Uh, if there is one thing I really cant complain in BG3 is that there would be too little complexity.
Sure, BG3 is based on D&D5, and the core rules of D&D5 are quite a bit simpler than D&D3, which was massively simpler than AD&D.
All the endless tables you had to have in AD&D are gone. Some of which havent even been included with BG1 and BG2.
And for example the skills you would work on in D&D3 are gone. Most of the time you just have proficiency or not, and then the bonus from the associated attribute. Only Rogue and Bard can have expertise (double proficiency), and Bard has also half proficiency (the Bard jack of all trades ability). While in D&D3 you had to distribute skillpoints over skills at every levelup, which led to the situation that you needed to know the whole game to know how much points you exactly need in every skill.
AD&D was even much worse in regards to skill. You practically have been forced in AD&D to have a Rogue (called Thief) with you. Even in D&D3 there was a rule that only Rogue can handle traps about DC 20. No matter how high you would push the traps skill on a non-Rogue. AD&D Bards only got pickpocket, AD&D Ranger only got stealth.
Another example is you dont have x% resistance. You just have resistance, which means half damage, or not.
So at the core D&D5 is simple and elegant. But the whole game isnt simple. Tons of classes, subclasses, other specialization options, feats, spells, quite a lot races and subraces, and an enormous number of items and mechanics.
So yes, this type of game is definitely for people who like complexity. And frankly also elegant design.
I havent played any other Larian games so I cant comment on that.
But if complexity turns you off then BG3 may not be for you.
