Since you're the only person in your session, what isn't fun?
I see digital cRPG as constant interaction between the player and digital DM - so how campaign is structured, what it allows for, what it encourages and rewards is, I think, rather important part of the experience. As to make clear what my issues are when it comes to combat:
I never had a massive problem with barrelmancy - because, like you said, for the most part it is a mechanic I can just not abuse. My two current main issues with combat system are:
1) Push
2) surfaces
The problem I have is that I can't quite opt out of those. Like highground before, I find push in many combat encounters to be single most deciding factor in how combat will procede. The only way I can "ignore it" is by adjusting my tactics specifically to avoid it (like avoiding going anywhere near drops - and with how riddiculus push range is, I mean ANYWERE near. At least, it seems Larian redesigned combat encounter right before Grimforge - the pushfest that was happening there was a joke. Hilarious, but not... good.
Surfaces on the other hand, make it really difficult to engage with the systems that I am at least used to thinking of as core part of DnD - spells. With surfaces doing guaranteed damage, and things like throws having what seems like practically unlimited range keeping any buff/debuff for even one turn seems like an impossible task - those are systems for which concentration wasn't designed for.
So not only those are mechanics that I don't think are very interesting or rewarding to use, but they actively interfier with other combat mechanics overpowering them. Even if they weren't use against me, I still believe their current implimentation is bad to the overall gameplay - if game tasks you with problems to figure out, and the best answer is always option A, then I think it is just uninteresting, even if I can solve the problem in more complex way and satisfying way. At this point I, as a player, have to create a challenge for myself (and by challenge I don't mean difficulty - just odds to overcome) meaning that game itself doesn't provide much to offer. It's a bit "If you don't like game's story, you can write your own". Yes I can (or rather: I probably can't - I am not a writer/game designer. I know I like a good coffee, but in spite of how hard I try, I can't seem to replicate it at home. Still if I go to a specialty coffee place and pay £3+ for a cup I do expect them to do a half-decent job.)
After those two, would be stealth and stealing - and while I can not use those, and I don't, lack of balanced implementation that would play nice with other systems cut into replaybility of the game. Stealthy characters, luckily aren't my "go-to" but if I want to replay the game as thief, using those mechanics too greatly imbalance the experience. Perhaps, I am extra salty about this one, as the first character I created in BG3 was a thief - only to find that stealthy/stealy play isn't enjoyable.
After spending some time in online forums I realised that people look for quite different things in games. My tastes seems to allign quite closely with Josh Sawyer, so I will just add
link to his argument for a need of reasonable balance in a single player cRPG.
As to argument that asking for better balanced experience would ruin game for everyone else - did nerf to highground and backstab break the experience for anyone?
