|
Anyone else really worried that the multiple options for spell casting is going to create a massive rules and complexity headache?
Just played a PFS game recently where I had to basically stop a game to show the GM how "Dispel Magic" works against a targeted spell effect (in this case stinking cloud) and that check is vs. the spell DC, not the caster level.
That the rule is buried somewhere in the fifth paragraph of a spell that's nine paragraphs long was a real pain. I've had similar rules discussions concerning the spell "blink" and it's various effects. It was not my favorite PFS experience and that's not a knock on my GM who is excellent.
Reading all the stuff about how different components create different spell effects and how there's now four tiers of saving throws... Well I'm just nervous that every third spell will going to require a trip to the rulebook to figure up one of the seven different outcomes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dispel magic wording, to use your example, is vastly simplified in PF2. In general, we'd like the spell effects to be simpler overall and still do what we want them to do with interesting and varied save effects.
There are two big things they're trying to get rid of or cut down on in PF2: chains of the same spell (lesser, normal, greater) and cross-references ("works as fireball, but with an extra d6 every 4th level on a Tuesday unless the GM's cat is within 5ft of the table"). An inevitable side effect is that spells will appear to have more complexity, just because it's being concentrated in one place. And that's a good thing.
That said, anything that can streamline some of the more complex things like Dispel magic is a good thing.