The rule exists page 252 black on white in print. You can't blame them for making use of it and limiting it a tad.
As for second point - citation needed. "Invalidating" is a BIG word there, I'd imagine the actual truth is somewhat not there. Overall the point is that there will be plenty of changes and in my opinion many of these are deliberate changes to make the game less frustrating for people who do not necessarily get off having RNG miss streaks. I'm down with them tampering with AC values and adding a few extra sources of Advantage for that, it won't detract from my enjoyment of BG3 and likely will only increase it by reducing wasted actions.
If there will be spells that will be legitimately useless given these changes, then they either will be just that or will be amended (like Sleep, for example, btw). It's not unlike BG/BG2 - you also had a ton of useless spells there and these games were far from faithful 2e recreation - somehow the world did not end there and everyone and their mothers put these games on a pedestal as a model D&D videogame.
Yes, I can. And you are dodging the point I made, which is that YOUR statement (Facing rules require a Light weapon) was factually wrong. Because it was and still is. Ignoring 90% of the Facing rule is not 'limiting it a tad' so you are also factually wrong on that point as well. Do you want to be accurate?
Did...did you actually read the original post in this thread? I am being serious, did you? Because you're asking for a citation to something that exists in the very first post. I know that because I wrote it. Please, feel free to do your own thorough review and dispute any of the 56 class abilities and spells I listed. While you do that work to have the supportive evidence, that list *only* covers levels 1-4. The amount of class abilities and spells geared towards providing/imposing Advantage and Disadvantage grows massively once you get into level 5+.
So as I have continually showed you to be wrong, here is a simple question you can answer. Which is the easier task:
- to rebalance 56+ class abilities and spells; or - to remove Adv/Dis from height and position as currently implemented?
Next, and this is simply because I love it when the conversion of 2e to BG 1/2 is trotted out as an example, please provide a list like I have of the differences between the 2e ruleset and the implementation by BG 1/2. Heck, you can even just limit it to spells if you want. Because here's the thing, you are making a statement of fact (BG 1/2 were not faithful to the ruleset) without supporting evidence. That's ignoring the fact that 2e was atrociously designed from a digital programing perspective and 3.0 was already in development at the time. While you are compiling this evidence (or if you choose not to, invalidating this as a point you can make), perhaps you'll understand why the changes made from 2e to accommodate the digital environment receive such dramatically different treatment by the player base than the changes Larian are trying to implement..