One, if it is part of the game intentionally it is not an exploit, and two, who cares how other people play a non competitive game.
Yeah, it's an old trite argument and the answer is always the same: I honestly don't give a shit about how they play their games, I care about how their design suggestions affect MY gameplay experience.
If I'm offered a better option in a game I'll take it, especially when "maximizing your potential" is a big part of your gameplay loop. Which doesn't mean I can't have a poor opinion of how a given choice affects the balance.
If half of the weapons dropped in game would insta-kill anything with a single hit and the other half would turn out to be useless, I'd be justified to think it's shitty design even if "I'm not forced to use any of them".
Solasta is a good example. It allows you to choose the method yourself. I end up rerolling and can no longer use point buy because rolling gives you better stats. But I don't feel good about rolling until I get what I want either because it feels a little cheaty. At the same time I can't go back to point buy because it now feels too restrictive having tasted the freedom of rolling as much as you want.
It's like the DM can't decide how stats are generated in their campaign. And it feels vague and confusing as a player when you have to decide, not knowing how the game has been balanced or what kind of stats NPCs tend to have. So don't leave the rules up to the player. Be the DM and set the rules for your campaign.
In BG1 I don't feel weird about rolling for 20 minutes. It's HARD to roll good stats, and it's the ONLY way. It's not cheating. (And the music is fantastic.)
In NWN the point buy feels right. Not least because of the multiplayer focus which BG3 also has.
In both of these games the DM decides how ability scores are generated, not the player. That's what makes it feel right.
