Game designers, talk to me, what the hell is going through that thick skull of yours. Either I need the ~~~Item ~~~ to win the fight or I don’t, what’s the fucking deal.

I imagine some people just use items willy-nilly and are happier for it. Since every encounter is designed to be won without using any items, you might as well use them all. But that feels bad, Several kinds of bad. For me, anyway.

A related problem is when you do use the item, and then later it's like "Oh, you used that? Well, now you can't get the ultimate sword you could have traded it for." Also related, "if you open the chest in act 1, you don't get the mega-sword in act 3".

At least actual D&D has a DM that can pace fights&rests so that spell slots are there when needed and empty when not (ideally). But BG3 isn’t clever about rest placements so the only intelligent thing to do is to short rest after every fight, but then what was the point of re-using D&D’s combat system?!

I am strongly in agreement.

I imagine they started out with actual time pressure and limited food supplies, but I imagine then they realized most people hate that. Most people hate timed quests. Imagine being eight hours in, enjoying act 1, and suddenly the game is unwinnable because you ran out of food. There's no human DM to be like "Seriously guys, the necromancer is mere hours away from the macguffin. You can't rest another day", or "You sure? Really? No take backs? Fine. The next morning you are awakened by the sky blackening and blood raining from the heavens. You think maybe the necromancer you were chasing got the macguffin while you were taking a day off."