I started to compare BG3's bestiary with D&D Monster manual. Early observations : combats are way too challenging for our party.
Why ? Probably because the game assume you'll use those cheese.
While many players complained about missing, it seems Larian has often increased créatures AC. This mean you'll miss more often than you should... That's probably also why they give us easy advantages (what's the cause, what's the consequences ?), breaking at the same time a lot of spells, features, tactics,...
They also increased dexterity, consequences for ST.
Cheeses have many conséquences whatever you use them or not.
On another recent feedback thread someone is even saying that playing a caster makes no sense. I disagree because there are many pro but I understand him... With dipping it's like 2 additionnal arms wielding fire daggers for melee characters.
This is just an exemple but every melee characters are more powerfull than they should. Dual wielder are even more. How could the game be balanced for every players with such huge gap ? (Dipping can also burn the targets).
On the other hand is that fair to ask players not to use fun/usefull basic mechanics because they're too powerfull ?
It's all about balancing D&D and BG3's additions and nothing else. This would lead to a better game for everyone especially if they created mechanics that can easily be tweaked by options.
Flat bonus for highground/backstab is easy to tweak (0/+1/+2/+5), advantage can only be a ON/OFF button.
With the actual combat setting higher level of difficulty will just suck and only increase player's frustration (more miss, more death). BG3's most powerfull mechanics are cheap and there are close to nothing to learn about this game except a few cheeses.
