I find the fact that the bulk of the argument that is actually taking place here is: "I want BG3 to adhere as strictly as is computer-ly possible to the 5e rules as written," versus "I like some of the things Larian made that aren't according to 5e," extremely important.
This is not the argument. Many people (myself included) are not arguing for 5e rules for the sake of it; we are arguing for 5e rules in certain cases because we think those rules are better balanced/more fun/more interesting than Larian's homebrew rules. See @1varangian's post above where his arguments are based in improving game balance, reducing exploits, and more focus on tactical combat, rather than "it should match 5e rules because."
Personally, I'm fine with Larian homebrew as long as it's implemented well. E.g., I'm like the concept of special weapon attacks that give martial characters more options. High Ground giving a +2 bonus is good. BA Shove would be ~fine if it was restricted to 5 feet and Throw would be less egregious if you didn't have a 100% chance to pick someone up.
It tells me that the simplest and best solution for Larian would be to make "strictly 5e" a game setting, one that can be slid on and off. [...] The question now is, does Larian care enough about both segments of their consumer audience to do what's necessary to make them both happy?
The
simplest solution (besides leaving the game as-is) may be for Larian to make a "strictly 5e" game setting, but the
best solution is for Larian to make a game where any changes from 5e are balanced and improve gameplay, rather than being vastly overpowered and/or cheesy. 5e definitely has problems as a rule system that BG3 could fix.
If I had to split the player population into 2 categories, I'd split it into players who want a immersive tactical gritty game, vs those who want a more fun, whimsical, power-fantasy game. Both are completely valid desires for a game, but yes satisfying both populations might require different difficulty modes (or a plethora of difficulty sliders).
