Quote from arkaz920 >>

“I disagree with which which genetics and which should be your environment. Genetics don't change that much. If your parents were both the best body builders in the world and didn't push you to be as well, so you sat around all day every day, you wouldn't have 18 strength. The genetics would make it so you would be a little stronger than those who did everything else the same. So if you trained your whole life before becoming a limit-breaking adventurer with someone who did not have the genetics, they could have 18 strength (rolled) while you got to 20. Meanwhile if you sat around and played video games with the same person all day every day, not even getting up to get food, they could have 3 (rolled) strength while you have 5. If WotC decided it was the way you described, fine. I disagree with them too.” 

 No, this is very wrong and not the least of which is due to the participants just being humans and not different species. Lets go with a better example. Let's use dogs, because dogs have a lot of physiological diversity despite being very similar genetically to the point they can interbreed. They are also a lot easier to visually and understand. If you had a Great Dane, a strong hunting hound who worked hard often and stayed healthy and it had puppies one of which was a lazy house dog do you think that lazy great dane would still be stronger than duchshund or even just some random other more moderately sized dog that was just as lazy? Do you think a Saint Burnard would outrun Greyhound if they both were both equally active? Would a Pug have a better sense of smell than a Bloodhound?

Quote from Squirrelly_Sama >>

Quote from arkaz920 >>

“I disagree with which which genetics and which should be your environment. Genetics don't change that much. If your parents were both the best body builders in the world and didn't push you to be as well, so you sat around all day every day, you wouldn't have 18 strength. The genetics would make it so you would be a little stronger than those who did everything else the same. So if you trained your whole life before becoming a limit-breaking adventurer with someone who did not have the genetics, they could have 18 strength (rolled) while you got to 20. Meanwhile if you sat around and played video games with the same person all day every day, not even getting up to get food, they could have 3 (rolled) strength while you have 5. If WotC decided it was the way you described, fine. I disagree with them too.” 

 No, this is very wrong and not the least of which is due to the participants just being humans and not different species. Lets go with a better example. Let's use dogs, because dogs have a lot of physiological diversity despite being very similar genetically to the point they can interbreed. They are also a lot easier to visually and understand. If you had a Great Dane, a strong hunting hound who worked hard often and stayed healthy and it had puppies one of which was a lazy house dog do you think that lazy great dane would still be stronger than duchshund or even just some random other more moderately sized dog that was just as lazy? Do you think a Saint Burnard would outrun Greyhound if they both were both equally active? Would a Pug have a better sense of smell than a Bloodhound?

I'm going to praface this with this (I originally had it at the end of the comment): I should point out that the point of my argument is that the racial ASI should still be set except for potentially truly exceptional circumstances. You aren't arguing against me. We agree on the main point.

No, you're strawmanning the argument. I didn't say (the quote was from me) that they would be the same. If they were equally active, the one with the genetic disposition would be better. The greyhound would be faster. But if a Greyhound were to be tied up in a crate all day every day and a St. Bernard were trained for speed, the St. Burnard would probably run circles around the Greyhound.

There are two flaws with the example of dogs. The first is that they have a pretty strong disposition to do what they naturally will do. That is also the case with races, but you this makes it hard to imagine a St. Bernard that wants to be the fasted dog in the world would look or act like. The second is that they were bred specifically to make these traits significantly more pronounced and difficult to overcome.

As for the sense of smell thing, that's more of a feat (keen smell) than an ASI. While perception (smell) checks are typically wisdom based, you can absolutely have an oblivious bloodhound with terrible wisdom.

Quote from LegendOfZub >>

Quote from Squirrelly_Sama >>

Quote from arkaz920 >>

“I disagree with which which genetics and which should be your environment. Genetics don't change that much. If your parents were both the best body builders in the world and didn't push you to be as well, so you sat around all day every day, you wouldn't have 18 strength. The genetics would make it so you would be a little stronger than those who did everything else the same. So if you trained your whole life before becoming a limit-breaking adventurer with someone who did not have the genetics, they could have 18 strength (rolled) while you got to 20. Meanwhile if you sat around and played video games with the same person all day every day, not even getting up to get food, they could have 3 (rolled) strength while you have 5. If WotC decided it was the way you described, fine. I disagree with them too.” 

 No, this is very wrong and not the least of which is due to the participants just being humans and not different species. Lets go with a better example. Let's use dogs, because dogs have a lot of physiological diversity despite being very similar genetically to the point they can interbreed. They are also a lot easier to visually and understand. If you had a Great Dane, a strong hunting hound who worked hard often and stayed healthy and it had puppies one of which was a lazy house dog do you think that lazy great dane would still be stronger than duchshund or even just some random other more moderately sized dog that was just as lazy? Do you think a Saint Burnard would outrun Greyhound if they both were both equally active? Would a Pug have a better sense of smell than a Bloodhound?

I'm going to praface this with this: I should point out that the point of my argument is that the racial ASI should still be set except for potentially truly exceptional circumstances. You aren't arguing against me.

No, you're strawmanning the argument. I didn't say (the quote was from me) that they would be the same. If they were equally active, the one with the genetic disposition would be better. The greyhound would be faster. But if a Greyhound were to be tied up in a crate all day every day and a St. Bernard were trained for speed, the St. Burnard would probably run circles around the Greyhound.

There are two flaws with the example of dogs. The first is that they have a pretty strong disposition to do what they naturally will do. That is also the case with races, but you this makes it hard to imagine a St. Bernard that wants to be the fasted dog in the world would look or act like. The second is that they were bred specifically to make these traits significantly more pronounced and difficult to overcome.

As for the sense of smell thing, that's more of a feat (keen smell) than an ASI. While perception (smell) checks are typically wisdom based, you can absolutely have an oblivious bloodhound with terrible wisdom.

 Using one who was handy capped and putting it against something that didn't have the physical advantage that wasn't handicapped is not an accurate comparison, likewise it's no different than rolling different with ASIs. The point is to show that all other things being as equal as can be, the physiological differences will show taht there is a higher level of one ability or another. Using examples like you did you could argue that training to draw doesn't impact your ability because someone with no training could draw better than some with years of training who had their hands broken right before the contest. In mechanical terms this is like having an ASI and rolling low, it doesn't change the impact of the outside factors it just means that some factors involved where enough to compensate for the innate bias. Rolling a ball up a hill doesn't mean that the hill doesn't exists, it means that there was an outside force that was able to overcome that incline.

The dogs being bred to fulfill these roles doesn't matter, the intention behind the outcome doesn't effect the outcome in this case, even then you could still use examples of a wild mutt vs a dire wolf to still show examples of this. And how is it that the dogs are the only ones predisposition towards certain tasks and not the dnd races. Heck even humans show genetic predispositions towards certain behaviors with children of addicts being more likely to become addicts even if raised in different environments from their parents. And in the same way a dog could be trained to act differently than it's nature humans are capable of veering away from their own predispositions through mental discipline and higher reasoning, but it doesnt' mean those inclinations might not be there. A St. Bernard could be raised to love running, it doesn't mean it would beat a Greyhound in similar health.

I don't think I'd like this Making racial bonus so flexible defeats the purpose of them being a racial bonuses the are skills gained through anatomy and cultural differences the sheer accident/coincidence of birth Not through the paths walked in life it also devalues the individuality of these races and deprives characters the opportunities to overcome adversity and bias as a "Monstrous" Race and prove it is an individuals choice that can change the way of there entire culture

Quote from Squirrelly_Sama >>

Quote from LegendOfZub >>

Quote from Squirrelly_Sama >>

Quote from arkaz920 >>

“I disagree with which which genetics and which should be your environment. Genetics don't change that much. If your parents were both the best body builders in the world and didn't push you to be as well, so you sat around all day every day, you wouldn't have 18 strength. The genetics would make it so you would be a little stronger than those who did everything else the same. So if you trained your whole life before becoming a limit-breaking adventurer with someone who did not have the genetics, they could have 18 strength (rolled) while you got to 20. Meanwhile if you sat around and played video games with the same person all day every day, not even getting up to get food, they could have 3 (rolled) strength while you have 5. If WotC decided it was the way you described, fine. I disagree with them too.” 

 No, this is very wrong and not the least of which is due to the participants just being humans and not different species. Lets go with a better example. Let's use dogs, because dogs have a lot of physiological diversity despite being very similar genetically to the point they can interbreed. They are also a lot easier to visually and understand. If you had a Great Dane, a strong hunting hound who worked hard often and stayed healthy and it had puppies one of which was a lazy house dog do you think that lazy great dane would still be stronger than duchshund or even just some random other more moderately sized dog that was just as lazy? Do you think a Saint Burnard would outrun Greyhound if they both were both equally active? Would a Pug have a better sense of smell than a Bloodhound?

I'm going to praface this with this: I should point out that the point of my argument is that the racial ASI should still be set except for potentially truly exceptional circumstances. You aren't arguing against me.

No, you're strawmanning the argument. I didn't say (the quote was from me) that they would be the same. If they were equally active, the one with the genetic disposition would be better. The greyhound would be faster. But if a Greyhound were to be tied up in a crate all day every day and a St. Bernard were trained for speed, the St. Burnard would probably run circles around the Greyhound.

There are two flaws with the example of dogs. The first is that they have a pretty strong disposition to do what they naturally will do. That is also the case with races, but you this makes it hard to imagine a St. Bernard that wants to be the fasted dog in the world would look or act like. The second is that they were bred specifically to make these traits significantly more pronounced and difficult to overcome.

As for the sense of smell thing, that's more of a feat (keen smell) than an ASI. While perception (smell) checks are typically wisdom based, you can absolutely have an oblivious bloodhound with terrible wisdom.

 Using one who was handy capped and putting it against something that didn't have the physical advantage that wasn't handicapped is not an accurate comparison, likewise it's no different than rolling different with ASIs. The point is to show that all other things being as equal as can be, the physiological differences will show taht there is a higher level of one ability or another. Using examples like you did you could argue that training to draw doesn't impact your ability because someone with no training could draw better than some with years of training who had their hands broken right before the contest. In mechanical terms this is like having an ASI and rolling low, it doesn't change the impact of the outside factors it just means that some factors involved where enough to compensate for the innate bias. Rolling a ball up a hill doesn't mean that the hill doesn't exists, it means that there was an outside force that was able to overcome that incline.

The dogs being bred to fulfill these roles doesn't matter, the intention behind the outcome doesn't effect the outcome in this case, even then you could still use examples of a wild mutt vs a dire wolf to still show examples of this. And how is it that the dogs are the only ones predisposition towards certain tasks and not the dnd races. Heck even humans show genetic predispositions towards certain behaviors with children of addicts being more likely to become addicts even if raised in different environments from their parents. And in the same way a dog could be trained to act differently than it's nature humans are capable of veering away from their own predispositions through mental discipline and higher reasoning, but it doesnt' mean those inclinations might not be there. A St. Bernard could be raised to love running, it doesn't mean it would beat a Greyhound in similar health.

Again, you're missing my point and arguing against something that I'm fairly certain you eventually loop back around to agreeing with. The genetic differences DO result in one being better than the other with a similar background. I'm saying that part is defined by the racial ASI.

Removing Sunlight Sensitivity is pretty dumb. What next drow without Sunlight Sensitivity. it really feels like they are taking something that is unique for subterranean races and diluting it.

Sorry, I think that may be correct, my reading comprehension seems to be slipping from staying up too late and getting up too early. cest la vie, I think I'll go take a nap.

Quote from Squirrelly_Sama >>

Sorry, I think that may be correct, my reading comprehension seems to be slipping from staying up too late and getting up too early. cest la vie, I think I'll go take a nap.

No problem. We're all a little frazzled by this as well.

I like the Kobold changes, I do not like the Goblin/Hobgoblin/Bugbear Lore changes. There is so much preexisting Goblinoid lore that could be implemented to diversify the race and make them more nuanced. This BS fey swap is just comes off as lazy to me, there are so many underutilized Fey that would make for amazing player races. This just feels  like a disservice to both Goblinoid and Fey :-/

Quote from c2i3 >>

I have to say it is humorous to me with the "racial" arguments on this.  They are DIFFERENT creatures, not Human. A species all of their own, many that are not even compatible with humans (e.g. there are no Half-Lizardfolk, Half-Gnomes, etc.).

Race is a system of classification of human beings only, whereas species is the most refined division of all life forms. Race has no biological basis whereas organisms that can mate and produce offspring are classified under the same category of species.

Also: Racism = the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another. 

It is really hard to call racism when it is not BELIEF, but a measurable fact.  Elves are defined as lithe, and quick with sharp senses, the same height as humans, but a bit lighter.  Not a belief, a fact.  Elves SHOULD have an average Dexterity that is greater than a humans (10 vs. 12). A lion has greater strength than a house cat, and they are from the same family, feline.

The writers, and developers who entertain this racism crap as a motivational medium are as simple minded as those that proclaim an "Alligator" should have the same stat block as an "Ant". 

Hey, now. Settle down. Let's not get crazy. An alligator's stat block should show it is a medium or large creature and an ant should be tiny or diminutive. The rest is fair game, though. Who are you to say the ant wasn't blessed by a god to be as powerful as an alligator? Only a racist would say that isn't possible, so they should be identical, and up to the DM to decide what stats fit that alligator and ant specifically based on the upbringing and mood at the time for each one.

All that the fixed stat bonuses did was pigeonhole the races into very stereotypical race/class combos. "Oh you're playing a tabaxi rogue? Or a Dragonborn Paladin? How Original...." It actively discourages not playing a class that already suits the race's strengths, which gets pretty generic after playing this kind of game for a while. Sure you *can* play off-type of course there's always that guy who wants to be an Orc wizard, but in effect the player is being actively punished for playing something unorthodox, and that seems kinda weird for a game that is about so much customization and player agency. It also makes races that specialize in 'weak' stats end up being a lot less interesting and versatile. Like using Dragonborn as an example again, Strength is pretty underutilized in 5e, so as a result there's not a lot of interesting playstyles that actually use it and it can often be outclassed that use 

to add to this, I would argue that the stat bonus was always the least noteworthy thing about each race. Like lets be real here, if we were talking about an average commoner half-orc or whatever. That means that they'd only have 12 Strength and 11 Con. The con bonus is so low that it doesn't actually affect anything meaningful, and the strength is barely noticeable. But they also have *other* abilities. Even if we took away the stat bonuses entirely, Half-Orcs can see better in the dark. They are naturally more intimidating to look at, they are able to withstand blows that would kill a normal man, and they can strike harder in melee. And looking at Dragonborn yet again, lets all be honest here: Did anyone actually ever play a Dragonborn because of the +2 to its strength? Or did we all want to play the dragon race because it let us breathe fire? 

Imo, the racial abilities do way more to define a race than a simple +2 to a stat. It's way more identifying than a simple stat boost that can just be equivalent to a guy that works out a lot. No matter how hard a human works out, even if they have more health than an orc, the orc can still tank a hard hit better than him most of the time. . If I was designing 6e, or 5.5e I guess, I honestly would just do away with Racial stat bonuses entirely and make sure that more races and more unique and interesting racial abilities.

Quote from Blazedrag >>

All that the fixed stat bonuses did was pigeonhole the races into very stereotypical race/class combos. "Oh you're playing a tabaxi rogue? Or a Dragonborn Paladin? How Original...." It actively discourages not playing a class that already suits the race's strengths, which gets pretty generic after playing this kind of game for a while. Sure you *can* play off-type of course there's always that guy who wants to be an Orc wizard, but in effect the player is being actively punished for playing something unorthodox, and that seems kinda weird for a game that is about so much customization and player agency. It also makes races that specialize in 'weak' stats end up being a lot less interesting and versatile. Like using Dragonborn as an example again, Strength is pretty underutilized in 5e, so as a result there's not a lot of interesting playstyles that actually use it and it can often be outclassed that use 

to add to this, I would argue that the stat bonus was always the least noteworthy thing about each race. Like lets be real here, if we were talking about an average commoner half-orc or whatever. That means that they'd only have 12 Strength and 11 Con. The con bonus is so low that it doesn't actually affect anything meaningful, and the strength is barely noticeable. But they also have *other* abilities. Even if we took away the stat bonuses entirely, Half-Orcs can see better in the dark. They are naturally more intimidating to look at, they are able to withstand blows that would kill a normal man, and they can strike harder in melee. And looking at Dragonborn yet again, lets all be honest here: Did anyone actually ever play a Dragonborn because of the +2 to its strength? Or did we all want to play the dragon race because it let us breathe fire? 

Imo, the racial abilities do way more to define a race than a simple +2 to a stat. It's way more identifying than a simple stat boost that can just be equivalent to a guy that works out a lot. No matter how hard a human works out, even if they have more health than an orc, the orc can still tank a hard hit better than him most of the time. . If I was designing 6e, or 5.5e I guess, I honestly would just do away with Racial stat bonuses entirely and make sure that more races and more unique and interesting racial abilities.

 

So... To summarize... You think that a bonus that is "so low it doesn't actually affect anything meaningful or is barely noticeable" somehow pigeonholes people into playing certain race/class combinations? No, it doesn't, and you explained why it doesn't yourself. Are the people who want to optimize their build going to play those combinations? Yes. That makes those combinations more common, which is good, because those race/class combinations would be what you would expect to be more common in-game as well. That makes the unique choices more impactful and actually unique. The character overcame challenges. So should you. Like you said, it's not enough to make a really noticeable difference in the grand scheme of things, but it's enough to actually give choices weight. More importantly, ignoring the ASI has been an official optional rule since Tasha's, and it's been an unofficial option since rule 0 was published. The only thing removing the defaults did was make the unique combinations as boring as all of the "generic" or "stereotypical" combinations you were complaining about.

I'm super disappointed that they are changing my favourite race (hobgoblins) from being awesome militant and industrial goblinoids that are an actual threat and comparable power and society to the human/elf/dwarves to being....happy fairies who like helping others? 

Yes Fey Gift will be very strong in combat but "and now the warlord uses their Fey Gift to aid it's fellows in combat!" Has a distinctly different feel and connotation to the hard and militaristic feel hobgoblins had 

By so closely associating then with the Fey they now have a connotation of whimsical  nonsense, which even the unseelie dark Fey have

I'm not seeing anything convincing to the arguments against having more creativity and flexibility when creating player characters. I mean, "this is the way it's always been" is just a terrible argument in any given situation ever, and the other motivations for "oh noes, player races should have fixed stereotypical racial traits" are just kinda gross. The "they're removing individuality" argument makes no sense as well. Removing the ruling that every character of a given race has to be given the same initial bonuses means there's more individuality because not everyone making, say, a goblin has to start with the same bonuses now. And I'm not sure if people are just misreading things or what, but there's definitely not a new rule that says we can't make orcs with +2 STR or goblins with +2 DEX, etc. You can still make a goblin with the stat blocks that match how you've always pictured an average goblin - but the person next to you at the table doesn't have to. They can make a more individualized character.

Floating ASIs is supposed to be an optional rule from Tasha's!

Taking away base ASIs is harmful to the player base.

This is just another reason no self-respecting person will ever buy Monsters of Multiverse!

Quote from ltgrunt >>

I'm not seeing anything convincing to the arguments against having more creativity and flexibility when creating player characters. I mean, "this is the way it's always been" is just a terrible argument in any given situation ever, and the other motivations for "oh noes, player races should have fixed stereotypical racial traits" are just kinda gross. The "they're removing individuality" argument makes no sense as well. Removing the ruling that every character of a given race has to be given the same initial bonuses means there's more individuality because not everyone making, say, a goblin has to start with the same bonuses now. And I'm not sure if people are just misreading things or what, but there's definitely not a new rule that says we can't make orcs with +2 STR or goblins with +2 DEX, etc. You can still make a goblin with the stat blocks that match how you've always pictured an average goblin - but the person next to you at the table doesn't have to. They can make a more individualized character.

Then you aren't reading any of the arguments against turning the published optional rule into the official rule and making it so you can no longer purchase the original rules and you should just homebrew your character as you have always been able to do.

Nobody is saying you can't be more flexible with fewer restrictions. Stop strawmanning. People are saying they like characters that overcome barriers to be who/what they want to be, and such characters are now impossible if "the person next to you" doesn't have those barriers.

If you think that the slight biological differences between the different species/subspecies we call races in D&D that are represented by the set +1/+2 to ability scores (if you were to arm-wrestle a chimp/gorilla that had the same upbringing as you, my money's on the chimp/gorilla) is "gross," then you must be absolutely appalled by the fact that each race gets full-on features that other races don't get, and can't get. You can get to 20 in your main ability without much issue regardless of your race. You'll need magic items to make up for lack of darkvision, lower movement speed, being worse at avoiding the effects of mind-affecting magics, or not having the ability to just reroll 1s on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws.

Quote from ltgrunt >>

I'm not seeing anything convincing to the arguments against having more creativity and flexibility when creating player characters. I mean, "this is the way it's always been" is just a terrible argument in any given situation ever, and the other motivations for "oh noes, player races should have fixed stereotypical racial traits" are just kinda gross. The "they're removing individuality" argument makes no sense as well. Removing the ruling that every character of a given race has to be given the same initial bonuses means there's more individuality because not everyone making, say, a goblin has to start with the same bonuses now. And I'm not sure if people are just misreading things or what, but there's definitely not a new rule that says we can't make orcs with +2 STR or goblins with +2 DEX, etc. You can still make a goblin with the stat blocks that match how you've always pictured an average goblin - but the person next to you at the table doesn't have to. They can make a more individualized character.

 You are pretty much completely ignoring the reason most people are not wanting this.  It's not because we hate there being the option to have a +1 and +2 wherever, it's because there's no longer the option to use the original rules.  They're making all future races with that, and with the removal of Volo's, taking away the option for new players to use those rules.  I detailed my personal reasons for wanting to keep the older stat generation, and I'll put it below this post

Really, I think a lot of DMs are fine with the Tasha's rule, but they want it to be an optional rule, not the only rule.  We know you don't have to use the stat generations from Tasha's, but our options for using the older versions are being taken away now, even online.  What we want is for there to be an optional suggestion list on each race, but have it be not required.  Is that really that bad?

(Just realized I might have sounded argumentative in the first part of my post.  I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to have a nice discussion.  I hope you have a nice day!)

Original Post:

I've been allowing switching ASIs even before Tasha's came out, and I still like the Default ASIs.  Not because it determines what the race should or could do, but because it gives new players a general idea of what the race can do without having to know what all of the other racial features are able to do.  Removing these completely and just giving a +1, +2, it could easily give new players choice paralysis and not have any idea what combinations to do with the race.  I know that "There shouldn't be pigeonholes for races!", but these 'pigeonholes' can be helpful for new players who don't have much of an idea for what kind of character they want.

What I want is not for the Tasha's ASI to be removed, far from it.  What I want is for there to be a list of suggestions for default scores, that parties could use as a baseline to see what skills the race is adept at.

I'm not some old player from 3.5 or 2nd edition whining about them changing things.  I started in 5e, and loved it, and don't want them to remove something that was extremely helpful to me as a new player, especially since I often play with new players.  I realize that I can just not use the content coming out, but they're not selling the old content anymore!  And websites are only allowing you to use the old ASIs if you've bought the books through their services.  And guess what?  This is forcing the new content on DMs who have new players, and DMs who like using old content but aren't able to for online games any more.

Again, let me clarify.  I like the Tasha's ASIs, especially since I've been using a modified version of them for over a year and half at this point.  I just don't want Wizards to make them necessary with no other options.

RIP Fury of the Small

Quote from LegendOfZub >>

Quote from ltgrunt >>

I'm not seeing anything convincing to the arguments against having more creativity and flexibility when creating player characters. I mean, "this is the way it's always been" is just a terrible argument in any given situation ever, and the other motivations for "oh noes, player races should have fixed stereotypical racial traits" are just kinda gross. The "they're removing individuality" argument makes no sense as well. Removing the ruling that every character of a given race has to be given the same initial bonuses means there's more individuality because not everyone making, say, a goblin has to start with the same bonuses now. And I'm not sure if people are just misreading things or what, but there's definitely not a new rule that says we can't make orcs with +2 STR or goblins with +2 DEX, etc. You can still make a goblin with the stat blocks that match how you've always pictured an average goblin - but the person next to you at the table doesn't have to. They can make a more individualized character.

 

Then you aren't reading any of the arguments against turning the published optional rule into the official rule and making it so you can no longer purchase the original rules and you should just homebrew your character as you have always been able to do.

Nobody is saying you can't be more flexible with fewer restrictions. Stop strawmanning. People are saying they like characters that overcome barriers to be who/what they want to be, and such characters are now impossible if "the person next to you" doesn't have those barriers.

If you think that the slight biological differences between the different species/subspecies we call races in D&D that are represented by the set +1/+2 to ability scores (if you were to arm-wrestle a chimp/gorilla that had the same upbringing as you, my money's on the chimp/gorilla) is "gross," then you must be absolutely appalled by the fact that each race gets full-on features that other races don't get, and can't get. You can get to 20 in your main ability without much issue regardless of your race. You'll need magic items to make up for lack of darkvision, lower movement speed, being worse at avoiding the effects of mind-affecting magics, or not having the ability to just reroll 1s on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws.

This comment thread alone is full of people saying being able to choose your initial stat bonuses takes away individuality - meaning takes away flexibility. It's a nonsensical argument that runs counter to reality, and it doesn't do you any good to pretend that's a strawman. As far as the "overcoming barriers" trope goes, this rule update just shifts assumptions so that those barriers can either already have been partially overcome or don't need to have been overcome. Maybe you want to make a character that's founded in tired old hardship tropes, but not everybody wants to or has to do that. Again, this adds individuality and flexibility to player characters. Not everyone wants to play a goblin that has to overcome prejudice to be accepted and yadda yadda yadda. And now they don't have to. They can just play a goblin that is accepted for who they decide they want to be.

I read those arguments you're referencing about not being able to make characters the way they were listed before. It's bunk. If you know about those old default stat bonuses then you know about them and can choose to keep using them when you assign stat bonuses to new characters. If you're a new player coming in fresh with no preconceptions then you get to make your character however you want without being saddled by those preconceptions, and literally no part of that keeps someone from making an orc with +2 STR or a goblin with +2 DEX if that's what they want. Again, nothing in the new rules says they can't, and I don't expect many DMs will homebrew rules saying their players aren't allowed to use the traditional stat bonuses.

You're really just making self-defeating arguments when you talk about maxing out core stats being easy regardless of race. If it's that easy - and I agree it often is - and if the initial +2/+1 (or +1/+1/+1) bonuses are really that insignificant in the long run, then all the pearl clutching about this change is over nothing.