In defence of Larian, maybe they're not aiming for internal consistency ?
I mean, some writers made time a big pressure in the story, while some other devs programmed the camp cutscenes so that you need to rest frequently if you want to see them all. Some PR folks made a big thing out of verticality, but the devs still program mostly for a 2D game world. The speed of the enemy AI hasn't dramatically improved, but Patch 4 made the fight against the Druids during the Minthara's Attack involve even more numerous (and tankier) enemies. I can no longer list the Jump/Disengage action that would expose you to Opportunity Attacks, but I could easily go on. Point is, perhaps it's unfair to criticise them for lack of internal consistency if that is not what they're shooting for.
What? I mean, sure maybe Larian isn't aiming for consistency. But that doesn't mean it's unfair to criticize them for that or that lack of consistency is good.
Take the camp frequently vs story time-pressure example. These are completely contradictory gameplay motivations that don't work well together in BG3 the way they're implemented. Especially because there are in-game consequences for not resting, but there are absolutely no consequences (or even comment by a NPC!) on resting frequently.
They could work together though. If there was in-game explanation/motivation for why resting frequently was needed, and/or there were consequences for resting frequently and players had to balance pushing forward and missing X vs resting a lot and incurring Y, that could be interesting. But there isn't such a connection between these two gameplay styles, and so players just have to ignore the less relevant one - time pressure - or they'll strictly lose content. This is bad game design and deserves criticism regardless if it is intended by Larian.
As another analogy, take cantrip surfaces. Larian was specifically "aiming/shooting" for gameplay involving plenty cantrip-created surfaces, similar to DOS. Was is then unfair to criticize Larian for doing so?