is for lack of effort. So unless you manage to explain why CODING is the issue as is claimed here, or why D&D rules or the implementation thereof (the ONE aspect the community is actually in full agreement wanting more of) should be change, then you cracked up for no good reason at all. Didn't you?
You abusing the illithid example in support of portraying RNG as an "unbearable tyranny" (in particularly in BG3) shows your own extreme bias. By mentioning the risk of dying even behind so many contingencies as a negative RNG outcome, you in actuality manage to argue that there should be NO RISK OF EVER FAILING IN ANY GAME. Screw any suspense in combat! What planet are you from, and how hard did you hit your head on impact with planet Earth? This literally proofs/validates what I said about unrealistic expectations, intolerance for the imperfect, and being an entitled snowflake. Thanks for the involuntary comedy gold.
