| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell descriptions section of the playtest document is, to put it kindly, kind of a mess. There are a lot, a lot, of issues here for which "it's a playtest" is not really an excuse. What I see is a fundamental issue with how spells are being organized and described. Given that we've had over a decade of PF1, even more time with 3.5, and a few months of Starfinder, all with a standard way of formatting and describing spells, this doc is inexcusably sloppy.
It's really the header blocks that are the big problem, since they serve as the summary information for a spell. As-is, these are hard to read, have glaring inconsistencies, and are lacking key information.
- Spell schools and traits are mixed together. You shouldn't mix distinct buckets into one bucket. Spell school has been its own bucket since 1E and it really should stay that way. Every spell has exactly one arcane school associated with it (OK, there was literally one exception in PF1 in thousands of spells, but I consider that a terrible idea and the exception that proved the rule). That's an important enough distinction that it should get its own field, like every other edition of D&D since literally the beginning.
- Bring back the saving throw field. This is a deal-breaker. Quick selection of spells based on whether or not a save is required is a thing during game play. This needs to come back. Yes, it's more complicated now with critical failures and successes, but just showing that the spell offers a saving throw is very useful information.
- Casting field is messy. I get what you're trying to do here, but the current implementation is messy. So far, all spells seem to be: 1) one or more actions, 2) a single free action or reaction, or 3) multiple rounds of V, S, and/or M actions. This field is trying to do two things (time and components), and that's bad. Instead, break it up unto Casting time and Components as before. In Casting time, list one of the 1) action count (e.g. "3 actions" or "1 reaction" or "1 free action"), or 2) the casting time required when it's longer than a round. Then put the Components in the components field. Trust me when I say we are smart enough to figure out that the component actions correspond to the action counts. Part of the issue here, I think, is that the field is trying to accommodate the action/reaction icons. Ugh, those icons.
- Durations use inconsistent language. What is the difference between a duration of "1 round" and "until the start of your next turn"? What is the difference between "concentration" and "concentration or until dismissed"? I suppose the latter implies that you can dismiss a spell as a free action when it's not your turn? If the intent really is to draw distinctions between these things, then it feels like there's a lot of unnecessary hair-splitting going on.
- Areas have some inconsistent language. Look at Dread Aura: it's a "30-foot-radius aura centered on you". That really just sounds like a 30-foot Aura. Compare that to Divine Aura which is a "10-foot aura". Is it necessary to say "centered on you" when there's no Range or Targets for a spell? Probably not, though regardless it should be consistent. Then look at Dragon Breath with the area of "30-foot cone or 60-foot line originating from you". Is "originating from you" necessary for spell with no Range? Probably not, and no other spell uses this added language.
- Mixing Areas and Targets together. See Entangle which has an area of "squares in a 20-foot-radius burst that contain plants". The Area should be 20-foot burst", and there should be a Targets field with "all plants in the affected area".
- Using headers in sentence form. This is harder to explain, but look at the Grease spell. It says "Targets one object of 1 Bulk or less or Area four contiguous 5-foot squares". Notice how the spell headers are used in a sentence? That's bad. Think of this being a database with fields. The field for "Targets" should not end in "or".
- Targets using 1 and one. Sometimes it's "1 creature", sometimes it's "one creature". Pick one form and stick with it.
- Duration using 24 hours and 1 day. Again, pick one. Is it 1 day or 24 hours?
- Duration of "unlimited" and "permanent". Again, pick one. I think "permanent" is the better choice. "Unlimited" should be for range.
- Heightened spells and effects due to saving throws are described inconsistently. Usually, the headers for the spell describe just the baseline result, but sometimes the headers try to account for heightened effects and saving throws, too. And this isn't done consistently. Take, for example, Flesh to Stone. The duration for the spell is "Varies", presumably because...the duration varies based on the saving throw. Now compare that to Slow. Here the Duration is "1 minute". But, if the target succeeds on their saving throw the duration is 1 round. So, the duration varies, too, which means this is inconsistently described in the Duration header. Is the Duration for Slow "varies", or is it the baseline effect of "1 minute"? Back in PF1 and 3.5, the answer would be: duration is 1 minute, and there would be a Saving Throw field for "Fort partial".
What this really comes down to is a lack of standards for how you describe spells. I find this a little surprising given how long the game has been around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One other item that stands out:
On p255 and p267, the sidebar formatting is not well separated from the spell descriptions. Because these blocks use similar style elements, it actually makes things hard to read (the Shield Other spell, in particular, looks like a printing error because of how things flow).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those traits for Unseen Servant are the servant's stats. It's supposed to be a sidebar, but the formatting is too similar to the spell descriptions.
The exception I was referring to is the PF1 spell Lissalan Snake Sigil from Shattered Star. It's actually seven spells, one for each school of magic, but it's listed as a single spell.
There are over 2850 spells in PF1 (not counting 3rd party material), and it's the only one of them that doesn't have just one school of magic associated with it. This is the sort of thing that drives me up a wall. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made my first Wizard last night and had an incredibility hard time with picking spells. Flipping back and forth was tedious. The biggest issue I had is that powers and spells are in the same area. I believe there should be a section for spells and then a section for powers.
When you are looking through the spells and just looking at the traits such as Evocation or Illusion to find your school you tend to stop dead when you get to a trait section that has no school. Then you realize, oh wait, this is a power... It is jarring and makes finding spells rough.
I also know it has never been done in the books but it would be nice if spells were (not in the spell lists but spell section) laid out as such with headers for each level:
Cantrips:
All Cantrips by alpha
1st Level Spells:
All 1st level spells by alpha
2nd Level Spells:
All 2nd level spells by alpha
etc....
Powers:
You could then just do Powers by level & alpha or just alpha.
Just my opinion from someone who doesn't usually play a caster but then when I wanted to had a confusing time finding information, more so than in 1st edition.