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.
I guess I'm not understanding alot of the issues people have with this then; I apologize. Reading through this thread and others I sometimes read how people have issues with these types of exploits. So changing this would only benefit players who min-max and nothing would change for more casual players. The one described by OP is not one I would consider casual players come across often and utilize but maybe I'm wrong.
However I also often see people describe game mechanics as exploits because it doesn't 100% follow the D&D ruleset or whatever but I kinda like those mechanics. Either way I don't feel too strongly about these things one way or another, I only replied because of the title of this topic, discussing why the game is so easy to cheese and not so much all the individual mechanics people have an issue with.
