TLDR; Whether they're left in on purpose or not, exploits are still flaws and mistakes, and it's not, in principle, unreasonable to want them gone.
I don't disagree with this take, if some "exploits" impact people's enjoyment of the game, it should be looked at. But it should not come at the costs of other's enjoyment. If it's an exploit that's so obscure and only being used by players that min-max the hell out of their game, then yes it should probably be fixed because they'd feel they HAVE to utilize it to play "optimally". However there are many things some consider "exploits" while for other's it's a fun feature and just a regular part of the game. I'm worried for losing out on things for the sake of players that cannot help themselves making use of 100% optional features(or exploits depending on one's perspective).
It should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
I feel like you have it backward. If an exploit is obscure and only being used by the most extreme min-maxing players, then it's by definition not affecting most players and thus doesn't need to be changed. But if the exploit is tied to a core game mechanic and is very obviously noted by casual players, then that's stronger reasoning for it to be changed if a large number of those casuals dislike it.
I agree it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis; for each mechanic, ask: "would changing this exploit to be less OP increase overall enjoyment and engagement in our game." And for myself and many others, the answer to that question is "yes," which is the reason why we're posting on this forum to say so.
Many of the exploits present in BG3 either cannot be avoided, make the player have to create rules for themselves, which isn't fun, and/or remove a possible playstyle from the player's repertoire of options.
