Honestly this seems like a very simple and easily resolved situation to me. Traits are not restrictions as written, though they can be if it fits your group and playstyle. Remember that this edition has a very flexible ruleset and one of it's key principles (ToA, pg20) is saying yes to players where so many other games do not (often with a hefty price or penalty imposed by the GM). The idea that this somehow constitutes bad game design seems rather silly and short sighted to me. Personally, I see it as one of the many strengths of this game.

I don't think anyone said it was bad game design. I think the issue is - should traits be restrictions on who can use a card? Some of us feel they should, some do not. As I said in another post - it is the GMs job to decide which will work best for his group.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into some of the posts here (though none of yours). Regardless, I agree with you.

I agree with Jack of Tears. What I am saying is that players *can* take the cards (b/c traits aren't requirements), but the question of *should* is still there. Personally, as a GM I'd discuss with a player who wanted to take one (or more) of some of the more specific action cards. I wouldn't prohibit them from taking it, but would want to know why and how they acquired it, and how they envision it works for their PC. As mentioned, "Clan" for a human could represent family, or organization (like the Ratcatchers Guild, etc), or something similar. This is a RPG, so be flexible within the rules. If two PCs want the same action card, then they should do one of the following things:

a) Get a second toolkit for a second copy of the card (assuming a toolkit action)

b) Discuss between themselves who gets to use the card

c) Share the card

d) Roll off/flip a coin/etc for the card

e) Make a copy of the card

I advocate b, although any of the options I listed will work just fine, depending on whether you want the PCs limited by the cards or not.