The game concepts look very similar. I already bought BG3, and I don't need two of them. People want reactions because they want to be able to manipulate combat situations more versatile-ly. These same people should feel fine with using cheese tactics.
Quite a leap in logic you've made there. Reactions, which are part and parcel of DnD 5E, allow the player to make meaningful tactical decisions, because they always involve a cost to the player for a potential benefit, such that the decision to react or not often involves the weighing of the cost and benefit to taking that reaction. For eg. your wizard's arcana skill discerns that an enemy mage is casting Blindness, a level 2 spell, at the party. You are allowed to react by casting Counterspell, a level 3 spell (not in BG3 yet), to nullify it. You'll have to weigh using a 3rd level spell slot to nullify an enemy's 2nd level spell vs letting it through and hoping that your party member can roll a successful Con saving throw. And you're allowed only one reaction per round. You have to think about the pros and cons of making that reaction.
Cheese tactics are decisions that give you vastly more benefit than it costs you. For eg, barrelmancy. It is easy to do, and does a lot of damage with little cost to the player.
I don't think you quite understand the depth of game play that the player can enjoy with the correct implementation of reactions, if you so blithely equate reactions with cheese tactics.
