I assume that most of it are complaints because thats the nature that I have seen them be referenced in. If you mention a 4 man party 99 out of 100 times thats in reference that bg1 and 2 had 6 man parties and people want to complain about it. So yes, if I see that in a topic about why it feels to much like DOS compared to BG I will assume that its a complaint.
The same applied to most of the things where I assumed that it was a complaint. If it wasent one it wasent very clear because a more in depth description was missing.
Re your point about 29: I also offered that that it might be a balance issue. Infact I started with that point... I think its either a leftover code from DOS or done for balance. In 3.5 dnd pet classes were also considered to be OP so maybe the devs were aware of that and were trying to avoid it beeing an issue again?
Re 35. I disagree. Dont find it an issue at all.
Re46: when something is balanced for 3 to 5 players, the avarage of that is 4. So in that sense, yes. Dnd IS based around 4 players. Its simular in the sense that both bg3 and DOS have 4 man parties. Sure. But I find the vein popping rage induced rants that this game isent bg because it doesent have 6 man parties to be very facinating. Facinating and probably unhealthy if people are so invested in that party size....
Re58: people at the table generally catch on quikly what the AC needed to hit is. If a 13 misses but a 14 hits it doesent take a scientist to figure out what the AC is. Some DM's just tell the players what the AC is to improve the pace of combat. Point is 'the players wouldnt know either' can only go so far as an argument. As is it shows the player much needed information that they need to make informed decisions. At the table the dm might say 'you see a warrior brandished in shining plate armor accompanied by a tall grey haired wizard in robes. Alongside them stands a gnome in stylish studded leather armour' or something simular. It conveyes information that the players can take in to determine potential AC's (armour descriptions) where in bg3 you dont have that per se. I mean you see it rather then hear it and that doesent necessarily get the same information across. Specially if they have several skins for the same armour. The players needs to have some form of visual que imo to know which target is less armoured. I think Larian went withe just showing us the AC. What would you suggest how they could improve this?
Re 61: if you want I can cite you the rule and page in the rulebook that cites this. But im currently not at home so youd have to wait for that one.
Re:66. what about it is wrong? Also seeing them just before your guys would see them allows you a small window to respond what you just found. But it is 100% reliant on having line of sight to it.
Re 70: saying that the AI doesent focus your squishies in bg is so laughably false now im wondering if you played it... AI does and SHOULD focus your weaker teammates first.
Re 17: if thats your description of normal enemies its still false. Ive seen plenty use just normal attacks even if the number of consumables used in battle is to high.
Re 10: In BG2 you start as a prisoner by Irenicus, who frequently (mentally) tortured you, his stronghold is attacked by shadow thieves allowing you to escape. While his ship doesent sink because he dident hold us captive on one. After we escape our escape is also complicated by our half sister beeing captured alongside our captor by the cowled wizards. So ALOT more points in common then just 2. If he held us captive on a boat the comparison would probably be a 10/10 because all the things not on the list are tied to the location where he held us captive. And another thing... this kind of intro is a story telling trope. Its not a DOS thing per se...
Re53: Seriously whats with the insults? You literally had to go in multiplayer mode and assign all slots to yourself to make a party of 6 members. It was possible but wasent the traditional way to play it. Try launching a single player game and tell me how many characters you get to make.
Re 56: I dont need to click on your link mate. I played the damn games. Most of the things you found were a few paragraphs long, or a single page for notes/messages that you found. There were some longer reads but its not like every book you found was an actual book. Granted they had more text the the books in DOS or bg3, sure. But not by all that much. Nor would I categorize bg3 a DOS game because the lorebooks..... its just kind of a silly argument in my opinion.
#29 - It is neither balance intended nor a limitation of the engine (again, Glut Army). So it is a conscious choice.
#35 - You're doing it again. I did not say whether it was or was not an issue/bad thing, but it is a factor. DoS was well known for having been set in the British Isles and nowhere else. BG series had an abundance of different accents. BG 3 is also set in the British Isle it seems, so on the list it goes. Reusing the exact same voice for Malady (voice, not voice actress. By all means go look at how many Voice Actors the BG series used and who multiple actors provided extremely different voices)
#46 - Except then it would be listed as being balanced for 4 players. It is not. It is 3-5, or 4-5. And again, is DoS well known for having 4 person parties? Yes. Is BG well known for having 4 person parties? No. Is it discussed a lot? Literally one of the longest ongoing discussions, so yes. Ergo, it goes on the list as a DoS factor that contributes its part to the 'feeling' of DoS rather than BG. Stop confusing this thread as the place where people are discussing whether 4 person parties are good or bad, but rather whether that is a factor in why the game feels like BG or DoS.
#58 - Yup, they sure do. They find out that information organically, sometimes even by just looking at the miniature or the DM's description of the target. Which is exactly what happened in the BG series. It is not what happened in the DoS series. This is not the place to discuss improving it or not, but the fact is DoS is well known for the Examine mechanic, BG is not well known for that, and it is something that has been discussed here and on Discord (with growing occurrence). So on the list it goes.
#61 - No need, because I know the rules better than you think you do. PHB pg 191. Relevant text under the heading of "Moving Around Other Creatures" --- "You can move through a nonhostile creature's space.
In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature's space is difficult terrain for you. Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move
in its space."
You could not move through an ally at all in DoS, you could move through an allies space in BG. Ergo, on the list.
#66 You are wrong that you cannot see enemies on the map without Line of Sight. It does work like that occasionally, typically via walls and doors, but absolutely not when on the overworld map. But Fog of War references not being able to see anything, enemies, terrain, and the minimap included, until you have Line of Sight. Solasta is a great example of this, but so is the BG series. You do not get the map revealed until you actually go explore it.
#70 Laughably wrong, again. You didn't play the game, or you played a heavily modified version of the game. BG AI had a host of prioritizations, distance to target being one of them. Some enemies would run past your frontline to get to the squishies, generally only if it was appropriate for that enemy type. Go ahead, go test it out. Load up BG 2 and demonstrate that the AI consistently targets the creature with the lowest (highest) AC value. I know it won't, because I did.
Is DoS known for AI that has perfect knowledge and targets your 'lowest' armor stat character, regardless of distance to target or other factors. BG AI is not known for doing this (feel free to go ask the coders that dived into the AI coding for the EE). Ergo on the list. If you have any sort of proof that this is incorrect in either respect, happy to remove.
#17 - That is my description. I cannot think of a single fight in BG 3 where the enemies did not do at least one of the following: use consumables, use bombs/thrown attacks, magical spells, special abilities (ones not from their 5e states). It is entirely possible that I have missed that particular fight or did not remember one where none of the above happened. Same process for DoS. Is DoS well known for this? Is BG series known for this? On the list.
#10 - I gave this one quite a bit of thought, but ultimately decided to keep it included on the list for the amount of times it has been brought up in discussions. Ignoring the amount of other people that 'feel' the same on this factor cannot be ignored. I also disagree with your broader inclusion of the BG 2 start elements, in addition to the fact that you completely ignored how BG 1 intro had absolutely none of those elements. You did make me think how DoS 1 doesn't necessarily have 10/10 factors, but it still had enough (beach after ship wreck being the most obvious).
#53 - You are again seeing what you want to see (insults) rather than what was actually written. I genuinely did not know if you played the entirety of the BG 1 and BG 2 series, because it *is* well known for being able to form an entire 6 player character party. Is DoS well known for making you take NPCs as companions instead of player created characters? Yes. Is BG well known for that? No. Is it discussed frequently? Yes. On the list.
#56 - You openly admit you didn't review the evidence provided, so your response does not carry much value. I provided empirical evidence of the length of the in-game BG series lore books. I haven't been able to find a list of the BG 3 in-game lore books yet, but more than happy to review one if you can provide. At the moment, there is no question (in my own person opinion) about the difference in descriptive sizes. More than happy to change this one if provided contradictory evidence or sufficient confirmation that others disagree.
Please stop trying to say whether a factor is good or bad, you keep doing that.