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.
It will indeed be an interesting comparison. I suppose we fundamentally disagree about what sounds like good implementations to try because, to me, severely limiting player control in what is most often the main mechanism of survivability for some classes/subclasses mostly just makes me think those classes are going to die way too easily compared to classes which don't rely on reactions for survivability. If they change it so that the baseline survivability of a class increases and those reactions used for survivability are not even present in the game, it's not the end of the world, but it also isn't really in the spirit of 5e. This is why I didn't like Sword Coast Legends. It was supposed to be based on 5e, but all the classes were heavily changed and it didn't even feel like I was playing 5e. Between the changes to reactions, the changes to cantrips, the changes to the action economy across several different actions/bonus actions, the changes to short rests which allow less resource restrictions than tabletop, etc, I'm kind of wondering exactly how much of the feeling of playing a 5e-based video game is going to even be present in combat and its supporting systems.
