Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
I guess I can understand a desire for simplicity at least as far as it relates to speed of play, reduced bookkeeping, and other desirable attributes. I guess fundamentally I don't understand is how specialities are any less complex than feats. The only possible advantage I can see is if you are doing lots of one offs and starting at high level you don't have to think hard about a build, but its mainly the GM that benefits from that and the GM can just rely on a library of stock characters or 'close enough' skeletal NPCs or generic for the level NPCs.
If you're the kind of player that sits and reads the entire book before ever making a character, then it doesn't make much difference. But many of the people I play with only look at the base concept of a class and say, "I want to play that." They don't want to read the rules. They just want to make a character and play.
Feats require that you read through all your options and what they do before you can choose one. Specialties, like classes, only require that you understand their core concepts. It allows you to read and learn only a subset of of the rules that relate to your character.
In fact, in the whole of D&D, feats are the worst for this. Spells and Equipment, while chosen independently from a list, tend to be rather self descriptive.
But feats have to be learned before they can be chosen. They tend to have vague names and inconsistent mechanics. Knowing what one feat does isn't a reliable way to know what another feat does.
So, sure. If you are willing to put the work in, feats can be a great tool for character customization. I can see why some people like them. But even with years of experience playing third edition, I still dread choosing feats, especially when introducing a new player to the game.