Potential Format Complaint

[The Orc]

So far I have two issues with the system and its only in the format:

1) I am color-blind, so the current method for denoting rarity is completely lost to me. As the regular DM for my group, this is fairly problematic.

2) Overuse of common words can cause confusion, i.e. Spell, Trait, and Feat.

a) Spell is used for spells, powers, spell points to activate powers.

b) Trait is used for items, powers, and spells. The issue for me is that if it doesn't add extra to the rules, it should be labeled as something else like keywords. examples: Deadly trait for weapons increases the weapons total damage on a critical hit; Orc trait doesn't add rules to the overall weapon thus it could be a keyword; or Heritage trait for ancestry feat says it must be taken at 1st level, but this doesn't change the way the feat functions.

c)Types of feats: Class, Ancestry, Skill, General (non-skill) and then the Archetype/Multiclass feats. All are taking at different levels and this just feels a little clunky and makes the Class tables overpopulated with commonalities.

I think you could honestly get away with one class table (I made a table but it wouldn't show up lol)

[Jason Bulmahn]

I do want to pop in here real quick with a note about color for rarity.

This was an experiment and soon after it went to print we realized the problem with it. None of our rules elements in the final version of the game will be based solely on a color.

[The Orc]

Thank you because I'm having to go through my softcover playtest to write in rarity lol