I don't see anything innately wrong with a human who can breathe fire, or has wings, or a dwarf with four arms, so long as you're willing to RP it. It does seem silly to say that no, it's actually against the rules, your dwarf can't learn magic.
Are they archetypes for builds? Why are they archetypes for builds? Is it problematic if they are archetypes for builds? Are they just flavor for settings and character backgrounds and other storytelling needs? Should they be? Why have "races" at all and not just "backgrounds"?
It's an interesting ongoing debate.
It shouldn't limit you from using magic, and it doesn't, and that is good.
But, sometimes you will want to do things other than just casting spells (especially if you have run out of spells or if there is anti-magic preventing casting spells), so you can decide if you want to be good at one thing, or good at other things too but perhaps not as much.
But it does limit how good you can be at magic since you can't get as high magic stat, hence lesser wizard.
They did some work to balance it, but really species have never been the biggest balance issue, it's always been class stuff, or magical vs. martial issues, or the fact that ranger is thematically cool if you like LOTR, but sucks mechanically compared to other classes.
I agree that you should be able to make suboptimal choices if you wish, but I think that shouldn't be the issue.
Your character will be more than just a dwarf and a wizard (otherwise the game will be too simple), in addition to those things, so if a dwarf will be more likely to have an advantage at something else that is independent of classes, then you can have that, and still be a wizard, even if a "greater wizard" lacks what your character will have.
(There might also be the possibility, that if dwarf wizards are not very common (for whatever reason; there are many possibilities, depending on the story), then someone might not expect you to be a wizard so might be possible for some surprise if you are disguised by mundane means.)
But this is D&D in the end it's all up to the DM.
What they're really saying, as always, is 'why does inclusivity have to be opt-out instead of opt-in?'
Maybe people are angry over all this judgmental crap? Orcs are so dumb that they weren't a PC class before, you just fought them as monsters, its like saying its racism to call bears dumber than humans.
If you judge people like this, expect them to judge you back and call you names as well.
> What they're really saying, as always, is 'why does inclusivity have to be opt-out instead of opt-in?'
The game is still not inclusive, the people who wanna play as a bugbear or a mindflayer still have to do opt-in etc. There will always be monsters that the players cannot play unless you change the entire game to the core.
There is no reason Orcs should be a player race, them doing that is just because they see Orcs as black people, so who is the racist here?
While technically, the player race is "half orcs", in practice I haven't seen virtually anyone differentiate between the two. It's just "the stats for players who want to be orc" and "the stats for orcs as enemies".
It's quite common for people to play as races like bugbears or mindflayers. It's more a limitation of being able to create player stats for every humanoid monster.
I've never seen a critic of how D&D handles race argue that orcs are meant to represent black people. I think you might be reading into things.
Suggesting that grizzy bears as a category are bigger and stronger than humans isn't controversial, Neither is a hulking half orc, until now apparently?
Racial stat bonuses were never a thing anyone cared about. It’s the easiest thing in the world to change if a DM’s setting called for really smart orcs, or strong lumbering elves.
Spending so much time thinking about the political implications of racial bonuses in a game where the DM gets final say anyway is just some sort of advertising.
We’re talking about it on the front page of HN after all.
Previously a Dwarven wizard was just a really bad choice, and you'd be noticeably less powerful than say an Elven wizard so no-one ever played one.
Now an Elven Wizard for instance has a few bits and pieces that might make them a bit better, but still leave a Dwarven Wizard as a viable choice.
This makes the game far more interesting in every way: players have more interesting builds, more character choices, and can play whatever combinations that they want.