True, but the ranger is almost universally disappointing in 5e. No one was going to complain about that needed change. And their update to the class is excellent. That's the kind of change that come across as "faithful" to 5e.
Many (most?) of the other 5e changes come across as unnecessary. Currently I would not describe this as a "faithful" adaptation, but it's early days.
I think Traycor hit it on the nose.
People aren't asking for a 1 to 1 conversion VTT simulator for BG 3. Many spells and class abilities simply can't be translated directly without a Human DM (Suggestion spell, for example). Additionally, there are very well known weaknesses in 5e where there is room for improvement, as shown by the many iterations of Unearthed Arcana (UA for short) released by WotC over the years to playtest various fixes and balance changes. The Ranger class, specifically the Beast Master, is probably the most well known of these problematic areas. It has received *multiple* UA adjustments to test fixes.
Which is where Larian should feel like they have the most leeway to try out new things. In areas where it is well known and accepted that the current rules of 5e are not well balanced. In fact, if you look through allllll of the posts on this Feedback forum *and* the giant single thread of feedback, do you know what literally no one has complained about?
That the Ranger was changed. People have critiques and suggestions on how Larian might make it even better, but everyone from DoS 3 supporters to the most intense 5e supporters all agree that changes to the Ranger are acceptable.
The problem arises where Larian made changes that no one was asking for or expected. Where Larian has made changes with no eye towards balancing class features and spells, and definitely no thought towards what to do in the later game. They have no faith in the rules of 5e and the years of playtesting and balancing it has undergone. That's why people are complaining, not because Larian made changes to things that *everyone* agreed were necessary.