First, the basic rules of PnP are not a penal code, and if you do not follow it, SWAT will suddenly not burst into your home. Secondly, the rules can sometimes even be heavily modified, it all depends on the group's approach. Some groups like to focus more on combat, while for others combat is absent. Third, everyone plays the way they like.
I doubt that the group of players who really cares about whether they are implementing the rules exactly is actually large. There were even complaints about the most common homebrews on the forum. Some people won't be happy if the game isn't 100% RAW or looks like BG2. I suspect that they don't even care if the game will be more enjoyable that way. Reading the forums, you would get the impression that the game instead of 88% positive (which is a huge amount in the case of a controversial game in EA) should have at most 50-60%.
I agree that changing the rules might be good. The question is what change you make and for what purpose. If you change everything about the way combat works You need to do it for the right reasons. By the way, this argument is precisely the reason Solasta is brought up so often here - Larian claimed they had to make this crazy changes because the more faithful way they claim they initially did wasn't fun, and then almost as an answer to a dare In comes Solasta and proves it isn't true and a more faithful version could be extremely fun.
The problem I have with Solasta is that I don't think it's a good game.
