Could feats provide breadth but not depth by, for example, bringing new dimensions of the game into play? KM's post #20 is one way of thinking about this. A feat that let's you eg spend a HS, or an AP, or whatever, to jump a chasm without having to make a d20 roll is another.
Yes. But that is not what I took Mearls to say here. Those are big things. It sounded to me like he was talking about feats that give you +1 to Athletic checks to jump--i.e. not worth fooling with.
In fact, it sounded to me like doing the same things with feats and skills that were done with magic items. Since one of the things I'd want to change in a new edition is putting magic items back into a more salient spot, I hardly want to move the opposite direction on feats and skills. Now, if the only way to include feats is to make them that small, then that says something too. It says to me simply get rid of them altogether.
Part of the complexity in a game is reasonable. Not infrequently, part of it is not so reasonable. (People of good will can draw the lines in different places, of course.) But as a general rule of thumb, I think in a game that is trying to cover a lot of mechanical and conceptual ground, like D&D,
if you want to cut down on complexity you don't include
lots of little fiddly bits. You have
some medium to bigger parts, and a
few key little fiddly bits where they really make sense and don't cost much complexity (e.g. weapon lists). Then if you want to be modular, you have a bunch of optional medium to bigger fiddly parts, with again a few key little fiddly ones.
If you don't mind complexity, you can include as many little fiddly bits as you want. If you want complexity and simulation, you probably will. If the editor doesn't restrain you, you'll end up with Phoenix Command.
