Weapons in BG3 be like, "Dragon's Clasp Axe - If your target is on fire, you deal an extra 1d4 damage.
Weapons in D&D be like, "Longsword of Life Stealing - When you roll a 20 on an attack roll, that target takes an extra 3d6 necrotic damage. You gain temporary hit points equal to the extra damage dealt."
BG3 = you need to first set an enemy on fire, THEN you can acquire the benefits of the weapon.
D&D = there is a chance with each attack roll that you can acquire the benefits of the weapon.
There's a huge difference here. BG3, you have to meet the right conditions. D&D, you always have a chance to achieve success with the item. You don't have to first do this, then do that. It just either happens or it doesn't. (Some exceptions do apply, naturally.)
This sums up pretty well what I don't like in BG3's items.
Too many items are like that.
There's also too many balance issues imo.
In exemple the Club of Hill Giant Strenght that is absolutely weak for a "giant strenght" item... It would be better if this 1D4 weapon was a +1 weapon and if the strenght was set to 20 rather than 15. Weak damages + decent % to hit + strong strenght modifier. Now this weapon just has nothing.
On the other hand you have the Saphirre Spark that makes your Gale absolutely overpowered.
