I strongly disagree. In my view, races/species weaknesses and strengths are as much part of them as anything else.
If you want an unusual combination... your minmaxing will suffer. So, what? This change feels like a policy to solely please minmaxers. Which, is also why I do not like the ruling
I would disagree about it being for min/maxers only. Like my earlier example what if I want to make a weak orc? One of the dnd characters I have in the pipe for a future campaign is an orc significantly weaker than most of their kin trying to find their place in the world after being rejected for their weakness. Being as strong as other orcs would harm my ability to roleplay that character since I wouldn't have the disadvantage to strength checks that my character should based off their unique background.
Again it comes down to going your path harms my ability to play as I want while going the other doesn't affect your game at all (so long as NPCs use the standard race bonus)
You misunderstand ability modifiers. In my opinion, yes, absolutely, even the weakest, able bodied orc should have that modifier! Stronger orcs of their species will typically end up with more strength than the minimum, so it does check out. Your unusually weak orc will just still be stronger than an average gnome to maintain the rules of the setting.
That being said, I do see sense in including very real disabilities. If you can provide a legitimate reason for your orc's physical state, that should be included. It just doesn't mean you now get 3 free points to spend. That makes absolutely no sense.
