It's frustrating to me that 20 year old games are being used to argue why Larian's bad design or implementation is "ok" in BG3.
First of all, why? Is there a large part of the player base who actually enjoy exploiting or cheating in a game? Does it create a sense of accomplishment? Why should we have exploits that ignore the rules of the game?
Secondly, there's a difference between intentionally and unintentionally allowing exploits. Larian have a tendency towards intentional exploitation. They leave exploits in when they could fix them. Clearly someone over there likes to win by cheating a little.
Example. The Ogre encounter in BG3. You can place your party on the roof and just whittle them down with ranged weapons. They either stand still and do nothing or throw stuff at the ceiling without a line of sight and can never hit you. In PnP a DM would have the Ogres smash the walls to bring the whole building down and make the party roll Acrobatics checks or fall down as it shakes. Larian insisted on having a HUGE emphasis on verticality. But now that verticality is undermining the game itself by making it trivially easy. I didn't feel accomplished killing them that way. I felt like BG3 sucked. And before the inevitable "if you don't like it don't use it" argument, don't. I will use it, and the game will suck. If Larian insist on having such verticality but can't do what the PnP DM would do, they have failed and their game sucks.
