In the many threads like this, it's personal taste all over, and by and large rather meaningless. You can analyse what is different between the DnD rules and BG3. Then you can say you don't like it, worded usually as "It's objectively a fault to do x instead of y". But the latter is just not objective, it's an opinion. Larian has a different opinion.

For me it was very clear (before I bought the game) that they would take the DnD rules and change some stuff to their liking, based on what they see as fun in a video game. Every player will judge the game by the fun and good time they'll have. I don't care wether something is in the DnD rulebook or not, as long as it is an interesting result in the game. There is something (or: a lot) to do to make the game better, and based on the changes already done in EA I have a certain but not full faith in Larian, but some wishes of DnD purists I read about should not enter BG3 in my opinion. Which is an opinion.

It's ok/necessary to criticize the game and propose changes. But some of the criticism is so fundamental that I would say, sorry, not your game, move along. Play Solasta, for example. I'm not interested in Solasta because of some of the game design, but that's ok, I just don't play it and would not try to change fundamental design choices.

Last edited by geala; 12/04/22 12:33 PM.