I do not know who do you refer with "most people" (¿?) but you have the possibility to customize the difficulty options. You cannot hit anything or enemies just save everything, lower the stat growth option, if you feel there are too many enemies, lower the difficulty option, if you feel the progression is too low... well. you know.
I mean I don't play on Core, which is why again I cannot give a fair assessment of the higher tiers of difficulty, but I do know that most people discussing the higher difficulties without any alterations say that the base options are a bit off. Like my tabletop DM that is giving WotR a whirl says that the Core settings right now are basically a DM constantly trying to one-up their players, and thought it was far better balanced once he went into the settings and lowered the number of enemies to normal.
I know it's great that we have a lot of options to tweak the difficulty and that we should really take advantage of it, but that doesn't mean it should absolve the devs from putting in a little more thought on that front. Especially when it seems there are achievements assuming that you are playing on Core with no changes to the settings at all. Even so, such arguments are only really a stone's throw away from the arguments about how we should just mod things into BG3 to fix perceived design issues there.
Originally Posted by Brainer
-snip-
I will say that back during beta, the enemy AI behavior combined with the environmental design did make encounters a lot more interesting to me than in Kingmaker. But it appears there may have been weird changes to the AI in the full release, possibly for the worse especially for turn-based, going off of my current experience so far.
