The problem with your whole premise there is that you're acting as if there's only one "rollercoaster", and if "Bob" keeps getting his "rollercoaster" you can't get a turn. But the floating ASI rules, and the fixed ASI rules, can and should both exist, so that both of you get what you want. What's the value in not supporting both?
To be honest, it almost sounds like you're suggesting it was wrong that "Bob" ever got things his way, and now it's time for some payback. I really hope you're not seeing things that way...
No, I don't see things that way. And, like I said, hope both sides get supported.
But if both don't? If Bob's coaster is phased out... didn't he have a good run? Am I supposed to feel guilty that the game designers chose to go a different direction? It sure would be nice if the people who liked Vancian Spellcasting got their preferred system, isn't it? Be nice if people who like "Elf is a class" got their preferred system, wouldn't it? But I don't feel bad that the game has decided to move away from those design decisions and into different territory.
And feeling bad, the guilt tripping? That's what it feels like you are trying to do by wondering if I feel it was wrong for Bob to have his preferred system. That I am viewing this as some sort of payback. It isn't malicious at all, it is just that the game used to work one way, it has over a hundred options that still work that way, and it was announced that they were going to try a new way. It isn't about revenge, it is about shifting design. We don't build gothic houses anymore. Or bell bottom jeans. Things change.
So just to be clear, because modrons don't fit your argument about how Wizards wouldn't need to create significantly different character races from this point forward, you're just dismissing them as unlikely to happen? That's rather convenient, don't you think?
No, the problem with Modrons is that unless they are insane the basic unit is built to do a single task infinitely. And endless loop of "stack cans of tomato soup" with no end and no break unless someone tries to stop them from stacking cans. You need to get into Tridrones or Quadrones to have the types of capability to have enough functions to serve as an adventurer.
They are hyper alien minds, in a strict hierarchy that is almost never broken, to the point where they won't even communicate more than a single level up or down in their hierarchy. It makes them incredibly hard to roleplay. They also lose their only unique ability, Axiomatic Mind, when they go Rogue, leaving behind only truesight and flight. And they disintegrate when killed, making them impossible to resurrect.
All of the mechanical and roleplay challenges combined with the fact that they don't fit the lineages in an easy way make me think they are not going to have a playable version. Same with Slaadi, Devas, Balgura and Spiked Devils. They are just a bit too far out of the norm to try in 5e.
As for the rest of your points, you may be of the opinion that Wizards doesn't need to create writeups when they could just create mild variants... but history has shown they will, up through the Wildemount and Theros books last year, and there's also a marketing incentive for them to create actual stats for races like kender and draconians. It seems inevitable that we will see more character races.
That is an interesting one to bring up. Theros had six races, of those six races humans, minotaurs, Centaurs, and Tritons were repeats. They didn't get a new mechanical write-up, they were copy pasted. The Anvilwrought background also gave us a race on constructs as a background option instead of a racial write up.
That leaves Satyrs and Leonin. And satyrs were something that we definitely didn't have before. Leonin...
I could easily see them having been made Tabaxi instead of a separate cat race. There are just enough changes that it would have been just a bit much to make them a variant, but I can see the design that would have made them interchangeable. Flip Feline Agility for Intimidating Roar, offer different skills and that is the majority of the differences other than the ASIs.
And looking at Wildemount we have dwarves, elves, halflings, humans, aarcrockra, aasimar, dragonborn, firbolg, Genasi, Goblinoids, Gnomes, Goliath, Half-Elves, Kenku, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Tabaxi, Tortles, Tieflings, Hollow Ones
With Dwarves, most elves, most halflings, aarcrockra, Aasimar, gnomes, firbolg, Genasi, Goblinoids, Goliaths, Half-Elves, Kenku, Orcs, Half-Orcs Tortles, Tabaxi, Tielfings and humans nothing changes. They are reprints of the old material
Pallid elves are... basically wood elves with a different set of traits. That doesn't even count as designing a new race I think, just adding a subrace.
Same idea with Lotusden Halflings.
Dragonborn are exactly what I've been saying though. A Variant. "A draconblood/Ravenite uses the dragonborn traits in the Player’s Handbook, with the following traits replacing the Ability Score Increase and Damage Resistance traits." That is just a variant of them. Not a new write-up of a new race.
Then Hollow Ones are kind of like the Reborn, they are a "supernatural gift" not an individual race.
So really, if you look at the Ravenites and say "That is a new write up, that proves they should still be able to do write ups", then there is no debate, because I look at that and say "Here is a variant version of the race, presented as a variant option" it isn't a newly designed racial write-up to me, just some variant features that could be given to any dragonborn.
And, they could present such a variant with something like "If you want to play a traditional kender, choose a lightfoot halfling and replace these traits with these other traits." and we are done. You can still include all the lore, but the mechanics are just variant abilities.
dnd.wizards.com
