The way they are implemented is certainly a bit odd.
It is until you think of the GUI from a coders/presentation perspective.
It is not up to us users to overcome our confusion and think about what was easier and faster from the coders' perspective. It is up to the coders to think about what is better interface and presentation from the users' perspective.
On the topic of presumed difficulty of coding a more sensible interface,
- As I said in my previous post (p2, top), the devs are very capable of using more than just Race and Class to get tags. Notably they can use Deity (currently a parameter of the Cleric Class only).
- As far as Races are concerned, and parameters associated with them, High Elves can choose a starting cantrip and Half-Elves can choose where to put their flexible +2. Obviously Half-High Elves can do both. So I have a hard time imagining that a Drow Elf sub-race of Elves that could choose a Deity/Alignment parameter could possibly be anywhere near a difficult thing.
On the topic of presentation,
- Presenting two mechanically identical sub-races and asking players to understand that, in that very specific case, they not really selecting a sub-race like they would for any other race, they are really selecting a Deity/Alignment, is plainly poor and confusing presentation.
- When choosing the Race of Half-Elf, you have 3 sub-races : Half-High Elf, Half-Wood Elf, and Half-Drow. This Race is for individuals that are part-Humans part-Elves, and the 3 sub-races correspond to the 3 sub-races of Elves ... oh wait ! Why are Drows then not listed as a sub-race of Elves ? Why can I not choose a Half-Lolth-sworn Drow or a Half-Seldarine Drow ?
This seems like a very minor thing. Can you play a drow? Yes. So why is it a big deal that they are listed as their own race?
In a sense, yes, this is not the most important and urgent thing. It is probably less important than things like Group/Ungroup All, hotkeys for Standard Actions, etc. But it doesn't mean it's fine either. And the "can we do the thing ?" test is most of the time not a good indicator of whether something is acceptable or needs to be worked on, in my opinion.
In the UI/presentation/ergonomy category :
- Can I then have Gale memorise/un-memorise spells of level 2 ? Yes. But that's no reason to have the level 2 section of the "spells menu" polluted by the upcast version of the level 1 spells.
- Can I choose Colossus Slayer when choosing a Hunter, and can I choose Riposte when choosing a Battlemaster ? Yes, but it's clearly bad presentation to put these choices above the choice of the subclass.
(In the past I've said this from an intuitive-theoretical point of view. You don't need your own empirical data or a qualification in User Interface Design to think that the order of choices should follow the reading order : top to bottom. Last week I played a bit with a friend, who isn't very familiar with BG3, and who did get confused when reaching Ranger level 3. So now I have a bit of empirical confirmation.) - Can I transfer all my equipment to sell on the inventory of the character with higher Charisma before talking to the trader, just so as to have the best price ? Yes. And it not tedious in the slightest.
- Can I choose Elf Blue 2 and Elf Blue 3 for eye colour ? Yes. Ah ... these ones got moved next to Elf Blue 1, where they belong.
In the controls category :
- Can I put the whole party in Hide mode ? Yes. But that doesn't mean the way to do it is any good.
- Can I have the whole party jump over a broken bridge ? Yes. Ah ... well, this one got improved a bit in Patch 3.
Anyway, I'm not too concerned about whether Larian should solve Problem X or Problem Y first, which one is easier to solve, which one impacts quality of life the most, etc. Some things should be higher on their list of priorities than they currently appear to be. But so long as they solve everything by the time of the full release, it's ok.
