>is it still DnD
now theres a more usefull post.
Disengage wouldn't be a problem if it was an action rather than a bonus action. As an action it would be a tactical choice or a meaningfull decision.
The only problem is that it's a bonus action. Being engaged in melee doesn't really mean something even for casters and ranged because even if you suffer a "threatened" status"... you just have to disengage as a bonus action to perform your action without any malus. Ennemies won't ever trigger any AOO and being engaged never really matter because you can disengage for free.
Untie disengage and jump would be a good first step but it's really not enough.
Flanking doesn't exist in BG3. I won't argue about moving behind ennemies for free in D&D or the advantage you would have (or not...) but what's call "backstab" is the advantage you have on your attack roll when you're behind an ennemy. It means that your melee characters always have advantage on their attack roll for free and that you'll always use the same tricks again and again.
The flanking optionnal rule would increase the synergy between characters, it would create conditions (2 characters in melee) and it would create consequences (you can be flanked).
It's the same about highground. I'm 100% fine with "bonuses" due to highground - better range, even a small flat bonus to attack roll -...
But now you have an advantage on your attack rolls. Combats are really uninterresting in long term because you can have the best bonus to your %to hit for free. Backstab for melee, highground for ranged/casters.
I'm not really sure I read someone saying "remove backstab and highground as source of bonuses"... But a lot ask Larian to remove them as "source of advantage" (the advantage of D&D).
It's a bit the same about shoving. Shoving someone is really a cool feature but as a bonus action, once again it becomes very powerfull because you can do it at each turn + perform your usual action.
If you struggle in combats, you don't have to think and try to understand how it works, what you could have done better, where to position your characters or something... Just press the shove button and you'll win. Again, the main problem is that it's a bonus action and that you can shove creatures way too far (distance is not related to your strenght) .. not that you have the choice to shove your target.
About surfaces I'm not going to talk about DoS... I don't care but you're wrong according to me because it completely break the concentration mechanic. Your concentration is broken all the time so all those spells are close to useless.
When you dodge the arrow or the potion, the fire surface is still created under your feet so you always take damages. This is a problem for concentration spells but not only...
Except if your cleric concentrated on bless is 200M away from combats, your position DOESN'T matter because ennemies always have arrows or surfaces potions. They can throw them very far/high, hitting you with the fire surface even if the attack fail.
It looks like Larian want to create new/additionnal mechanics and that's very cool to me.
The problem is that those mechanics are too powerfull. They usually say in interviews that D&D is about players agency and choices but in combats their decisions completely lead to the opposite.
There are tons of possibilities and spells and actions and classes features and so on in D&D but in BG3 only Larian's homebrew really matter. If you use them, you'll win. If you don't, you'll die.
And it's not a matter of exploit or OP build (like I heard it was in DoS with necrofire / the armor system or something). These rules completely overshadowed everything else and whatever your class, your skills, your knowledge of the rules... You'll always play the same after a few hours because there's only one good way to deal with BG3's combats.