In response...

First to this post:

Keith takes the time to discuss the Threshold treatment of Resources, Races, and Allegiances.

Resources:

Yes, Threshold uses an abstract wealth/resources system taken from/inspired by d20 Modern and the game system E20 being developed by Gary Sarli, one of the original creators of Star Wars Saga Edition.

Personally I'm not a massive fan of the abstract concept when it comes to wealth and goods but I don't really see a better way have having one system that can apply equally well to any setting or time frame. Abstracting it allows for this. I'm still not 100% sold on the implementation but its a start.

Races/Templates:

One thing you may have noticed is that my development style is somewhat scattered.  I work on one area until I get bored with it then I switch to some other part of the system needing attention. Sometimes the changes I make to one area require swinging back around and updating parts I had worked on previously. The races/templates section has seen little attention for some time since I had been focusing a lot of time on the combat and talents area. This part of the rules is half one way and half another way lol

Allegiance:

Yes, another grab from d20 Modern (and other systems.) I've never been a fan of Alignments and the Allegiances system is much more appealing.

Next Keith looks over Archetypes in a bit more detail here:

First Keith is a bit concerned about possible harshness of his review. I want to make clear that I don't have a problem with negative feedback. In fact, I get more out of negative feedback than I do good. The only time I would have an issue is if the feedback was presented rudely or in a not-helpful manner, which Keith certainly doesn't have a problem with.

The point evaluations listed on that page are not "here is what we think things are worth" but is instead "hmm how much would it cost to create Class X using this new system?" and then I look it over after the fact and say "hmm ok, this one is whack" or "ok I like this one" and then when all is said and done I take that info and then reconsider the cost of the various talents and former class features. Again though, this is a section of the rules I haven't given much attention to in some time.

One of the concerns Keith mentions regarding the Talents though is the potential to buy up one part of a character while neglecting others, such that a character can become either too powerful, or too weak, either intentionally or accidentally. This is true that it is a risk of a more granular system certainly. However, the main method of attempting to limit this is the idea of separating Talents into separate levels and then limiting the number of each a character can have. For instance (making this up at the moment) if a PC gets (3) minor and (1) standard talents at every even level, and then the same plus (1) major talent at every odd level, then the player is limited in the ways he can go wrong. On a separate note, my system right now is "additive" in that at each level the character gets "more" but I want to pull back from that somewhat/somehow. While I want PC's to get more things they can do over time, I don't want it to grow to the extent that PC's in D&D/PF do. I'm thinking now it might be additive plus an incremental "rebuild" meaning, at every 5th (or 4th or whatever) level, a player may trade X number of Minor Talents for X (- some number) of the next step up, as long as the newly gained Talents are associated in some way. The requirement of association is an idea to maintain verisimilitude.. in that the PC isn't suddenly forgetting things he has used many times in exchange for all new things not remotely related to the PC previously.

Separate note: The comment Keith made on BAB automatically increasing but not being a Standard Talent is a very good catch. I'm examining how I want to address this.

Ok, that's all I have time for now. Thanks Keith for the detailed look at where I'm at and where I need to spend some time cleaning up!