This is not a carefully scripted story in a novel or on the screen where the plucky hero who has a disadvantage can overome that by being clever and creative through their quick wit. It's a game based around rolls of dice. The factor which determines success is not the quick wit of the player, but the number which turns up on the d20. There is no creatively getting around a numerical disadvantage, not in a videogame which has no DM to bargain with.
This is a nonsensical statement. Is poker a game where success is determined by luck only? You still have decisions to make on what actions you perform and you can make informed decisions based on either indirect (PnP) or direct (cRPG) information you have. If you think that the only things that determines the impact of the character on the game is his numerical advantage or lack of it, you are just wrong.
And even if that was the case (which it is not), then is the racial stat disparity the biggest problem?
Consider Halfling Barbarian vs Human Barbarian. Halfling does an obvious 2-handed build, but his racial trait (not stat) forces him to use longsword to handed. Compared to an optimized two-handed human Barbarian at level 4 he would on average deal about 4 damage less per round. That's due to lower weapon die and not being able to use GWM. That's a lot. But what if the human decided to use shield and a longsword? Then it's about equal, despite the +1 stat advantage. And AC difference would exist, but halfing would have better saves thanks to both stats and lucky. Oh, and I didn't use lucky trait in my calculation since I don't have any idea how it behaves with advantage in BG3. But if they both attacked without using Reckless Attack - halfling does 1 more damage.
If your fantasy is being a fighter duelist using weapon in one hand you are at way bigger disadvantage, than someone who wants to specifically use a Tiefling cleric.
Your weapon, class, feat, play-style or spell selection is way more important than 1 stat point. So arguing that you need to be a specific race to be viable is bonkers.
