Hi Aldu,
As per your preference in our discussion on Discord, I'm posting my feedback here. Note that I'm going to focus only on the gameplay/game design aspect, as that's the area I understand you're looking for the most feedback in.
1. Stance System
I think players would be better served if the tutorial mentioned something about the Stance system, even if it's just a one-liner. With the way the tutorial is setup right now, I felt hand-held towards using Lunge right away after being handed the controls, instead of exploring all the different command options.
2. Battle System
Having read your responses to the other feedback, I can appreciate how you came about designing the battle system, but I think there are a few problems you might've overlooked in its implementation:
A) The 'choices' are an illusion. Even though you have 4 elemental spells and 4 physical types, as well as 2 different power levels (AP vs. Stellar) of each ability, the reality is that there's no actual meaningful choice given to the player throughout all the encounters. I might have missed an enemy encounter or two, but from what I remember fighting, not a single enemy has more than one elemental and one physical type weakness. This means that as soon as the player discovers an enemy's weakness, there is only ONE optimal order of using commands to dispatch them as quickly as possible. Of course, during the process of building up AP/Stellar to unleash the appropriate Ability, there might be a need to heal, but that, again, is not a real 'choice' for the player.
As a thought exercise, what if each enemy had 2 elemental and 2 physical weaknesses, AND each of the elemental/physical abilities have an additional effect that is triggered if it is Stellar against the enemy? For example, on the element side, an enemy could be weak against Fire AND Thunder, and if it's hit with Fire, it's afflicted by a damage-over-time status (like Burn), whereas if it's hit with Thunder, it becomes stunned for one turn (Shock). By doing this, you've now designed a system that allows situations to play out where a player might decide to use one vs. the other depending on whether they want to kill the enemy faster vs. preventing the enemy from attacking them.
B) The weaknesses are not intuitive, and it feels BAD when you guess the wrong. In my playthrough, I think the only enemy I knew what the weakness was before hitting them was the bird. Now, I might just be bad/unlucky at the game (I also didn't know that cats hate water because, well, I don't particularly care for cats), but I also felt misdirected by it. For example, the Slash ability description reads that it's good against small enemies, but visually, none of the enemies in the first few encounters (Slime, Goblin, Cactus) are different in size; as it turns out, I don't think any of them WERE weak to Slash. The problem is that usually, in most games, indie or commercial, there's the expectation that starting monsters ARE small compared to late-game enemies or bosses, and since I haven't seen that many enemies, I would have no way of knowing what you, the designer, means when you say "small", making the weakness system seem like total guess-work.
Compounding this feeling of disappointment is the annoyance of needing to build AP after the first bad (or even good) guess. By having characters' starting AP at 25, ability cost at 20, and AP recovery via normal attack at 15, the player experience gets progressively WORSE for each wrong guess they make:
The first wrong guess will cost the player one turn of normal attack before they can use another ability, and the second wrong guess will cost the player TWO turns of normal attacks to get enough AP again. However, at that point, the player also probably needs to use Healing, which also expends AP, so this delays the third attempt even further. And, speaking from experience, by THAT time, I had frankly forgotten which types of attacks I had tried on both characters.
C) Not having a weakness exploitable by one character, or at all. This is probably the biggest issue I have. In addition to the issues laid out in B), when I run into an enemy (slime, for example) that only has weaknesses that can be exploited by one character, the other character becomes dead weight, and that player experience feels awful. Not to mention, since healing is only available on the female character, the battle drags out unnecessarily long.
In terms of the enemies with NO weakness (the Shield-like enemy), I was lucky in that I correctly surmised you wanted players to use the male character's Counter ability, but I'd have to 100% agree with Drifty here that by not having Provoke last longer than 1 turn, you are now inadvertently using RNG (ie. who the enemy targets) to determine whether a player, who already knows exactly what needs to happen, can progress in a timely manner or not. (And let's not forget both Counter and Provoke uses AP...)
3. The A2Z Mini Game
I personally don't have an issue with solving straight-up math problems as a mini-game/diversion, but I think it overstayed it's welcome given how many times I needed to do them. The main problem is that beyond appreciating the puzzle for what it is when I first encountered it, there's just no FUN to be found in doing these puzzles. There's no connection, system-wise, that the math puzzle has to the rest of the game; if, alternatively, the puzzle was able to tie in hints to the weaknesses of enemies, or if it unlocked power-ups that increased starting AP based on whether you get the answer in one try, or just have SOME sort of tie-in to the rest of the game, I think it would make the player FEEL a lot better and accomplished to clear it.
Concluding Thoughts
Having said all that, the game isn't BAD. In fact, I would argue that based on the aesthetics and customized features alone, this game will probably rank in the Top 10. Honestly, this was the first game I played BECAUSE I wanted my mind blown after seeing the preview snippets you've shared.
Based on reading some of your comments, I wonder if the underlying issue is that perhaps you were too focused on building something uniquely different from the "standard RM fare", that you overlooked the more fundamental question of "is this system FUN?"
I hope you found this useful, and thank you for coming to my TED talk.