In a sense ... yes. In another sense ... I am not bothered by where the final balance will be or thinking of the combat system as "5E + Larian's additions and changes". It's just a combat system that's inspired by 5E. But at the end of the day, it's Larian's vision of combat. What still bothers me a bit is more the immersion and aesthetics.
a) Immersion.
When I reading the DnD rules, I see that AC increases in two ways : from Dexterity and from better armours. Better Dexterity means better footwork and reflexes, allowing to better avoid an arrow that would have hit you. Better armour means that when a weapon hits you, it's more likely that the armour takes all the blow and you are not hurt. There's also the attacker's attack bonus, and thus accuracy : maybe the projectile doesn't hit you not because you moved but because the attacker didn't aim well. Said otherwise, what is mechanically a "miss" can be at least two things : a true miss, or a hit that does no damage.
In BG3, the rules for hitting a target are exactly the same, but what I see on the battlefield does not reflect those rules. So if a goblin is on low ground and throw a projectile up at you, a true miss would realistically mean the projectile would land somewhere that is possibly far behind you. And you wouldn't be in fire at all. But in BG3, 100% of misses are apparently hits that cause no direct damage.
It's not very credible and I feel there's a disconnect between the mechanisms and what happens in battles.
b) Aesthetics.
With so many molotov cocktails flying around, I don't get a Middles Ages and early Renaissance vibe in BG3's Forgotten Realms. If the game took places in the American Far West or a futuristic setting like XCOM, I feel it would work better.
But at the end of day, that aesthetics is Larian's vision of that universe ... So I guess I'm really just bothered by what I feel is a dissonance between what combat looks like and what the rules lead me to expect.
