Some good criticism of Chronicles. I think some of the “show, don’t tell” failures in Chronicles are improved in Legends, even though I don’t particularly care for anything outside of Chronicles except for this newest trilogy.
I also agree that almost all of the Heroes of the Lance have likability issues. I think some of that is due to how little the first three books focus on anyone who isn’t Tanis, Laurana, Tasslehoff, or the twins. For example, my favorite character, Riverwind, does not have a single PoV segment in the books. Sturm is also, despite being vital, given short-shrift on motivations and perspectives, though he does show more than tell more than any other character in the HotL IMO, and also goes through arguably more growth than anyone but Laurana. Yet, the trilogy uses Tanis “He’s Captain Kirk” Half-Elven as the focal point, and, I’m sorry, but he’s super immature and not a man of action like James T. Kirk despite what Tracy Hickman allegedly told Margaret Weis when she was having difficulty writing him. Had Tanis been really tempted to join the dragon armies for more than just Kit, he’d have had more depth than a puddle, but they wrote him as someone too good whose only real fault was loving bad people, and yet was able to keep from joining the bad people in doing bad things. Sad thing is that there is an interesting character there, he’s just never really given the chance in the first three books to develop (though he is better in later books).