Phantasmist's page

Gorbacz wrote:

I guess that between the "radically redesign PF1 so it's really more like Path of War + Kirthfinder" people, the "adjust 10 random tiny things that don't really make much difference from PF1" folks and the "keep everything as it is, the game is perfect" tribe with the first two groups splintered further into subgroups of different takes on changes, making a commercially viable update of PF1 wasn't really feasible.

Which, maybe, will help people understand why PF2 is basically a completely different game.

Yeah, that "What would you want in PF1.5" thread was enlightening. While there were some commonalities, everyone had their own pet peeve or area for improvement. No wonder Paizo wanted to wipe the slate clean and not come in with as much baggage.

Funny thing is I see it completely different then that. Pet peeves aside I noticed a very clear trend. Other then the action system nobdy (unless I missed something/a post) wanted about 90% of the changes that came with pathfinder 2e. To me this is important, noby wanted feat catogories, nobody wanted proficency levels, nobody wanted the new skill system, nobody wanted the pathfinder 2e archetype system, nobody wanted the new spell-casting system. There's more, the new critcal hit system, the new dying system, and likely more still.

What people are clearly agreeing upon is the generalties, balance is bad, classes need more skill points (selection), the action system needs some investigation, we should investigate feats (again balance problems).

To me the is a very clear message, I don't want pathfinder 2e, and knowling what people don't want, along with the general commonalities actually is painting a picture to me. I just don't have the time or resources to make it.

Phantasmist wrote:

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.

Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.

Can't see the poll at all. Do I need to log in with either twitter or facebook?

The options were:

Fighters need to form weapons out of their minds (my thought: that would be a perfectly good archetype but should not be a defining feature)
Theme that gives it various class options (i.e. sorcerers bloodlines, wizards schools) (my thought: a nice idea, but would require us to come up with lots of other ideas to fill out the options)
Fighters need something else (answered in the comments below)
Keep it the way it is in the Core Rulebook
Fighters need area effect abilities (my thought: I think that should be an option for martials but it doesn't fix the narrative disparity issue)
Fighters need more to do outside of combat (my thought: yes, but what?)
Add a point system (i.e. monk ki points or magus's pool) (my thought: Fighters should be simple. They're the traditional choice for players who want a character with very few rules.)
Fighters need to be effective no matter what weapon they have (or even no weapon at all) (my thought: A somewhat good idea. Maybe the 'specialist in one weapon group' core fighter should be an archetype.)

Personally, I would like Fighters to have lots of skill points so they can do stuff outside of combat. I'd like there to be less of an incentive to dump Charisma (Charisma saving throws?) so they're not automatically bad at talking. I'd like spells to be less good at making skills obsolete. And I'd like martials in general not to be reliant on 'stand still and full attack'. D&D 5e has 'make your attacks at any point in your movement' and that seems to work fine.

Thanks for the information.

Fighters need to form weapons out of their minds
Sounds a little to supernatural for a fighter, but I could see an improvise weapon ability that would allow a fighter to make a weapon out of say a broken table leg.

Theme that gives it various class options.
The bonus feats and weapon/armor specialization already do this in a way (at least if I'm understanding it correctly). Just making these options better would be a big help.

Fighters need something else.
I would say the ability to toy with their opponent, My earlier comment about the staredown ability would be along these lines. That would be narrative control to a certain degree. Fixing the combat maneuver system would help in this regard too. For some reason I like the idea of the fighter being able to deny you (lock out) a certain action. Like say the hobgoblin wants to make a move towards the parties rogue for an attack, and the fighter says nope, not while I'm targeting you it's not happening. Sorry if I'm not making sense.

Fighters need more to do outside of combat.
A must is increasing skill points, fighter's should be a secondary skill monkey, in line with the ranger. Diplomacy, knowledge (local & world), sense motive, search & spot added to the class skill list are a must in my opinion.

Add a point system.
Not feeling it, sorry, but I just think it doesn't fit the fighter thematically.

Well that's my take if Dale is still reading.

I think a fair number of people are still playing pathfinder 1e. I really do think it's worth a companies time to continue support for the system. It might even be worth it to create a pathfinder 1.5 (I'm not really interested in porphyria, it's too different).

I know this isn't helpful and I'm not trying to insult people's opinion either, but most of the ideas presented (about a theoretical pathfinder 1.5) feel off to me. Like maybe they sound good to the poster, but they lose much of the feel of pathfinder 1e. In my opinion I would want to keep that feel, and one of the most important things to me is to keep the options (bloat if you will). For me no consolidated skill list, no parring down of archetypes, no losing 7-9 level spells, nothing like that. Plus I admit for better or worse I didn't like pathfinder unchained (so nothing from that book).

I would do minor changes to the action system, to incorporate a kind of half move, instead of saying you can move 5' or move 30'. I'd add a third option of moving 15' while still full attacking.

I would increase the number of skill points to 4 minimum per class.

I would keep most feats intact (some would be changed) mostly just lower or eliminate the prerequisites (cutting the feat trees to at most 3 feats).

I would overhaul combat maneuvers to make them more functional.

I'd re-balance the classes, for some reason I want to add the 3.5 samurai ability staredown (the one from complete warrior) to the fighter class. Oh, and mass and improved staredown too.

But my craziest Idea, which I've mentioned before, is eliminating prestige classes and dividing each base class into your choice of two archetypes. Every class would be bare-bones, but they would gain archetype abilities without losing any class features. The archetypes would work on a even/odd level basis (the first archetype would give you a new ability every odd level, the second one every even level.) The class feat system in pathfinder 2e felt to convoluted, this just feels better more inline with 1e rules.

Admittedly, I might not be the best one to create a pathfinder 1.5, but hey it's all of this is just my opinion anyway.

I can definitely say it feels like something has died, which feels a bit of a shame, like there was still potential there. However, I can fully see why paizo's would want to move on after all theses years. It's a clean start for them, and overtime there has been a lot of complaints about those old rules.

I really just didn't like pathfinder 2e. I could go on forever on how I hated the double cost of proficiency and skill feats, and I just hated the new magic system. Further I actually feel that the new action system, isn't all that great.

But what do I know, absolutely nothing that's what. This is what people wanted so paizo's provided it. It makes sense. Hey, if I didn't have a full-time job and other things in my life, I would grab a few like-minded individuals and start a pathfinder 1.5. But, I just can't think of anyway to fit it into my scheduled. Plus, my ideas tend to be a little out there, if anyone read the ideas I posted during last years play-test.

What can I say, I guess all good things must come to an end. And, now I got to head out to work, sigh.

I haven't posted in a long time, and in truth I've only played 2e twice since I'm not into it. But I'm done, this isn't the game I want, and I hate arguing against people, it's just stressful. No more stress, I'll just stick with what I got. Heck, I don't like anything not even the action system so selling me on anything else is a no go. And, Jason's design goal don't really compel or interest me although I'm not opposed to #5. Good luck to all of you, I'm outa here.

I'm not a power gamer and don't care for the new system. But, I've come to accept that people make broad generalizations.

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

Phantasmist wrote:

But, accessibility means that there are only 3 actions and a reaction. This interferes with my house rules that I don't want to give up.

... Sorry, but, can you explain this to me? Because I fail to see how the fact there is 3 actions and a reaction not interferes with you implementing your own house rules.

I'm equally confused are you suggesting that I should just drop the action system and all associated mechanics to implement pathfinder 1e system plus my my own house rule. I could do that, yes, then I guess your right. But, why would I want to, why not just stick to what I have and like? You're right, I'm wrong in that it's possible, but why would I?

I'll admit that pathfinder 1e multi-classing system needed work, but so does this one. Still some like it, so I won't argue to much, but ultimately it's not my cup of tea. Wouldn't mind a complete rewrite.

Graystone, would you prefer they continue supporting Pathfinder 1e, or do you think it's approaching a place where they can comfortably say they've "finished" it in as much as you can "finish" a TTRPG?

I know that Pathfinder 2nd edition is quite different and it may not be your cup of tea, which is perfectly fine (the world would be super boring if everyone was the same yeah?). Would you like to see them continue, maybe in a slower fashion, to print new material dedicated for Pathfinder 1e? I know I'll still be playing it for a good long while even if they don't generate new content.

I can see why you might be disappointed if the playtest truly doesn't interest you and your prefered edition is being phased out of the new content schedule. I respect that the new edition isn't neccessarily what you want. If you prefer Pathfinder 1e, I bet you'll still have decades of fun ahead of you even if you never touch another RPG system again. I think we can all celebrate what Pathfinder is after 10 years, even if some of us are ready to try out the next evolution of the game and if 2e isn't for you, that doesn't mean 3e won't catch your eye one day.

Basically, I'm just trying to say if you don't like the playtest and what comes out of it, I hope you still have lots of fun and enjoy gaming with 1e for a long time to come.

The question is for Graystone but if it's alright I'd like to answer, and the simple answer is yes, you hit it on the head. However, there is a caveat to that. I actually still like to experiment, aka house rule. I just like to do so with the 3.5 shell. For example in my house rules you can move your movement -10' when making taking a full round action. The reason I'm pointing this out is because, I like many people here, like to see more movement in combat. This allows a medium sized creature to move 20' and attack, a small sized one 10'. But, I don't like the new action system, even though it should be right up my alley. The reason I don't like it one word "Accessibility". You see in my house rules I use full round action for a lot of thing, also immediate and swift actions too. I also have a defensive action rule which is very similar to reactions. But, accessibility means that there are only 3 actions and a reaction. This interferes with my house rules that I don't want to give up.

Even though, I'm still open to a new and even very different rule set. But, once again accessibility ruins it for me. For instance I would be interested in a very open skill system, one not based around levels. I've even suggested it before. You simply gain skill ranks as you level up, but you can arrange them as you see fit, no class restriction, no skill feats (get to a rank you can do it), nothing extra to buy (like in the case of skill feats), just go for it, the only cap is a max rank say 20 (completely level independent). But, it will never happen, because it's not accessible, the skill system has to work the same way as attack roll, saving throws and so on. Seems to me that accessibility curbs innovation. I can't say I like that.

So much could be said, but I believe that everyone who doesn't like the new rules set has their own reason. It's less of an emotional reaction as people think. I don't think paiso's really thought threw how this going to affect there current player base. I think their main concern is attracting new players. Hence leaving me a bit stumped "Should I stay or should I go", but ultimately there's nothing here for me, or the people I play with. At least if everything stayed the same I could just continue with what I got, even though new ideas or even a second edition isn't necessary a bad thing. Accessibility keeps it from being really innovated, special. That's why I don't like this game, hope you understand.

I've been programmed to say race, so that isn't going to change for a long time, but I think the discussion is ultimately moot since I don't believe Vic is going to reconsider his position, and there are other things that are more pressing. Like that everything is called a feat now. What the heck is up with that.

Ok, people keep telling me it's better, but I don't like it, case closed. Sorry if this disagrees with your sensibilities, I don't like the new multi-classing system and don't want to forced into using it.

Stop gaining up on me for having a different play style.

I'm letting my post stand, but I'm not saying the whole ton of feats thing isn't viable, I just don't care for it.

I think it's a good thing we all had the courage to step forward and say that the initial reaction is a lacking one, no offense to those who love it. It would have been easier to have said nothing, but this way paizo's sees how everyone stands on the new rules.

I wonder if it is possible to completely gut out this spell system and replace it. It doesn't have to be 1e spell system just something different then this (maybe take a second look at spheres of power). It's seems like a hard sell since the design team seems to be proud of this system, but it's kind of a blah system.

I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.

Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.

I find them lackluster.

To Dire Ursus

No offense but if people are having a hard time getting excited about sometime, that is usually because something is making it not exciting. That's not bias, that's a normal human reaction, saying to them something is wrong. I will admit actually playing the game is better still, but I still trust my instincts, as everyone should.

It's life, no mater how much you love something not every is required to do so. Did you you ever hear the saying "One mans fun is another's He.." (Heck, no profanity but I guess you can get the point.

I'm actually a little upset to here about the positive feedback with the action system, I don't care for it. I also admit that I'm having a hard time reading the rules, the layout is part of the problem, but it's mostly I'm uninspired by them. I'm trying to work through that, I'm playing for four hours tomorrow. Everyone wish me luck, I have so many concerns, and so do the others I play with.

I'm having a hard time keeping my own morale up let alone trying to sell the system to someone else. I've read a good proportion of the rule book, but I'm not looking forward to either making a character or running the game. It may play a lot better then it reads, but the layout and seemly weird rules are putting me off.

Apparently Vic said in another thread that the action system has been overwhelmingly well received at the convention play-tests. Not sure how I feel about that since not a huge fan of it, but at the same time it's not the thing that bugs me the most about the new edition.

I guess I'm in a minority but I would have preferred the reverse of what we got here. Spell-casters can cast a crap ton of spells per day but none are actually majorly powerful. Anyway, I haven't gotten to the spells chapter yet so take my post with a grain of salt.

the majority of ancestry feats should be upfront at level 1 instead of spread out over 20 levels, I like to think we all deep down inside know this, but for some reason the folks making the game had a moment and simply forgot that it would be sensible to do so.

It really doesn't matter to me since I keep catching myself saying race anyway. I've been trained to say the word for so long by the time I start saying ancestry pathfinder 3rd edition will be out, and maybe then they'll decide to change it back.

Still reading, but I've made it through the ancestries chapter. Put me in the disappointed category, I wonder if anyone would seriously object if half-orc and half-elf became separate ancestries. I don't seem the harm to doing so, and in the long run humans can gain other feat choices that make up for the minor loss in diversity.

Anyway, I'm more disappointed that ancestries seem a lacking at first level. Some of the feats are admittedly interesting, but every race seems too bare bones. I wish I had more choices upfront at 1st level.

Dasrak wrote:

Blog wrote:

you're really unlikely to run out of Resonance Points unless you're using an absurd number of items

This is one of the things that has come to bug me most about resonance, because it seems patently untrue at low levels. A 3rd level wizard with 10 charisma has only 3 points of resonance. If you've got one invested item by that point, that leaves you with enough resonance to use two scrolls per day. In my books that would qualify as very light consumable usage for a longer adventuring day, meaning running out of resonance is all but guaranteed at these levels.

On the other hand, that same wizard at 20th has 20 points of resonance. Even if he has 10 points sunk into invested items, that leaves him 10 for consumables. That might hit him if he uses a bunch of utility items over the course of the day (scroll of comprehend languages, etc) but is unlikely to come into play very often.

As a secondary issue, it also creates some weirdness with regards to the value of the charisma attribute. At 1st level, charisma could swing you between 0 to 6 points of resonance, while at 20th it's a swing of 19-30. That's a massive difference at 1st, but at 20th it probably won't matter on most adventuring days.

If we get stuck with Resonance in the final version, it feels like a better target pool might be half Charisma score + half level. That way people can actually drink potions at low levels. :| While the results around level 20 are basically the same as the current version.

I would rather remove charisma from resonance altogether. I know it makes charisma more attractive, but it cause weirdness like the magic item only work if it likes you (I know it can be worded in a different way but). I also don't like that alchemists need a special rule to add his intelligence instead, even though intelligence makes more sense for activating arcane things.

Diego Rossi wrote:

I suspect that I will wait 3 years for PF 2.5 with all the corrections needed to make it a great product.

Just going to point out/remind people that Paizo isn't keen on doing this. They want ten years between editions and, if PF2 is any indication, won't be so much fixing the previous edition as making a new system and dropping the previous one like dead weight.

I hear you, it would nave been better to start of with small changes from Pathfinder 1e and become more aggressive if that wasn't enough. For some reason Paizo's likes to hit you with everything at once, and I'll never understand why.

The action economy would benefit from separating the mechanical from the narrative elements. This is a usability issue. You NEED to know how many actions right up front. What those actions ARE is a contextual narrative thing that often doesn't matter. Right now, the occasionally needed info is mixed into the essential info and it forces us to parse it out. My vote is: don't bury the relevant information in action categories that the 3 action system was designed to remove.

Actions: 2 (Verbal, Somatic)
Actions: 2 (Focus, Activate)
Actions: 1 (Drink)

Have to admit I like this wording better, it would clarify things.

graeme mcdougall wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Paizo Blog wrote:

A potion requires you to spend an Operate Activation action to drink it. A necklace of fireballs requires you to spend 2 Operate Activation actions

Urgh.

It's possible that I'll get used to this sort of phrasing, but right now it just seems... no.

The wording definitely cast Induce Greater Headache on me, yeah. >.>

Seriously, what's wrong with saying "A potion requires 1 action to drink" or "A necklace of fireballs requires a total of 2 actions to use: 1 to pull a bead loose and 1 to throw it."

Do we seriously have to overdefine every single possible action in the game? This isn't a computer program which requires that sort of thing for the machine to understand your intent.

If you really really have to define the actions, say Use Action or Operate Action instead of Operate Activation Action. Say Focus Action instead of Focus Activation Action. Etc

100% agree. It's really destroying the elegance of the 3-action economy. If Resonance requires this over-definition, then it's Resonance that should go.

The wording is completely unrelated to resonance, it's all a question of style and clarity. We originally had it as Operate, Focus, and Command, but Activation was added during editing to make it clearer. If people think it doesn't make it clearer, that's good feedback and it's easy enough to change if that's widespread.

Yes it is unclear, but the reason people are pointing it out is not because it relates to resonance but it makes the whole article less clear, consequently making it harder to understand how all magic items will work, which indeed is part of resonance. At least from my perspective.

I am definitely not a fan of this system. I'm somewhat confused on how this system is easier for new, or old, players to use as compared to the previous system other than you can use multiple rings, necklaces and so forth. We've just added something different to keep track of.

I am also very much not a fan of terms like "Interact Action" which just sounds awkward to my ears.

Again, not a fan and would probably strip this out of any game I ran unless something comes along in the play test to persuade me otherwise.

I agree it's a little hard to get your head around on the first read. Admittedly I found the language a little obtuse, almost unnatural. I keep reading it and the only thing I get from it is now you only have one resource pull to draw from for magic items resonance instead of multiple charges for different items (which I already new). That does streamline things but now the awkward wording and weird activation language (requirements) makes it a little confusing (at least for me). I also wondering if this couldn't have been handled in a much simpler way. I'm thinking about it.

It's pretty much what I was afraid of. Not liking it. I know it's irrelevant, but a couple of years ago I experimented around with the idea that every class was made of two archetypes, with only a couple of class abilities at 1st level (Like rage for barbarians). Every even level you got a new ability in your first archetype and every odd level got ability in your second choice. I like my idea better even though it never reach fruition.

I rarely post because I've been unimpressed so far. I either not liked what I've read, or been very neutral in a ho hum kind of way. I don't want to a downer so I guess I'll just crawl back in my hole, viewing things from the shadows.

Mostly pathfinder 1e with some minor clean ups and re-balancing. Nothing drastic, no changes for change sake. I still want D&D 3.5.

Its funny, pathfinder 2e isn't exactly blowing me away, but it is renewing my interest in old ideas and homebrew rules I had in the past. One of those ideas was a personality trait system, where you got to pick a trait like brave, compassionate and so on. You actually got mechanical benefits for role-playing that trait. Anyway all day today I kept thinking about it, like I want to explore this more, I want to flesh this out.

I think hit points should be devorced from race, just don't like the idea that elves can't be burly. But, I mostly can't complain this is just pathfinder 1e with that silly everything must be a feat thing. There maybe some issue with movement rates but it‘s likely minor. Overall not bad.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Congratulations! We've taken a thread that had the active engagement of four Paizo employees, and turned it into a flame war.

... this is why we can't have nice things ...

It's not so bad. People love Pathfinder. It means a lot to them. Sometimes things get heated. I wish that folks would not treat dissenting opinions as a threat, but unfortunately, that's not how the internet seems to work.

In the end, I'm happy that folks are sharing their opinions. It's what we want, after all.

This may sound weird but Stephen I've posted under a lot of names and I've only occasionally hear your opinion, and sometimes I even don't agree with you. But, you are always a joy, you seem to understand intimately why people get so passionate about the game. Thank you.

I don't like Golarian, but I don't mind a dusting as Eric suggests, but ultimately I don't think I‘ll be playing pathfinder 2e anyway so it‘s kind of moot.

I‘ll also chime in by saying while I am very wary about skill system, the basic idea of forced universal math, the magic system, the resonance sytem, and naming everything a feat. Openning up the classes and action system could work with only minor changes. I'm indifferent on goblins.

I'd like unified progression to go away. I know it‘s a popular idea right now, but it was never an issue for me in the past and feels like an unnecessary feature. Something else I'm going to vote against.

I like bab personally, I think the change is due to the extra math (athough subtract 5 shouldn't be hard) and if ability scores become to unbalanced like strength of a 10 verse 40 then it causes issues (which is more of an issue with ability scores). Anyway I‘d like bab to stay, hopefully there be a vote on it.

This might seem weird, but I would like a brute race (high strength, low intellect). I could care less about goblins one way or another (I'm honestly completely ambivalent), but I would love a race of brutes.

Personally Vic and Owen's respective posts give me hope. As someone who believes from the information given that 2e is going to far, especially in reguards to the skill and magic system, being able to turn it back a notch or two would be great. I know a new edition is going to happen, but I would have preferred more of a revision with minor changes where necessary, then what I'm seeing so far. However, if the majority overrules me, so be it, I don't want another edition war.

I don't like the way this works for skills at all. What if I don't want my level 20 character to have a +20 proficiency modifier in any given skill? Wat id I want him to have a +10 proficiency modifier in one skill, +2 in another skill, and +10 in a third skill?

Also, besides better skill feats, why pick up any skill ranks beyond trained? The difference between a +20 modifier and a +23 modifier isn't much.

The mechanics do imply you could have a much larger difference due to non-proficiency and ability scores, but I agree it removes player agency without guaranteeing everyone a fair chance to succeed due to them needing a feat to do some things like jumping 20 feet straight up. It feels like the worst of both worlds, why not let a 1st level barbarian quote Shakespeare, or a 4th level wizard be super stealthy.

I hate to say it, but this sounds like another thing people are going to say "this is such a great idea" now but two years from now really hate it. Hopefully I'm wrong on that, I'm still trying to be hopeful an not cause any drama (cause everyone including me hates drama). Who knows maybe in the playtest I‘ll warm up to it.

Not a fan, I'd rather completely divorce the skill system from the level system altogether. If we keep skill points and ranks but instead of having the skill cap being your level+3, but made it 25 and non-class skills 20 you could make a level one character a world class blacksmith or diplomat. I know this completely throws DC off balance, and I‘m sure many people would hate this, since you could drop all of your points (stupidly I might ad)d into one skill, but I would love the freedom. This system feels too restrictive.

Years ago I had an idea of replacing the current alignment system with a persona system, one where you picked individual personality traits based on your charisma. The system worked by giving you so many personality traits based on your charisma score, which included concepts like you're honest, or brave, or vengeful, or cowardly. It‘s a little complicated but playing your personality got you a small bonus, everything gave a bonus even the before mentioned cowardly, which gave you a bonus to beg for your life. Anyway its neat but a little involved since it required role-playing and the GM and other players judgement if it worked, by how entertained they were.

I'd also have charisma affect will save and wisdom affect a perception save.

Admittedly, this is better news then what we've been hearing so far. We need this clarification like this, but i still like playing with points better.

Formatted class "feats", skill "feats", and ancestry "feats" received every level in a standardized format for all classes sounds a lot like class powers, racial powers, and skill/utility powers from D&D 4th edition. In addition, the standardized automatic progression system (level + ability)for all training and proficiencies sounds a lot like 4th edition's unified automatic progression system (half level + ability). Further, stat increases in 4e assumed increasing a number of different stats at certain levels. 4th edition also introduced assumed retraining. All this - coupled with a revised action economy, modernized and standardized formatting, and many other small details like hero points (read: action points) and magic item limitations inherent to the character (see: milestone recharging) - lead me to believe that Paizo is not so much as going after 5e players (which I am sure they are), but trying to attract 4e players that wished that 5e had been closer to 4e. This would not be unprecedented, as it mirrors their original successful strategy to attract 3.5 players that did not want to move to 4th.

At least to me it doesn't seem so, while there is common ground enough sounds different and unique. I just wish it had more common ground with pathfinder 1e, nothing so far indicates an easy conversion.

I do like the non modular approach to classes, but everything else so far has been off-putting.

the call it a Do (doesn't mean anything, but is short), every two levels you gain a Class Do. With the space you save in that book, you can include all Dune novels in the appendix

Considering the length of Dune that's impressive.