Indeed, it can add up.
So do you min max, because that 5% is unbearable, or do you RP and pick a race that does not get the exact benefit that is only about 5% better, that better fits what you want?
The beauty of Tasha's rules is that I don't have to make that choice. I can play the character I want to roleplay and still be mechanically viable so that I am not just worse at what I set out to do purely because I had a character concept I really loved.
For the record, look at my avatar. A Githyanki ranger. It is not optimized at all and I still play it. But, with Tasha's rules, I'd be able to move his +1 INT to WIS so I am not wasting an attribute on a dump stat.
Still have the same character I did before. He's just more competent at tracking, perception, and ranger spells. Which fits my character concept more because he's SUPPOSED to be competent. He's a dang Githyanki. Incompetent Githyanki don't survive to adulthood.
Do you want races to be more similar? Or less?
And what happens when some race provides no meaningful benefit to being a fighter, while Half-Orcs are over there with their purely racial benefits? Do we ask that they lose those, or do we turn them into feats so that all races have the same potential?
When does it simply become 'forget about different races'.
This is a Slippery Slope fallacy. Nobody here, nor Tasha's, is calling for the removal of racial abilities. Just racial ability scores. These are different things and people who are against racial ASIs are not automatically opposed to racial abilities in general.
Personally I really don't like the racial ASIs because of how all important they are. Being a +1 behind someone else means you'll be behind that player for the ENTIRE GAME. By level 4 you're getting that +2 into your primary attribute while the other druid just picked up Warcaster and got a massive boost in effectiveness. At level 8 you pick up your Warcaster feat, but they are going up to 18 WIS.
You're always just a little worse than someone else who picked a more optimized race and that feels bad.
The gap in racial abilities isn't that extreme. The half-orc fighter has his awesome crit racial and can resist death which are both fun and flavorful unique benefits half-orcs get over anyone else.
But my halfling fighter, using Tasha's rule to change his ASIs, has Brave, Nimbleness, and Lucky which are all unique and different abilities the half-orc doesn't get.
Which set of racial abilities is strictly better? Depends a lot more on how you engage in combat than a pure, mathematical +1 to all attack and damage rolls would've been. It is also a much more fun and interesting difference that defines the two races far, far more than a simple bonus.
So no. I don't agree that removing ASIs will necessarily mean all racial abilities will be removed in time. If anything the removal of racial ASIs adds more emphasis on the fun, thematic racial abilities that can change your playstyle so that you're not just worse as a halfling barbarian. You're just different.
Basically racial abilities offers more room for races being side grades rather than some being strictly superior to others for different classes. It obviously isn't perfectly balanced but it IS more fun. At least for me.
