Sounds Terrible.
It seems like you want to play classic dnd 5e, even though most people like Tasha's implementation.
The issue isn't the system, but rather racial features that are all over the place. Dragonborns suck, humans are only good for casters due to their armour and shield proficiencies, while gnomes get advantage on mental saves.
I don’t understand why Larian never implemented Variant Human, but their current iteration is meh at best.
Basically I would keep Tasha but rework certain weak racials.
The system in BG 3 isn't even the system found in Tasha's... which, even though I hate the system in Tasha's, would have been far better than what we've got.
We had the normal ASI system in EA for 3 years and it was far superior than the current one. Fortunately there are mods on PC that return the true racial ASI, don't know about the console version though.
You do you, I do me, but we won't do each other, probably.
I prefer Tasha's implementation over this, but to say that previous system was better is a hard disagree from me. With locked stats you were pretty much forced into specific class. Tieflings and drows? Only charisma casters.
Orc? Only martials.
Sure, you could choose non-fitting class, but then you were just gimping yourself. If anything Tasha enhanced RP capabilities.
I think the issue some people have with Tasha's (myself included) is that a lot of racial features really do reflect lore surrounding various races. Elves don't just have +2 Dex for the sake of pushing certain builds, but because they as a literal non-human species have bodies that are more graceful than those of the other races. It also allows more min-maxing, which ends up taking away from some of the enjoyment in the end.
I think the main point here, however, is that some races in BG3 are weaker than others, which doesn't feel good.
EDIT: Also, the racial ASIs never locked you into a class. Sure, it might not feel optimal to start off at a +2 instead of a +3, but it really isn't all that bad.
