Generally, I consider any obvious artificial limits in games to be an admission of failure, either for the system being implemented ( D&D 5e in this case ) or for the individual game design. If a game allows latitude in player behaviour through a more open world design, then I feel it is positive to accept the consequences, both for designers and players.
If I decide to hoorah-charge through a game, then I do expect difficult situations, just as if I scavenge every last resource and opportunity, I expect easier passage. Both are valid experiences that I might choose in a game, even if I will usually follow a middle path on first playthrough.
- My opinion assumes that the Larian devs are worth their salt, as I said above. I'm clearly far from being first among the faithfuls here, as I have seen numerous reasons to doubt their skills.
I am 100% certain that the Larian developers are considerably more capable at game development than the players who seem to enjoy criticising their abilities. The intellectually and developmentally complex elements within game programming are generally not the things that players complain about, with the exception of AI, which can actually be hard to do well.
The majority of the criticisms I have seen of BG3 amount to players not liking the choices Larian and WotC make. That is perfectly valid, of course, but has little to do with the devs ability.