It's ok to not care at all about statistics and monsters being true to the rule, but ultimately my feeling is if that is your take (and it's valid) then using the D&D license doesn't really matter for you. As it stands I think the monsters per rules are more interesting than what Larian is doing and more appropriate to the setting. In a progression RPG I think trying to make the prologue more epic by introducing nerfed version of more impressive monster is a bad idea. With nerfed here I mean: no lore reason for them to be weaker and having the same name as P&P enemies but missing abilities. Crippled, diseased or baby versions of the same monsters would work better.
As for WotR I have written it before and I'll likely do so again - for me it is the best RPG since at least PoE 2: Deadfire and probably longer than that. I don't really see any chance for BG 3 to even come close to it in my esteem at the moment. WotR is a game with serious flaws, and yes, I agree the map random encounters are one of them. But it's a tiny part of a game that reaches heights in other areas that the vast majority of other RPGs don't even approximate. Flawed masterpieces are just preferable to polished standard fare.
For what's it worth I am pretty ambivalent about Kingmaker, so it's not even about RtWP, Pathfinder or being an Owlcat fan for me.
