Hey! Super cool to see a TT game here! Have you considered hosting games yourself online & inviting an open table of people to play? Might be a wicked way to get feedback straight away :D

 I have not played the game. I am a hobbyist game designer not a professional.  I have read the book. It was easy to understand.

 Right off the bat the two D20 system this game uses makes it sound really swingy and hard for the GM to adjust the difficulty of actions. How do I make persuading a vampire to not attack significantly harder than kicking down a door? Don't say roll twice that makes the GM sound like they are cheating.

 I could be missing something, but mechanically Human and Dhampir sound more fun to play than Revenants. From the way they are presented mechanicallyRevenants sound less customizable. Maybe you could give them a list of optional ghost powers and let players pick one. If Revenants could lose one hit box to breath fire they would be distinct from the other classes, mechanically interesting and cool. If you said "do you want to play a game where you are a fire breathing zombie who fights vampires" I would say "Hell yes!".

 One complaint I have, I think you can see this coming, the game is just a bit boring. Everything works exactly as you would expect. You are fighting vampires with guns and swords. As someone who plays Mousritter, I don't find that prospect very exciting. This game feels very general. Like you have not nailed down enough specifics.

 I know crafting systems are hard. (I have made one.) I don't like the crafting system. It stuck out as the least well made thing in the book. It is an old chair you have been meaning to throw out, but if you do you will need to get a new chair, and people barely use it anyway, it is fine. Replacing it is a hassle so you just use the old chair. I completely understand. If crafting is not going to be a BIG part of the game don't mess with the crafting system. It is fine. I am just saying if I did play this game I would not use it to make more than steaks.

 Again I have not played the game. I think action order should be ranged, support, melee. I am sure you have your reasons. Having support last seems like it would always put support on the back foot. I could use a support ability to help you, but it it will happen after your attack and be less useful, so I am just going to attack. I feel supports would be useful the first round or two, but as combat progresses attacking would be a better option, so supports can only be supports half the time. I could be wrong. You didn't give any examples of how supports act in combat. I know this is an alpha so I am trying to not be mean, but this is an alpha I have be mean. I would not play a support in this game. Acting after melee cuts the supports off at the knees.

 I have a bit of advice, it may be bad, but it may be helpful. In my game my players have something called an epic moment token. They can use it to pass (almost) any check without rolling. There is a drawback to using it. This allows my friends to point a a thing and say this is important to me. If they use the epic moment token to help an NPC I know they like that NPC. If they use it to bypass a puzzle they probably were not having fun and now we can move on. If it has a suitable drawback It does live up to its name.

 I like the way skills are advanced. I like how each sense has its own skill. I like how you are trying something new.

 Over all the game sounds fine. It seems to be well thought out and presented well. I think it is missing a bit of kick. The special spice that makes it more than just a good game. I know I have said this more than once. I have not played this game. The reason why is I have no desire to play this game. I am sorry.

 I hope this is helpful. More than anything this game needs more polish. It needs more examples. it needs to number the pages correctly. It will be great one day.