My opinion is that this is not the way to do it.

> “Races” are now “species.”

I think neither word is really "proper", but "race" is shorter. (I am not really either for or against this change, and I don't really mind this, much.)

They mention that Paizo preferred "ancestry", and that does seem better to me than iehter "race" or "species". (However, I think it is not really that much of a significant issue, anyways.)

> Some character traits have been divorced from biological identity; a mountain dwarf is no longer inherently brawny and durable, a high elf no longer intelligent and dexterous by definition

I think that is not quite right. On average, a mountain dwarf might be brawny and durable, but individual characters should be allowed to be difference from averages in many ways; it should not require you to be average or above average according to your character's race/species/gender/etc, because you can have more diversity. But, "diversity" should not mean that such biological traits do not apply at all; that is the wrong way to do it.

Also, such things as "intelligence" is not so simply explained by a single number anyways; it is more complicated than that. Strength is less so, but still can be not so simple, too.

(An example which is separate from the ones mentioned above: If your character has hands like scorpion, then there are bonuses to some things and penalties to other things, and you might be able to grapple by hand as though it is bite, and some tasks that would normally only need one hand will now require two hands, etc. So, many traits will have advantages and disadvantages. And, if you have wings to fly then you can fly; if your character is small then can fit into smaller spaces but cannot easily reach the stuff in the high shelf (nor attack a taller character's head as easily); etc.)

> Robert J. Kuntz, an award-winning game designer who frequently collaborated with Gary Gygax, a co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, said he disliked Wizards of the Coast’s efforts to legislate from above rather than provide room for dungeon masters — the game’s ringleaders and referees — to tailor their individual campaigns.

I think they are right; the game should be individual. You can decide if you want to use any rule variants, etc; such a thing is common enough anyways. WotC cannot (and should not attempt to) control everything.

> In addition to its species, each character in Dungeons & Dragons is assigned a class such as bard, druid, rogue or wizard.

I would prefer a skill-based system, although D&D is a class-based system. (This is not a complaint; people who do like a class-based system might prefer D&D.)

> “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice,” Crawford said, adding, “They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”

Even if it is not the best combination, it should still be a playable character. Sometimes you might want a suboptimal choice, but it is not only that. There should be other things that can be defined as well, such as skills, etc. You can have the advantages and disadvantages of each, in order to make up the character like you like to do it.

(Another example would be: A wizard that likes to carry a lot of spell books should have enough strength to carry them. Having good strength is also helpful in case you run out of spells and want to fight by hand, but then you should also need a skill in fighting by hand; this is why I like skill-based systems.)

> There was also a tabaxi, a creature with the feline appearance and night vision that one would expect of a species created by the Cat Lord. “He’s a tabaxi adopted into an elven family,” said Kyle Smith, who created the character, Uldreyin Alma Salamar Daelamin the Fifth, for this campaign. “He’s also a sorcerer — the magic is innate to that. He’s deciding between who he is and what he was raised in.”

This is something that you should be allowed to have. In this way, you will be tabaxi (and therefore, have night vision), but you had learned elven things (e.g. perhaps elven languages). And, is also a sorcerer (so you can cast spells). So, that is good that your character is not only one thing. However, you should not have to decide between them; you are all of them, isn't it?

> Smith added, “If being a tabaxi didn’t matter, then who cares?” “He’d just be a fuzzy elf,” Cutler chimed in.

It would seem that the rule changes would make that problem. I agree it is no good and I explained above.