In line with @The Composer's post about hyperbolic arguments and backing up arguments with what we believe works instead of whether it is 5e RAW or not:
There seems to be a division with the Baldur's Gate player base. On one end we have strict tabletop DnD 5e only rules players and on the other end we have homebrew players and even some players that are new that are okay with the rules being bent a little.
If you're going to use a scale with one end being "strict tabletop DnD 5e only rules", the other end should be "Larian homebrew=always perfect" and not "it's okay to bend the rules a little." And on that scale, I imagine most everyone falls in between the two ends.
Most people here probably just want the game to be as good as possible. Obviously people have different ideas about how to go about doing so, but wanting the BG3 rules to match 5e is not necessarily a bad opinion. There is a big difference between "Larian should implement mechanic X as according to 5e rules because that would improve the game" and "Larian should implement everything exactly as RAW no exceptions ever."
Slavishly adhering to the mindset that "5e RAW=always perfect" or "Larian homebrew=always perfect" doesn't help anyone. Any arguments should strive to explain why a BG3 mechanic is good or bad in the context of BG3. However, since Larian is unquestionably basing their game on the 5e ruleset, I would argue that the burden of proof is on them (or proponents of any homebrew) to explain why any of their homebrew decisions are better than RAW.
