Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General DMG's advice about house rules.

Alright, I'll try my best. Remember that I am not as well-read on the subject (despite lurking here for a while) due to being just the type of inexperienced individuals that Maximuuus trashed above. :'[

My opinion, hence, differs from a lot of the critics - but I do see their point when they bother to explain it at a level that even newer player can understand. So please, don't get the idea that I represent either Tuco nor Maximuuus, cause I do not. But I stand somewhere inbetween (I'd guess?). :]


I would actually be on your side of this argument. While I obviously have seen how barrelmancy works, I belong in the department that simply do not use it. It is in no way required, but the cheese is available for those who want/need it. For me, this is like the cheat mods in games like GTA - don't use it if you don't want it, but don't take away other people's fun when you can literally suffer 0 impact from it (as I've understood that Larian does NOT design their mechanics with the barrelmancy in mind - IFFF they did, then I would agree that barrelmancy is a problem).


Mmmmh... I am afraid I really do not see your reasoning here. There is a *HUGE* difference in being marked as having advantage (aka. getting another dice) and simply being tagged for a +1 or +2 bonus. I'll side with Tuco and Maximuus on this, I believe just gaining advantage from height is overkill, gaining a +1 or +2 would stimulate those like me, that are used to "high ground = good" while not being as extremely game changing as a plain advantage roll is.

I don't know about you, but I use backstab all the time on appropriate units (like rogues). And, to me, the fact that NPCs do NOT use it is part of the problem. One of the first thing I was taught when I was watching DM guides on YouTube was that DnD enemies are not supposed to be dumb cannon fodder - they are aware of their spells, advantages and other game mechanics and are supposed to fight around these, not just auto-hit the "tank" standing in their face just for the sake of it...

Regarding advantage on backstab - I'll admit I simply do not know and hence do not want to take a definite stance. I just know that whatever bonus we can get from it (without using class perks) should also be actively used by the NPCs. At least on normal + difficultly, and as far as I am aware, our current version is supposed to be the "standard" / "normal" difficulty. And this is coming from someone who got absolutely whooped by BG3 in the very beginning - that is infact how I made it to these forums cause I needed help getting past the goblin camp, being completely new to DnD and all. :']


I mean sure. It is a "matter of taste" arguably, but... I am with the other side on this one. What is the point in classes like rogues being able to use their bonus action to evade AOO if EVERYONE can do it by simply jumping? It feels weird. Jumping shouldn't cause the enemy to just "awh sht he jumped, guess imma just stay here, no point swinging at him". It feels like some classes are being cheated on their PHB mechanics when everybody can do stuff that is supposed to be remarkable.

Positioning in DnD is important. VERY important just because of stuff like AOO. Having jump available for everyone does allow for a stupid amount of cheese and of course - while the "dont like it dont use it" could apply, this just feels a bit more involved than barrelmancy as it does not require you to do anything extra like picking up barrels - it just requires you to jump.

I for once am with the people who wrote long ago that having "jump" in BG3 doesnt even make sense to begin with, as BG3 does not take height, other than advantage rolls, into account for stuff like range (as people have shown in tons of videos). Characters should just jump by default if the movement requires it, and if the character is available to make it there with a jump in any way. Jump shouldn't have to be separate from regular movement and it simply shouldn't even be a button for it, imo.

HEY! WHAT DO YOU MEAAAAN!!! :'[ Most of us wrote a MUCH more elaborate response to this than "I would like it more". Imma be that person and quote myself from the mega topic:



What's that? :|

First of all - I'll admit, I am not one of the people having D/N cycle as a priority. BUT, I very much get why people are asking for it, even if it is purely cosmetic because it IS a ROLEPLAYING game, and day/night cycle DOES make it easier to roleplay, ESPECIALLY if you're playing it with friends. You even said it yourself that Maximuuus had loads of good ideas regarding D/N cycle at the beginning of the mega thread. And, regarding the entire "we want it because WE WANT IT", imma quote Mr. Planescapist - I think he explained the way I feel about D/N pretty well.



But... With that reasoning you're basically saying "I don't really need Larian to fix something until it bothers ME"? :| If Maximuuus even explained the issue at hand, but you dismiss it because it doesn't bother YOU in particular yet, then well... That is your personal experience and opinion. Which I, of course, respect and all that - but many of these issues are bigger than individual experiences and MIGHT be bad for the later game stages.


I am not sure I belong to the turn-based crowd that Maximuus refers to (despite being a veteran in games like Xcom and Civilization), and to be quite fair I don't think this is a fair argument from Maximuuus side since he did not elaborate further on why experience on the matter was important (unless I missed it somewhere?). I am not much for "I am more experienced than you, hence I am right by default.". The game should be as playable for new players as it should be for vets - with appropriate challenges for each, of course.

ALTHOUGH, I do kinda get the seat that Maximuuus is in. It is really difficult to explain something (often over, and over, and over - I've seen him doing a lot of explaining here) when someone seemingly do not even seem to make the effort to understand what you're trying to explain (not necessarily saying you don't). Not that I have any kind of experience of this from DnD - but I am VERY experienced in other areas, like MMORPGs and moba games c: I agree with your point that arguing "this would be better, and if you dont understand that fact then you are stupid" helps nobody, same with the "too long, didnt read"-"argument".


No, but I'll admit you seem awfully quick at times to shut down ideas in a very inappropriate way for someone who "doesn't know how it would affect the game". Of course it is not by any means your fault that you simply do not know what difference it would make, or if you'd notice it at all. But the least you can do then is to ask for an explanation or ask them to elaborate in a manner that is understandable for you. I did that a lot at the very beginning just because I wanted to make sure I understood things correctly.

I mean, at first some things did not seem very important to me regarding the game structure - but after listening to what people like Maximuuus and Tuco says (without heeding much attention to their often unnecessary tone, COUGH TUCO), I realized that they do make a lot of good points, and I am more than aware of that they got the game's well being in best interest.

Let's try and stick to the example we agreed on above. "This is simply not true because of X, Y and Z." would be a better argument so that it is easier to analyze whenever you two just don't agree on what "facts" are, or whenever Maximuuus simply managed to miss the facts of the "other" side.

Hey, common. -_- You literally just spent more or less the entire first section of the thread to ask them to explain properly because it makes for a better argument. The LEAST you can do is to actually follow your own advice. If you're simply afraid that these changes might be hurtful, try just politely explaining that. Something simple like: "Hey, I don't really feel like this is a big deal in the game as it is right now and I feel like changing it might cause more damage than it would help. Could you elaborate further to help me understand what you mean, and your reasoning behind it?"


To be fair. You both have valid points, but you're both also rather quick on just harassing your opponent when it becomes too much of a hassle to explain. :'] Although, I'll admit - I've seen a lot of in-depth explanations from Maximuuus side in earlier posts, and I get that he might be tired of repeating the same things over and over. That does not, however, in my book excuse him from the insults he keeps hiding in his commentary.

We get it, Maximuuus. You're probably, unironically, more experienced and knowledgeable than most people here. I am certain your ideas overall are great and that you absolutely want the best thing for BG3. But it really does not help your case to repeat it in our face over and over. Helping us understand your arguments will give your ideas more support than trying to bully people into your suggestions.

Just to be clear : I wasn't trashing at new or unexperienced players at all.

I'm trashing at players that have 0 arguments and keep saying "it's a matter of taste" FOR MONTHES while their taste seems to be :
Less creativity, less choices, less tactical possibilities, less control over our characters, a game that's not balanced at all, less replayability, less uniqueness of classes, and so on.

The explanations and the constructive threads had already been made, and if I trust Ragnarok he already read them.

Wich we only presume, since Larian so far didnt release any statement that would clearly tell us if that fact, that Wizzard is able to learn all and every spell ... is intented, or just a bug they didnt figure out yet.

This one is true ... but:

* Will the rule improve the game?
* Yes ...

* Will my players like it?
* Yes ... not all of them, as it seems, tho. :P

You mean true strike?
That one as far as i know (and i dont actualy, i just read it around here) was concidered to be misstake, when used ... even at tabletop, so where is difference here? O_o

How? O_o
And i mean it, since i dont recall game "driving me" using anything ... nor rewarding me for doing it.

Obviously ...
Every game mechanics system is ballanced around itself. O_o

That is just like claiming that tabletop RPG is ballanced around 5e (or the curently played edition ofcourse) rules ... completely true, yet completely useless claim. O_o

Not as intended in DnD ... yes.
The question is if its working as intended in BG 3 ... and i hope that is one of things next community update could help us understand a little better. :-/

How the fact that you cant use your routine approach, you have learned in tabletop ... limits your creativity?
Isnt the fact that you have to try different approach on the contrary supporting creativity? O_o

The same with tactical, replay value, control, and so on ...
Can you please give you at least one example for those?

Im able to imagine only one limitation from your list ...
And that is if you learn all cleric spells with your Wizzard, you will feel less urge to replay the game as Cleric ...
That could seem like true, but i would still say that playing as Str. based cleric with tons of armor and shield standing in first line ... is quite the different experience from fragile Wizzard that is standing somewhere far far away, and casting one guiding bolt after another, since that is the only ranged Cleric spell i just remembersd ... not to mention all specific responces for each class, completely different rolls since both casses are focused on different stats, and even if you would ignore all this ...
You can still replay the game as a Wizzard, since you were non armored Intellect based Cleric last time you played.

I believe this is what he wanted you to realize. :-/

But even you must realize that "dont use what you dont like" indeed solve many problems. :-/
Its not his fault that you mentioned eating pig heads during fight.

Even if you don't, having them on the battlefield limits your options because if you stand near them, the enemies will use them against you.



Advantage and Disadvantage are mechanically different than a flat bonus. For example, the Rogue cannot get Sneak Attack on a creature if it has disadvantage on the attack. The Rogue always gets Sneak Attack on a creature if it has advantage and does not have disadvantage.


The Barbarian class has a class feature - Reckless attack, where they can take Advantage on their attack in exchange for enemies getting advantage on all attacks on them until the start of their next turn. Being able to move behind an enemy at will for free advantage completely breaks that balance.



The smaller the party, the less flexibility there is in what classes you can take.
- You need a front-line melee fighter of some kind
- An arcane caster of some kind
- A healer or support of some kind
- Someone to disarm traps and open locks is very good.

That's four roles, and yes, some can be doubled-up on, but the way the mechanics work for bonuses from ability scores and proficiencies make it difficult to do so effectively. Multi-classing has its own drawbacks.

It makes it more difficult to try out interesting party combinations because you don't have the room for gimmicky roles.



The issue is that increasing the monster HP and lowering the monster AC makes attacks which use rolls to hit better than attacks which require an enemy to make a saving throw. The enemy ability scores haven't been touched. For instance, Sacred Flame feels worse because relative to attacks-which-need-a-roll, it is harder for the spell to land because the enemy saving throw is base on its untouched-from-tabletop ability score, and it does the same damage as it does in the tabletop, but that also feels worse because the enemy HP is higher than in table top.


I don't really have the energy to go on through the rest.


"Just don't do X" is not a valid excuse for poor game balance. Healing spells cost spell slots and most take a full action to use (except Healing Word), but heal less than the bonus action pig head. Larian is combining Divinity mechanics from their action point/cooldown system with D&D mechanics with their 1 Action, 1 Bonus action, Spell Slot system. The two systems have different design goals and can't be welded together like this.




A DM rewarding advantage without any thought or consideration to balance or mechanics is a piss-poor DM. Said DM has fucked up the Rogue's core combat mechanic and fucked up one of the Barbarian's combat mechanics. That's not appropriate.




************



One of the problems with BG 3's balance is that it is trying to use two different game-mechanics systems at the same time.

D&D 5e is a system built around attrition. The players have limited resources, so they have to move through the day picking and choosing how to spend them. Each turn in battle you have one these resources: Action, Bonus Action, Reaction.
Divinity: Original Sin 2 is a system built around being at full power for every encounter. Spells recharge on a cooldown, action points give multiple options per turn.

BG 3 has spell slots for limited casting, but you can recharge them to full out of combat without cost. This devalues the Warlock class, and it devalues healing spells.



No by literal definition it does not solve many problems. It's simply ignoring problems.

@Ragnarok Heh you're really sure you're reading the posts you were talking about in your previous answer ? I don't think so, or as I said you don't understand their meaning.

There's a lot of things to say... Even if all of them has already been said in dedicated threads. No I'm not talking (only) about true strike, no I'm not(only) talking about wizards than can write cleric spells,..... And I'm still waiting your arguments for the "yes it makes the game better".

Whatever... maybe I'll take time to answer you a bit later when I'll be on my computer. You should really stop quoting every sentences. Answering you is a pain. Really.

To jump into the middle of this mess
The fact that many of us are arguing for a +1 or +2 high ground bonus, even though this is not 5e RAW, is evidence that we're not just Technically, adding advantage for height is in the ruleset; it's just a bad rule that makes the game less fun and tactical.

I know, it was a poor attempt at being humorous... v_v

The problem with "satire" is that it works only if your "humorous implication" has some merit and reflects reality.
Which is why your attempt falls flat on in its face.

You are accusing the opposing faction of a behavior that is instead typical of your side of the barricade.

Most of the criticism about what Larian changed is focused on the negative impact these decisions have on the flow of the combat.
Most of the defenses on the other hand are based on some variation of "I don't really understand the consequences/care about them, but I'm fine more or less with everything and I trust Larian with my life".

I would bet significant sums that if Larian tomorrow published a community update along the line of "We were experimenting with ideas but they turned out horribly wrong, a complete disaster, so now we are reverting all of them" none of the usual suspects always in first line to defend these "custom rules" would stick to defend them.
Hell, in fact I can already see the attempt to spin the narrative happening: "See? We told you that they know their job and would make the best decision in the end!".

Also, as others already explained there are entire class mechanics that break down when you change some rules of engagement, so "I don't really understand what's the problem with this change" can be excused as honest ignorance at first, but when you keep ignoring any argument that goes into the details of why something doesn't work only to repeat the same thing it becomes nothing less than disingenuous.

I like your responces Dez ...
As in my country we say, you are one of those who is talking, instead of speaking ...
If you know what i mean (dia-, more than mono- -logue)

This i understand completely ...

But also its first time i have seen such suggestion to be honest, maybe i was inattentive ... but usualy it seemed more like people were arguing about the fact that they dont like the rule, since it is not in DnD corebook ...
In this example, on the contrary, Maximuuus showed that he actualy dont care about the rule itself ... all he dont like it its impact.

And then there is responce from Alodar ... wich is kinda suggesting that giving players advantage, is actualy closer to DnD corebook, than adding +1 or +2 bonuses. :-/

So, if you get the idea that im confused in this particular case ...
You are totally right.

Well, i use it often ... but usualy i simply try to walk around my target ... and usualy i fail, and get AOO strike. But that is all on me.

NPC not using might be part of the problem, when you look at it this way ...
Or it might be simply "not implemented yet" ... sadly, there is no way to tell with certainity. :-/

Also, just for the record ...
I remembered that for this particular problem, i expressed my full support to suggestion, that probably falled into abyss by now ... where someone suggested that backstabing should be able only in that case, when targeted NPC is "threatened" by another Character ... meaning if he must "keep facing someone" ... if that makes sence.

About intelligence of NPC ... i expressed my full support for another suggestion that was adressing goblins behaviour ... with that supplement, that i believe it should not work universally. :-/
I mean, goblins should be able to understand the fact that sting the dagger in your back is more effective than your shield ... yet animals should (as far as i understand it) not be able to understand that this shiny man will be tougher to bite than that man, who is only in cloth ... at least not until they bite for the first time.

True ...
But as far as i know, rogues are not able to use their bonus action to evade AOO right now ...

So i dare to presume that either Larian is preparing something else for them ... or, they will be the victims here. :-/

Would it really seem so different with evasion as its own action?
I mean, that action would need some visualization ...

Or it would be more like:
"awh sht he just dodged even tho i didnt even attacked him, guess imma just stay here, no point swinging at him ... he would certainly be able to dodge again"

True ... few words dissapeared as i edited the post. -_-
This one is on me ...

Dont get me wrong, i would also appreciate 6 members party ... and even tho i did write it in the end, it was not my intention to tell that nobody ever give better reason, i just wanted to say that its most common one.
But as i said, this is my misstake ... i should read my posts 3 times, since twice is obvously not enough, especialy when im editing.

You and me both ...

That was just another example of something that most people usualy "simply demand" ...
But since i screwed the previous one so badly, it could never end as intented.

What could i say ... guilty as charged. :-/

But dont we all?
I see topic ... i read it, i concider it ... and i ask myself: Will that suggestion affect my gameplay?
If not > i dont care.
If yes ... and i would like it > i support it.
If yes ... and i would not like it > im against it.
And finaly, wich is most usual for myself ... if im not quite sure, i start to talk about it.

I presumed that is common method around here. O_o

You are right ofcourse ...
But honestly? Im not really sure if anyone of us can provide anything else than personal experience, prefferences and opinion ... its not in human nature to express perfectly (and by that i mean without distortion) someone else experience. :-/
Like it or not, we are selfish creatures ... and therefore only when enough seflish experiences is gathered, the common experience can be created.

Or at least, that is what i believe.

That i did ...
And now see what responce i get.

That is why i ask: "why even bother" ... and its something what i ask myself aswell, just try to gues how many hours i spend on this forum talking about ... anything i gues.
And what did it brings me, except for the reputation of the blind, the deaf, the stupid, the troll, ... insert any vulgarism ... person, that as it sometimes seem can be freely insulted, just bcs he decided to reply.
But dont get false conclusion, im not going to stop ...

Well, im still here.
And i believe most of coreusers on this forum allready noticed that i usualy dont stop responding, unless moderator came in ...

True, i coud say that sentence ...
True, i would say it in every single topic, probably more than once at paige ...

On the other hand ... even tho i didnt ever use this sentence, i keep asking people another arguments, so in my own way ... i do. :-/

Yes, there *ARE* different opinions, and anything is valid if it makes the game experience better.
This is EXACTLY why I think it should be in everyone's best interest to make Larian implement OPTIONS!
You want core rules? Pick that. You want Larian herp-a-derp? Pick that. You want a mix? Go into the advanced options and pick whatever flavours you want!

We would all win if there were many options available. This game could become a PLATFORM for so many games and adventures to come!! <3

I mean I have always advocated for options. As complicated as they could get, a dnd game ideally would allow a group to customize it to their specifications without having to employ mods.

I feel huge urge to only write "then dont" ...

But honestly, the only place i recall where you have no choice except standing next to the barells ... is Zentharim hideout. O_o
Wich can be easily avoided by sneaking past them ... wich i would cocider as totaly legit action, since you were litteraly told by their leader to get off ... unless ofcourse you pass in your speach check, but in that case they dont attack you so you dont stand next to barells in combat.

In shorten version:
What situation are you talking about?

*I comented advantage vs +1 / +2 in reaction to Dez, so i skip it, ok?*

This would be a good argument ...
But since we dont have Barbarian implemented yet ... we dont know how (or to be fair, even if) Larian will handle this. :-/

I would rather to stick for implemented mechanics ...
Since whatever i would say to this would be pure guessing. :-/

*I shall skip the 6 members party, for same reason as abowe ... im in for it aswell, and i agree with you ... it was just poorly made (and therefore completely missed) point. :-/ *

Here im completely missing your point ... im for one with Alodar in this ...

I dont want to eat pigheads in fight ... therefore i dont ... therefore some of my companions probably died, bcs i didnt rolled enough when i tryed to heal them ...
I mean ... i know that i willingly choosed ineffective way of healing my character ... but that was my decision and im fine with it.

> Therefore eatable pighead dont bother me at all. O_o
What stops you to do the same? o_O

************

So in short, you want limitation for Long rests ...
That is something i also supported countless times ... (and i dont imply by this statement that you were suppose to know more like ... just saying, to state we are on same boat here)

Every time i did, i mentioned, and i still believe, that such limitations cant be implemented lightly.
What i believe in this case is that limitations for resting cannot be concidered before all classes, and preferably sub-classes are implemented ... since every class have different needs for rest, and Larian would need more data to decide how often should we be allowed to rest.

Also the next, quite hard question ... is how to implement it in general ...
Personaly im fan of some kind of energy bar (or pointer), that would deplenishing by in game actions (on the contrary to real-time timer, that is often mentioned in such topics).
But once again, to implement such thing ... Larian would first need data about how often people are resting, since obstacles should not be inplemented lightly, or you simply made your players angry.

That sounds like quibble ...
You know what i mean. You have all the power over your own game ...

Sure i am.

It would be like billion times more effective, if you would simply tell me what you ARE talking about.

I would need you to be more specific. :-/

In my point of view, and in such common language, without poiting at anything specific ...
What makes the game to be accessible for more players makes it better.
Game is easier > therefore is more accessible for unexperienced players > therefore is better. Simple as that.

I would sign this ... without hesitation.

Sadly Larian allready prooved (with popup windows for spellcasting) that they are implementing only one set of rules, and let moders to do the rest.

You were suggesting that using your hoembrew rule ,+1 or +2 for height advantage, would be better than Larian's usage of advantage for high ground even though Larian is using RAW(Rules as Written) (Pg. 173 of Player's Handbook "The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

You are being disingenuous when you argue Larian is homebrewing when you are really arguing against a Rules as Written implementation of advantage.




No. Those were not facts. The game doesn't change how I play D&D nor does it force me to play in a certain way.
It all comes down to approach. Role-Playing vs. Gaming Computers. I am a role-player who does things that make sense for my character to do.

That means long resting every 10 or so combats and only when I am out of resources and in a safe spot. That means not carrying around full barrels of explosive liquid because that's just silly.
That means not eating pig heads in combat because it wouldn't make sense. It means not hiding in combat because I'm just beyond and enemies vision cone.

The game is in no way, shape or form balanced around my characters doing those things.

I remember in earlier installments of BG folks would cast cloudkill at the edge of the fog of war and wait while the enemies died and thought themselves clever. I would never do that because my characters didn't know what was on the other side of the fog of war. Even though it was an "optimal" way to beat the encounter because the enemies couldn't fight back. Even though the game rewarded you for doing so.

There are those who think they aren't being optimal unless they exploit game mechanics. If that is all they do then of course they have chosen to limit their creativity and chosen to ignore the uniqueness of the classes.

There are those who role-play their characters. Each character is unique and you need to use all your abilities to be successful.
Just like any good game of D&D.

"humorous implication" is matter of personal taste ...
I laughed ... that is humorous enough for me. :P

Also ... what attempts exactly? O_o

I dont feel that way ...
And even if, im not responcible for my barricade behaviour (even less, sice i didnt even know there was any barricade) ... only for my own. :P

And if you wish to lecture me about my behaviour, i strongly hope that you will lead by example.

That is how you see it ...
In fact its usualy simple: "Im having fun with this change, therefore i like it."

Well ... if we look aside from the fact that Larian would need to throw away lot of work and resources just to "try something" ... and concidering it as purely hypotetical situation ...

If the result would be fun to play ... i dont see any reason to stand against it. O_o
That would be pretty mad.

If by "any" you mean one ... that was told just now ...
Even then, no ... as you can see, i didnt ignore it ... but how would you argue about something that is not even there?

People were complainging here about that Larian will ruin Necromancers ...
I must say that i envy their oracle potential, but sadly i dont see the future ... so i cant say anything about how will Larian deal with Necromancers, nor Barbarians, nor how they will implement evade for Rogues ...

We can talk about what IS in game, and im all in for such debate ...
But speculations are pointless.

Infinite +1 ...
I shall probably save this post somewhere, bcs that is EXACTLY what i have in mind every time im talking about "just dont do it" ... only written much better that i would be ever capable of!

I would agree to most degree... *drumsticks* BUT!

Regarding barrelmancy, pig heads and all other min-max stuff I agree. As long as Larian is not actively balancing the encounters with these features considered as core gameplay, then absolutely. All my yes

However, with Larian's design, that we'll just have to assume is not working as intended, not resting "enough" will lead to missed RP dialogues which HEAVILY impacts the game for roleplayers.

For your point of view to work properly - Larian NEEDS to fix how dialogues are queued and prioritized, and - of course - fix a better system that let's the player know *each and every time* a companion has something to say to avoid the notorious Gale-situation where one missed rest will forever overwrite one of his scenes, in worst case scenario permanently locking you out of certain story elements (like his romance if you missed the weave scene).

Because it is.
The problem with advantage in that context is not that is a bonus for gaining high ground, but precisely that it's a disproportionate one.
"Hey kid, the path to your school seems vaguely ill-frequented. Here's this bazooka. In fact, let's go to school in a tank".

That's a quote that is absolutely NOT proving your point. "Feel free to use it when it seems situationally appropriate" is not an equivalent of "Handle it around like free candy for maneuvers that are trivially easy to pull off".

I know you like to win your arguments taking the other part by exhaustion, with kilometric multiquotes designes to murder any mousewheel and filled for the most part of utter nothingness, but this is the one I couldn't let pass unanwered.
So you have no notion on your own of what's fun and what's not and your only way to decide is "Let's agree with whatever Larian will decide". Sounds like a confirmation of my point, frankly.

Also, not sure of what makes even you think that tweaking a couple of formulas would equate to "throwing away" this inane amount of work you are imagining.

These are facts and as an argument you're only giving your personnal preferences about "role playing" your characters.
Using "what make sense" according to you is only YOUR way of playing the game. No one ever suggested that you shouldn't be able to play the game according to YOUR role play definition if that's what you want. You know, like in DnD.

But many players of tactical turn based video games are interrested in higher difficulty levels, challenging combats, tactical depth, lots of choices and possibilities to deal with encounters.
But you WON'T have choices at higher level of difficulty. In Baldur's Gate 3 you'll HAVE to use the same mechanics over and over again because that's how the game is actually made and balanced whatever you like it or not.

You can choose to have a more complicated experience for the sake of your role playing preferences... It doesn't change THE FACTS :
- that every combats are builded for you to use highround and backstab as the only/the easiest sources of advantages
- that you have to have an advantage most of the time to survive/to win
- that dipping your weapons is so easy/powerfull that it's ridiculously overkill
- that shoving/thunderwave creatures can often lead to an instant win even against the most powerfull bosses
- that you can avoid 100% of the AOO easily
- that you'll always play with the same patern if you try to optimize your actions, in exemple to deal with higher difficulty levels (higher with ranged, backstab with melee, jump to go further, jump to disengage, drink potions or eat pig head each turns, dip your weapons,...)

I"m 100% fine with your personnal preferences and you should be able to play the game according to your role play preferences.
But you're blind if you cannot see that the game has a few GOOD/optimal choices and PLENTY bad/suboptimal choices.

And I'm not talking about exploiting a fog of war, a bug or a specific class build. I'm talking about the most basic rules of the game, available for every characters, those you'll learn in the tutorial or those you know how to play with if you're a tactical TB game player (i.e AOO).

If the game is known to be "(very) hard if you don't know Larian's rules" and "(very) easy if you do", that's not without any reasons. If some players can easily solo'd the game with any classes while other struggle with a party of 4, there are reasons.
What you're doing in the game is YOUR choice but don't tell me how I should play the game. Telling the other that they're wrong is only YOUR point, not mine.

DnD is balanced, interresting and vast enough for you to enjoy your role play definition and for me to enjoy deep and consistent tactical combats. BG3 is definitely not.

Edit : You're right, the game doesn't force you to hide (bug the AI), to eat pigs heads (tons of potions), to use barrels (choice for fun). That's only 3 points I personnaly never complained about...
Well TBH I complained about eating pig heads mainly because it's completely ridiculous and because it's overkill compared to potions. According to me it MAY also become a repetitive - needs / better choices - in higher diffculty level but I cannot be 100% sure about this one.
Itemization will probably change a lot at release, the ridiculousness of the mechanic won't.