I don't think this is even a hot take. I think you're just objectively correct here. They're not even trying to sound like their own thing in any way and are just a naked, uninspired pastiche of Zep.
Get that easy bag I guess, but I just find them to be pretty soulless and uninteresting. Shame, too, because they seem like talented fellas.
I haven't picked up BG3 yet but I plan to when the PS5 version drops. I picked up WotR to mess around with and hold me over until then.
I'm a ways into Act 2 and man, I'm so unbelievably divided on this game. Or, I suppose certain aspects of it. I adore some of the companions and I love PF as a system, but I just feel like I'm doing everything wrong. I've started over like 10 times trying to get a decent build and I read that auto-leveling companions leaves you missing out on some of the best stuff for them. So, I feel stuck because now I feel the need to go back and rework every companion. I'm a lifelong TTRPG player, too, and am very familiar with the system. I'm playing on normal so I'm not even pushing it, really.
Couple that with the crusade management stuff and the game just feels... tedious in certain aspects. I liked the scale and overworld of the first act and expanding it greatly for the rest of the game (except act 4, right?) just makes me worried I'll end up banging my head against a wall before long. Of course, aspects such as pretty efficient inventory management and the fact that skill checks automatically use the party member best suited for it are great and should be standard across these CRPGs. I was surprised to hear the latter didn't make it into BG3.
I suppose the big win here for me, though, is that the games are different enough that I'll probably still come back to WotR. The "crusade" aspect doesn't super work for me as a story hook, but I like the characters enough that I'd want to see some of their stories through. WotR is certainly ambitious, but I think that occasionally gets in the way of my fun.
That all said, great post, and great rec.