One thing I like about the new rules: they let users create their own unique species/class combinations, without feeling like the game's rules are limiting you.
For example, a Barbarian gnome or Half-orc wizard can be fun choices from a role playing perspective, but suboptimal in combat or gameplay. Removing species-specific ability score increases lets players create non-standard combinations without weakening the party.
Speaking as both a D&D DM and player, the "sub-optimal game play" makes the campaign more fun, more diverse, and offers more thoroughly enjoyable role-playing and problem solving opportunities. It doesn't make it less fun.
Not to mention that D&D rules aren't carved in stone. I've never encountered a DM or D&D group that wouldn't allow players the leeway to create a barbarian gnome or half-orc wizard with their desired stats, if that was important to them.
The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.
An experienced DM can of course let their players create whatever character they want, but a less experienced DM might be concerned about balance/fairness/implications of bending the rules. By creating an alternative, flexible rule for ability scores, a table can feel confident that the characters they build are still balanced.
> The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.
As you said above, the DM and table can agree to whatever constraints they want for the game, including using the old ability scores.
I disagree. Sometimes you might select such combinations because you like suboptimal combinations for a challenge or for other reasons. (The rules should not prohibit from making such selections.) However, there might sometimes be advantages as well as disadvantages to your selections.
However, I don't like class-based systems so much, and I prefer skill-based systems. Instead of selecting a character class, you can select which skills you want (including narrower skills; I think the skills in GURPS are not narrow enough) and how much of each one.
You can make sub-optimal combinations, but D&D is a team game. If you build a Barbarian that can't deal damage, or a Wizard who's spells never land, you're letting the rest of your team down.
> The rules should not prohibit from making such selections.
The new rules give you _more_ freedom to choose a suboptimal build. You can even play a Gnome with low intelligence under the new rules, something that was impossible before.
> If you build a Barbarian that can't deal damage, or a Wizard who's spells never land, you're letting the rest of your team down.
Such things seems excessive; a suboptimal choice probably would not mean that you cannot cast spells at all if your character is a spell caster, but you shouldn't need to be a spell caster if you do not want to.
There is the things you can do regardless of race/species/class/etc, anyways. In my experience, many of these things are significant to the story (I had done such things more often than class powers, actually).
> Removing species-specific ability score increases lets players create non-standard combinations without weakening the party.
Illogical. Without racial differences there's not such thing as a non-standard combination anymore. The entire flavour of a wizard gnome was that it was not an expected combination because it was suboptimal.
For example, a Barbarian gnome or Half-orc wizard can be fun choices from a role playing perspective, but suboptimal in combat or gameplay. Removing species-specific ability score increases lets players create non-standard combinations without weakening the party.