Complex, yes. Depth, not so much. Depth is doing a lot with little. Complex is doing little with a lot.
Why? Having a lot of options to chose from is bad? If instead of choosing between Skull trap or fireball, you had only fireball, it would make BG2 better? How?
Bah, you cought it before I erased that bit.
I mean it's not terribly exciting, is it? I can't tell you what the difference those had. Different type of damage, one scaled up with levels better I think? Overall, there isn't enough differenciation between two to really justify their existance I think. It doesn't help that the difference happens outside gamespace - it will happen in under-the-hood calculation which game does it's best to hide from you - never played table-top, maybe it's more engaging when you calculate stuff yourself.
I don't mind flavours, though I think it would be better or organize them better, then just throw all of them into one bin. One thing I really didn't like though were hard counters - like petrifying look of Basilisk or level draining of Vampires (oh god, or semi permanent damage to attributes in Pathfinder, or mindcontrol in PoE1). That's just annoying - it doesn't have an interesting impact on gameplay, you just need to google what you need out of heap of spells and potions available to you to get rid of it. If there is an ability that is so powerful, that you need another ability to counter it, in which case ability1 becomes irrelevant - you can just cut both of them out. No indepth interaction, just a lot of googling. Ah, pathfinder, spend 2 hours on the game and do nothing interesting, impactful or rewarding.
