Why would I use melee if I find that playstyle boring, regardless of how overpowered it can get? BG1 and 2 were, in terms of classes, not balanced at all. You could have a very easy time spamming wands in BG1, yet not everyone did that. Because other playstyles were viable too, as the game didn't require you to use wands to win. Same case in BG3. I find melee boring, don't use it often in games and so I'm not very good at it, but that is not a game stopper in BG3.
With aoe spells, it's the area that you can cover that matters. A redcap won't make it through a web and spike growth patch in one turn, even when making the saving throws. Consequently, it doesn't matter if every ranged attack or spell that turn hits, because you have spells & items to blast it back to square one the next turn. I have replayed this battle using different terrain spells, and the result was the same.
The only fight were my druid's party needed that high ground was the githyanki patrol, but even here web worked. But I suspect you'll be level 5 when you get there in the full game, which means level 3 spells.
Technically, you can also cheese any melee encounter with the flaming sphere spell, in which case dice rolls won't matter, and there is no risk to your party. But I don't count it as a working strategy, since the spell just exploits enemy ai.
So because there were issues with BG 1/2, Larian should be given a complete pass for diverging from 5E rules, slapping on a bunch of DOS features, and making an unbalanced game?
I don't follow that logic, it's just 'whataboutism'.
