It’s a chain of bad decisions in a row for the sake of “ wow, my players do not miss :)”
Not to mention that the argument "missing too much is no fun" (on which, supposedly, all these changes were made) is dubious, in my book. Fun for whom? Is there a wide survey/playtest that confirms this, or is this "just" an opinion of a couple of people at Larian? Not that their opinion doesn't matter, mind you, quite the opposite, but somehow it's not the same if it's just a couple of people, or a wide consensus. Also, if "missing is not fun" - when you drive that argument to it's logical conclusion, then why even have attack rolls in the first place? Surely it would be more fun - by that logic - to have each attack automatically hit, and just roll for 1-x damage? Except that we intuitively know this is wrong, and isn't in spirit of D&D at all. And also, what does "too much" mean and how do you quantify it - what is the limit at which fights are no longer "not fun" because misses do not happen that much? Who decided on this and how?
So it's a bad argument in my opinion, because I don't see the data behind it and the logic doesn't stand, and yet the whole revamping of the rules is based on the premise that it is true.
Yeah, it's a ridiculous argument. And if it's true for some, which I assume it is, it seems like something that can be solved with an easy mode rather than a major revamping of what they claim to be porting as closely as possible.