I'll take turn-based every time. The reality of the situation is that when playing single player--which is my only interest in BG3--the *player* controls all the characters in the party and turn based gives him the opportunity to control every combat move of every party member. RTwp doesn't do that--the game engine itself takes charge and determines the moves and the outcome and often at least one player in the group, if not several, wind up doing things that the player doesn't like and would not have have so ordered in turn-based. Sometimes party members die when they don't have to, etc. RTwp takes a lot of the fun out of the game for me. It's like a dice roll determines the outcome instead me--or my strategy invoked for each team member. I think Turn-based in Pillars oE 2 is really nice and well done, and I believe that had it been a part of the game when it was first released the game would have done much better than it did--but that's only part of the PoE 2 story. I don't see save scumming as anything bad at all--it can be a godsend in some games and it is far superior to checkpoint saves and so on because it allows the player (me) much more flexibility in trying different strategies and so on until I'm content with the outcome of a particular situation. So I'm a turn-based fan all the way.
However, if an RTwp with an [i]anytime pause mode[/i] is included, that I would rate second-best behind turn-based, because at least I can determine a few actions the party members will take in combat. But overall, turn-based is my favorite combat mode by far for this kind of party-centered game. I like what I'm seeing so far in EA, even though it is so raw/alpha atm it's hard to judge...;)
I know several hundred thousand Starcraft / RTS players that would like to have a very thorough and heated argument with you. Oh wait, you are endorsing save scumming.