===== Heritage ===== I think that Ancestry is nicely done. Each Ancestry gets two features - this is simple and easy to manage.

Similarly, each Community having one feature is a good idea.

===== Experiences ===== I really like this in concept. I am worried that in play with inexperienced players it will be ignored, misunderstood, or simply abused. I also saw in one review that players might dismiss it as not giving enough of a bonus, especially since using it requires spending a Hope resource.

===== Domains ===== At least in concept this seems like a very good idea. In fact, this could have replaced Classes entirely - just have the players choose two domains to create their desired archetype. It would even allow for easy multiclassing by letting the players add new domains at each level-up.

===== Duality Dice ===== The Hope and Fear mechanic seems like a really cool idea, although it does put additional creativity work onto the GM. The holistic approach where this integrates into so much of the game-play is well thought out.

As far as how it affects player turns, eliminating initiative and a forced order, this is both good and bad. It allows for better storytelling but inexperienced and/or shy players might find it more challenging. Outgoing players also might end up taking too much of the spotlight.

===== Classes ===== First, the simple existence of classes causes the problems I have previously talked about, where it just isn't possible to pre-define all the archetypes people want to play.

Secondly, some of the class names are not as immediately recognizable as they should be. Sure, a player familiar with D&D would know what a Rogue implies, but what is a Seraph? Trying to name every archetype that someone might want to play is an impossible task.

===== Heritage ===== One downside of Ancestries is that the default list includes species that are a bit too fantastical. They could have fixed this by simply setting up a system for creating your own Ancestries, making a list of features from which the GM could create pairs. Having a default set of such pairs would then make sense.

I do think that adding a Background with a feature and maybe other things is something I would add back in.

===== Traits ===== Renaming Wisdom to Instinct, Charisma to Presence, and Intelligence to Knowledge seems like a fool's errand to me. Also, splitting Dexterity into Finesse and Agility while shoving Constitution into Strength also seems to be a bad decision. In particular, trying to determine whether something is Finesse or Agility is going to prove a challenge.

I think they would have done better to just keep the D&D attributes. Maybe moving to just modifiers is OK.

As far as Skills go, removing them might be OK, but that mostly just moves the decision as to what a character can do into a discussion between the DM and the player.

===== Domains ===== The naming of the Domains is pretty bad. I understand the desire to make them “kewl” but they are just wrong. Some examples: Sage should just be Nature, Splendor should just be Life or Health, and Valor should just be Protector.

===== Various ===== I don't like features that are “once per rest” that also have resource (i.e. Hope or Stress) costs. They should simply have resource costs.

I also don't like some features that are purely mechanical and hard to describe their use as part of the story action. An example of this is “When you roll your damage dice, you can reroll any 1s or 2s”.

===== Pronouns ===== WTF? There's no excuse for making this part of the rules. If people want to specify pronouns they should be allowed to, and the character name is where that would go. But including it as a rule, with a specific place for it on the character sheet is virtue signalling of the worst kind.