I also believe that besides some people that want a faithful 5e implementation just for the sake of the game being FR/D&D/BG3, there are (or WILL be) many people like me who realize that after 20+ hours of playing, the combat just really blows and that making it more like 5e and less than DOS might be one feasible way to improve it.
Larian actually built some really slick systems in DOS â€“ all the buffing/debuffing, countering elements etc. Hugely strategic and perfect for a turn-based game. Unfortunately D&D is a lot more convoluted, I can see why it would take them some time to transition across. Heck, D&D Beyond only just added advantage/disadvantage on skills after several years and theyâ€™re only building a character sheet. There are a LOT of systems that need to interplay correctly and many, many exceptions and edge cases. Iâ€™m going to remain optimistic that they just need more time.
I wouldn't bet on it! Swen described their dev process as building general systems for content, then putting them together to see what players can do with them. That sort of approach can lead to many edge and corner cases with a ruleset like DnD which is not designed in the same systematic manner.
Personally I'm OK with the current implementation except for auto-reactions, which needs some thought.
I would also like to see what would happen if the ADV/DISADV system was modified so a single source did not negate ALL opposing sources. I don't mean double or triple advantage that some 5e players apparently use, but it seems that e.g. 4 x ADV against 1 x DISADV should still result in an ADV role.
Might make some of the Larian-added sources of ADV/DISADV less irksome?
Might also get me roasted by super-irate hardcore 5e players