New York Times gift articles

On the one hand, I do think this is actually a good thing. Now you can make an orc wizard if you want to without sacrificing casting power. What I think is wrong about it, however, is appropriating "inclusivity" as a buzzword to get brownie points from "the libs". The old racial bonuses aren't entirely based on inherent ability, but also on culture and upbringing. Dwarves don't only have high constitution because they're born sturdy, their culture is based around mining and building. Tieflings aren't just fiendishly charming, they live in a society that discriminates against them and they've adapted by learning to be very likeable. Also, I think there's a useful difference between race and species. Race refers to sentient creatures while species refers to animals. In all, I think this is a useful change for if you want to play a character raised outside of their culture. On the other hand, I think it's wrong they're calling this diversity and inclusivity. They're fantasy creatures. Some of them are literally artificially created within the universe to perform certain tasks (eg war forged, golems). Of course some of them are going to be better than others at certain things