There seems to be an uncomfortably large nuber of people coalescing around the idea that the goals of BG3 are wrong. That taking 5E as a base and tuning it to make something that would appeal to fans of Divinity Original Sin and tactical combat is just fundamentally something that shouldn't even be attempted. BG3 needs to be a strict interpretation of 5E and nothing else is acceptablr. Solasta did it and it appealed to a tiny number of existing fans of 5E so that's evidence it's the only possible solution.
If that's true (and honestly I can see the logic) it's still not useful feedback. Larian are all in on BG3 they simply cannot pivot it to being a niche product aimed solely at 5E purists. Nor can they ditch the 5E system at this juncture. BG3 is going to be a game based around giving each player several interesting choices every turn and minimising those turns in which a player rolls a dice, misses and nothing happens. They're not going to change that based on what people on the forum say. It's reasonable to be upset about this, it's not reasonable to expect this to change.
Whilst your post is very realistic there are some things I want to point out: 1. There are far more D&D players than DOS players. If they had to "choose" a direction to go, at least to me it would make more sense to appeal to D&D fans. D&D nowadays is definitely not niche. 2. Our complaints regarding Solasta is more about catching Larian downright lying about feature implementation than being purists. They were and still are highly dismissive about 5e implementation, however they first stated that "some of tabletop does not translate well into video games" and then that they "initially tried a more faithful implementation but it was NOT FUN".
Well, I think Solasta is very fun, and it shows 5e translates well into video games. Even low score reviews of Solasta praise its mechanics, which is the most criticized part of BG3.
