I may intend to save my reaction to shield against that barbarian that is low on initiative order, but if I see the spellcaster casting some huge damage spell instead of the cantrip I expected he would, I might change my mind and try to shield or counterspell the caster instead, and my choice of which to do might depend on whether the spell the caster is casting is save-based or attack-based.
(...)
No matter what, to properly reflect how 5e is played, at some point there has to be room for player choice in the moment, not in advance.
Perhaps, but at least from outside perspective, "betting" on what enemies might do, does sound like an interesting implimentations to try.
Using your example:
Do I assume that the wizard will cast cantrip and just set my reaction to react to the warrior? Or do I take precaution against both? Maybe I can try to disable Wizard or Warrior by some other means with another character before he gets to act?
That might require an adjusted balance, but I find this kind of implimentation potentially appealing, even if not fully faithful to the Table-Top version.
Solasta comes to EA in fall as well. It will be interesting to compare the both.
