Magic the Gathering spells in D&D

[Popertop]

I was wondering if anybody had tried their hand at this.

Specifically I had been wondering about Blightning, but after becoming more familiar with the rules and with wizard spells in general, seems like it would just be an Enervate with some energy damage attached to it. But I still think it would be cool to cast a "Blightning" in D&D.

What are some of your favorite MtG spells, and have you converted them to D&D(odds are they already have a D&D counterpart, but I imagine it wouldn't be any less fun casting that spell and calling it your favorite one)?

[zalmatra]

in theory with the proper conversion ratios you could play a caster that uses a "magic deck" this would require alot of conversion tables and alot of work..more then im willing to put in. but alot of the magic the gathering spells do sound fun..\


YAAAY im a halfing in the playground

[drack]

Nice, but keep in mind that d&d manna costs, and spells per day may not line up completely, and since Magic spell casters have so much more power than standard D&D casters, perhaps trying out an idea of mine in which levels are gained at a fraction of the speed normal characters advance (ex: level 1-5 are level 1 and level 6-10 are level 2 ect.) also It would be interesting to see what one can do with a set amount of "lands" in magic. I would assume untap every 24 hours and select "lands" at increases of level, and than you are stuck with them. I would also put some block on manna producing spells, and manna storage.

[zalmatra]

i was thinking you have so many cards you can draw a day paired with the spellpoint system although the spell points would be derived from lands that you have at your level

[Popertop]

I was just talking about what kind of spells would be easily translated to D&D, what they would be, and other things that wouldn't be that much trouble to be translated, but trying a magic d20 system is cool too, I think I saw some guy already writing up a bunch of stuff about that and also trying to figure out how the "Stack" works. LOL

[drack]

I would limit the "lands" and have choices be permenent, but it looks like I need an example for my other point. *shuffles through cards* ok so say you have a syphon soul (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mtgvault.com/images/cards/ONS/Syphon_Soul.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mtgvault.com/DrawSimulator.aspx%3FDeckID%3D9958&usg=__mBB6pfBLFVsob0jlOIahzzE4Htw=&h=445&w=312&sz=72&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=9_8xV2hO0yF8xM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsyphon%2Bsoul%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa %3DX%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D641%26tbs%3Disch:1,isz:m&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=407&vpy=172&dur=0&hovh=268&hovw=188&tx=78&ty=116&ei=-7NgTJKmDcH-8AakmN2KCQ&oei=-7NgTJKmDcH-8AakmN2KCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0) and a morbid hunger (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://online.goodgames.com.au/images/29XXX/29745.jpg&imgrefurl=http://online.goodgames.com.au/index.php%3FcPath%3D47_48_65%26sort%3D3d%26page%3D 4%26osCsid%3De395013738fdf6897e4bfda5de3a50ec&usg=__1lRkj8P-gbuzwfheMOayL7SjsHE=&h=445&w=312&sz=34&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=3kKlhBaJxpyq0M:&tbnh=161&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmorbid%2Bhunger%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26 sa%3DX%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D641%26tbs%3Disch:1,isz :m&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=255&vpy=88&dur=97&hovh=268&hovw=188&tx=112&ty=97&ei=ALRgTOnGCYOB8gahlamLCQ&oei=ALRgTOnGCYOB8gahlamLCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0) so
the first costs 2B to steal 2 life from every creature in the area (other player) and the other costs 4BB to steal 3 life from any one creature or
player in the area. lets say ranged touch for morbid hunger and small radius for syphon soul. this gives an IMMENSELY overpowered spell for three (which is why I suggest gaining levels quite a bit slower) and you have the over costing thing that nobody should use. how about they can prep 7 cards each day and have a MAX life (not healed over time) of 20 X level which we can expect most people to generally be below, but i seriously wasn't joking about the 1 level per 5 would be levels.

[Aran Banks]

whyyyy google images?

Your comparison of Morbid Hunger to Syphon Soul is like comparing fireball to shivering touch or flashburst. Some spells are better than others. Magic is in no way an exception.

-------

Syphon soul should be 1 subject/level, Fort Save or a lose a certain amount of HP and the caster gains all of it. This is nice because constructs and undead are unaffected (with the flavor being the fact that they have no souls and the crunch being Fort Save immunity) This will heal the caster up quite nicely, and will deal a noticeable, but not horrible, amount of damage to his/her opponents.

Popertop, if you post Blightning's effect and mana cost, I'll see what I can do.

[Siosilvar]

Popertop, if you post Blightning's effect and mana cost, I'll see what I can do.

1BR, Blightning deals 3 damage to target player. That player discards two cards.

[hamishspence]

I wondered what those pics were- as written, it doesn't seem to produce the pics.

Let's see if this fixes it:

Syphon Soul:
http://www.mtgvault.com/images/cards/ONS/Syphon_Soul.jpg

EDIT: It does:

Morbid Hunger:
http://online.goodgames.com.au/images/29XXX/29745.jpg

[Tokuhara]

Some MtG spells won't work at all:

Terror
Slay
Agonizing Demise
ect.

but as a former 10 time local champion (thank you Phyrexian deck), I love this thread

[Lysander]

Monster cards are simplest of all. They'd just be summon monster spells.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

M:tG is a card game. 3.5 is a combat game (with roleplaying). So, the two have vastly different rules and are balanced differently.

This could theoretically still work. You just need to change up the effects so that they still reflect the story of the card, but remain balanced.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Maybe as it levels up, it has more mana available?

And here is a link to Gatherer (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Default.aspx). This will give you a picture and rulings on every card.

[Popertop]

1BR, Blightning deals 3 damage to target player. That player discards two cards.

this is what blightning does.

I'm guessing mana cost would be the same as spell level
And damage could correspond to damage dice, more or less.

So I guess Blightning would give them negative levels (losing spell slots/discarding cards) and do a few dice of negative energy damage (3d6 seems good)
That seems a little too strong for a 3rd level spell though.

But I think other people might have better interpretatinos.

[jokey665]

I'd just like to throw a link to this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163655) out there. </shamelessplug>

[Aran Banks]

awwww... it's a googledoc. I'm not making an account solely for the purpose of viewing homebrew.

Could you make it a Scribd file? That would make me love you forever.

----

On the topic of blightning (we should italicize it now if we want to get into the D&D mood):

We need to decide what "cards" are. For MtG players, they're the only way to have options... and I'm pretty sure that your "options" in D&D are decided by the action economy.

I'm thinking that it should be:

Blightning [Evocation]
Level: Sorc/Wiz 4, Duskblade 4?
Components: V, S
Casting Time: Standard Action
Range: Close (25 + 5ft./2 levels)
Area: [25 + 5/2 levels]-ft. line
Duration: See text.
Saving Throw: See text.
Spell Resistance: Yes.

You shoot a line of sickening lightning. Anyone caught in the line takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level. Half the damage is electricity damage, and the other half is negative energy damage; this damage is instantaneous. Those caught in the line can attempt a reflex save for half. Any creature that fails its reflex save must make a fortitude save or be slowed for 1 round.

[Milskidasith]

Here's a question: How do you deal with things such as Wrath of God? It's not exactly an expensive card in magic, but what it does is pretty nutty in D&D even if you give it a save, and even with the fact it affects your allies.

[Aran Banks]

does not know spells....

[Gandariel]

well Fireball and Lightning bolt are already there ^^

plus, i guess Terror is exactly the same as Slay Living (non black, non artifact=non undead, non construct)

counterspells already exist...
Giant Growth is somewhat between Bull's strenght, Bear's endurance and Enlarge person
most artifacts can become magical objects... i see Isochrone Scepter as an object, you imprint in it a low level spell and then you can cast it at will
equipments are... hemm.. equipments...

wrath of god could become a veery high level spell which has a save or die effect on everyone, also allies. (note, when a cleric casts this spell, i guess he should say "wrath of... Pelor?")

[Eldan]

Here's a question: How do you deal with things such as Wrath of God? It's not exactly an expensive card in magic, but what it does is pretty nutty in D&D even if you give it a save, and even with the fact it affects your allies.

Well... I would stat it simply as a lot of force damage over a very wide area, judging by the pictures. Like, a one-mile radius. Of course, that would be difficult to balance.

[Soren Hero]

wrath of god has an effect similar to that spell V casts (Familicide) when she has that epic level necromancer soul-spliced...so maybe some really powerful spells would have to be epic level

[ArcanistSupreme]

Or the fact that you and your allies and any innocent people in the vicinity are also completely obliterated might be considered a mitigating factor? And no regeneration would mean no contingencies, clones, etc.

EDIT: And expanding on my "gain mana as levels increase" idea, the costs would not be exactly based on the cards. To do so would be next to impossible if balance within the game is to be maintained. Instead, you recost them to either fit a "so much mana per encounter" (as a factotum's inspiration points) or "so much mana per turn" (which could be fun but might also lead to excessively long turns). This is, of course, assuming a hombrew class, not simply turning MTG spells into actual spell.

[Eldan]

I would just count that as "No Regeneration", as it says. Because there are plenty of ways to bring back a creature that was killed by Wrath of God in normal Magic, such as various resurrection spells.

Anyway, I wouldn't try and mimic the spells perfectly, just try and make a reasonable analogue, otherwise you'll get nowhere. Wrath of God doesn't look like a save or die , it looks like a huge explosion, so stat it as that.

[ArcanistSupreme]

I would just count that as "No Regeneration", as it says. Because there are plenty of ways to bring back a creature that was killed by Wrath of God in normal Magic, such as various resurrection spells.

I agree that resurrection should work, just that it would need to be true resurrection-type stuff. Maybe stat WoG to disintegrate as fireball is to scorching ray?

[Owrtho]

Just some things that would be worth pointing out.
First, planeswalkers are by their nature all in the high epics. As such the spells they cast are unlikely to fit easily into the normal range.
Second, spells like fireball, while of the same name are quite different (in magic it can be pumped up to be much more powerful than in D&D).
Third, as mentioned the creature cards would be like summons. If that is held to be true, I'd point out that many of the spells your saying wouldn't work or would be too powerful (terror, slay, wrath of god), only work on the creature cards (not the players), which would mean using the correlation of creatures being summons, that they only affect summons, so wouldn't kill non summons, the rest of the party, that random encounter, etc. (see door to nothingness (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=73559) as an example of something that affects players

Owrtho

[ArcanistSupreme]

I disagree that "Terror" would be ridiculously powerful. Just make it a high-cost SoD. And MTG fireball isn't strictly more powerful than D&D fireball. One does more damage, but it is only single target. Something to consider.

[Owrtho]

Actually, the fireball spell in magic also can hit multiple targets. As for terror, I'd already pointed out that it should only affect summons if creature spells are considered summons.

Owrtho

[ArcanistSupreme]

Actually, the fireball spell in magic also can hit multiple targets. As for terror, I'd already pointed out that it should only affect summons if creature spells are considered summons.

Owrtho

Whoops, forgot about that. To be fair, though, it becomes significantly weaker if you go after multiple targets.

As for terror and similar, I feel that limiting it to summons might as well say "don't use this power." Sure, they could come up fairly often, but how often will a GM even bother with them if you can instakill any of them with a low-level effect, from summon monster I all the way up to it's big sibling summon monster IX? Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems completely underwhelming for a card that's supposed to be one of the better removal spells in the game.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on creating and balancing thematically appropriate abilities rather than on directly importing specific spells?

[Owrtho]

It's not weaker if you use one of the many infinite mana combos. Also, on the terror issue, I'd point out that planeswalkers use a heavy concentration of summon spells and do so en mass (as in any fight will likely be between summons with only occasional participation on the part of the casters aside from being hit and brining out more summons). That isn't to say that there aren't decks that focus on things other than summons, but creature cards to play a major role in most decks, and there is a difference in D&D summoners who summon one or two things over the course of a fight, and planeswalkers who summon one or two things a round if not more (in the latter case a spell that auto kills a single summon would be both useful and not overpowering without making summons useless).

As a side note though, both doom blade and terminate are notably better than terror and both cost 2 mana.

Owrtho

[Andion Isurand]

You should make a compulsion spell based on Provoke ability for spellcasters, forcing the target to attack any summoned creature you control. If they decide to use an area effect, they must try to include as many of your summoned creatures as possible.

[devinkowalczyk]

I have another thread up somewhere about something similar.


You could create a deck of mtg cards that a player can draw from. One card affects an enemy, while the second card affects them.
An example would be fireball (at drawers int) and holy strength.

Just a thought

[ArcanistSupreme]

It's not weaker if you use one of the many infinite mana combos. Also, on the terror issue, I'd point out that planeswalkers use a heavy concentration of summon spells and do so en mass (as in any fight will likely be between summons with only occasional participation on the part of the casters aside from being hit and brining out more summons). That isn't to say that there aren't decks that focus on things other than summons, but creature cards to play a major role in most decks, and there is a difference in D&D summoners who summon one or two things over the course of a fight, and planeswalkers who summon one or two things a round if not more (in the latter case a spell that auto kills a single summon would be both useful and not overpowering without making summons useless).

Sure, it'd be perfectly okay if you were regularly encountering other members of the "Planeswalker" class, but in a normal campaign I would think others might find the ability fairly lackluster. A lot of groups go through campaigns without seeing a single summoned monster, so that is something to consider when building it.


As a side note though, both doom blade and terminate are notably better than terror and both cost 2 mana.

Yeah, but Doom Blade allows regeneration and Terminate is harder to cast. That aside, I did say "one of the better," not "the best." :smalltongue:


I have another thread up somewhere about something similar.

You could create a deck of mtg cards that a player can draw from. One card affects an enemy, while the second card affects them.
An example would be fireball (at drawers int) and holy strength.

Just a thought

That could be fun, but a lot of players (including myself) would be turned off by the randomness of class such as this. How would you feel if you wasted a turn casting fireball at a red dragon?

EDIT: Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163655) is a really good rendering of the Planeswalker.

EDIT EDIT: As already mentioned.

[drack]

Personally only half of my 7 decks is creature based (one being an incredibly even combination, 3 using only one or two creatures, and the creature ones only one using more than the occasional spell, and those being a bit of counter/return. That aside I believe that Magic doesn't work as well if the creatures are only summons. Though they are summoned I believe they should remain, and that instead we should just allow a limit on the total number , leaving them with magic stats, which are relatively weak in D&D, but once spells begin to pump them, than they are more creature based, whereas if the summons are only used to intercept foes that get too close than they are suddenly as magic based as a cleric. Take it a step farther to a caster with only spells than give them more, perhaps maintaining creatures drains from what normally powers spells (you don't regain the manna until the creature is dismissed, or killed).

I would also like to suggest yet again that since MTG can have much more power than D&D (yes creature kill, wrath of god and the such) Perhaps give Gatherers of Magic (my Idea for the class name) a steadily increasing save DC which depending on the spell can be fort, reflex, or will. I would also say that such that this doesn't get out of hand destroying a land destroys a 10'X10'X10' cube of terrain, be it air, rock, water, bog, whatever. (water would flow back into place in larger bodies of water)

[Latronis]

Discard is generally portrayed as negatively affecting the mind. So i don't feel enervation type effects truly capture that flavor. Since cards are, in affect, spells ready to be played losing spell slots might be the most accurate port, but something like mental attribute damage\drain might fit it better.

[drack]

wouldn't that be the equivalent of loosing hand size though?

[Latronis]

wouldn't that be the equivalent of loosing hand size though?

hmm

well, discard is only temporary afterall you get to draw again later. (let's not get into certain control aspects) and ability damage is only temporary too so discard could be ability damage, while reducing hand size is effectively permanent so affects that would reduce hand size could be portrayed by ability drain instead

and then search library and remove from the game can be tearing a page out of their spellbook :smallbiggrin:

[Popertop]

Discard is generally portrayed as negatively affecting the mind. So i don't feel enervation type effects truly capture that flavor. Since cards are, in affect, spells ready to be played losing spell slots might be the most accurate port, but something like mental attribute damage\drain might fit it better.

but you do loose your highest level spell whenever you gain a negative level.
and since blightning does straight damage and makes you discard, one would think some combination of damage and negative levels would be necessary.

edit: Removed from game (or exiled, if you're new) would be traveling to a different plane, and library search would be insta-prepare, or something like that

[drack]

I agree with tearing a page out of their spell book, But discard a card I would take as a "you can't use this spell today" keeping in mind that this class may interact with standard D&D spell casters too, and ability damage more as a decreased maximum hand size seeing as it and ability drain could be temporary, or permanent.

[Latronis]

but you do loose your highest level spell whenever you gain a negative level.
and since blightning does straight damage and makes you discard, one would think some combination of damage and negative levels would be necessary.

blightning has 2 effects...

1) damage
2) discard (mind****)

but negative level affect you more than just mentally which would be appropiate for the spell in it's entirety(assuming blightning is just a name and not a description, the flavor text can support either opinion). But not spells that only cause discard (thinking verisimilitude here) If you had the spell do electrical damage + ability damage in mental attribute it's still a damaging mind**** no? and then something like Duress which is just pure discard can just do mental attribute ability damage.. and something like the somewhat definitive hippie (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=190566)can have a mental ability damage ability on some or all natural attacks.


I agree with tearing a page out of their spell book, But discard a card I would take as a "you can't use this spell today" keeping in mind that this class may interact with standard D&D spell casters too, and ability damage more as a decreased maximum hand size seeing as it and ability drain could be temporary, or permanent.

I understand where you are coming from, but then how would you represent discard if ability damage is "reduce hand size by X"?

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

For making magic cards into wizard spells:

The double-sided cards, like Stand/Deliver, make for very cool spells. They'd let wizards double up slots (at the cost of some power,) and let sorcerers be more versatile (at the cost of some power.)

For making casting more like Magic:

I'd say that casters have a personal mana pool, and can also draw mana from their surroundings. The exact colors of mana avaliable in any one place is up to the DM, but you could make some baselines. It'd be its own system.

[drack]

I understand where you are coming from, but then how would you represent discard if ability damage is "reduce hand size by X"?

I would represent discard such that it would apply to any spell caster, as you loose a prepared spell, or in some cases a use that day of some spell slot. Than there can also be discarding random cards (spells).

[Latronis]

I would represent discard such that it would apply to any spell caster, as you loose a prepared spell, or in some cases a use that day of some spell slot. Than there can also be discarding random cards (spells).

The problem with that is it only affects spellcasters in a negative way, and those like warlocks not at all. While mental ability damage harms spellcasters more than noncasters it atleast has an effect on everyone. Even mindless undead ironically (at least wis\cha anyway)

[drack]

But discarding a card is "forgetting" the spell and therefore should it effect non-casters?

If it were ability damage you could put a warrior into a coma by having him forget too many spells.

[Latronis]

But discarding a card is "forgetting" the spell and therefore should it effect non-casters?

If it were ability damage you could put a warrior into a coma by having him forget too many spells.

Blightning is basically uh.. melting someone brain according to flavor text. Non-spellcasters do have brains in most cases. Also consider it is part red, and red likes to blow **** up. Combined with black mental attack capabilities the red black mage(planeswalker) via blightning.. blows up brains?

Now mechanically discard does match forgetting spells but doesn't always match the flavor of discard spells. In fact more often than not memory spells tend towards blue and usually some version of library manipulation or milling, now the lines between blue and black often blur here but black tends to treat memory as already cast spells and tend to fool around with graveyards instead.

If we look at some discard spells, you have things like mind slash pretty obvious mental attack as opposed to forgetting something (the forgetting is just a side effect) Duress (compulsion by threat or force) Flavor wise it's more than just forgetting a spell, so i think it should have an effect on anyone with mental faculties to be abused.

melt someone's brain enough and they will go into a coma no? This i think comes down to mechanics. Discard can't win you the duel, but in D&D ability damage can (though it won't outright kill) Discard i think is just the most obvious result of a mental attack for magic. And it can with enough of it shutdown an opponent(forced reliance on topdecking).

Perhaps it should just be taken on a case by case basis, or just decide how to go about translating spells? as accurately as possible mechanically? or just a flavor translation (what effect would the spell have in the universe as opposed to what it does ruleswie)

[Aran Banks]

I guess the biggest question is: What is a discard?

I thought a hand size would be the action economy. Losing a substantial amount of cards (2) could be losing a move action. I also dislike the concept of ability drain/damage--the bookkeeping is too much work (gotta do HP, and Fort Saves, and skill checks. Gross). Negative levels, sure, but the spell level needs to be high and/or the save needs to be specifically weakened.

[drack]

I suppose you have a good point. Perhaps take a common ground of they can choose to either loose one prepared spell/spell per day for the day, or take one point of temporary int damage. Fare enough?

Another question is how to deal with destruction of perminants. How about apposed will saves, or for enchantments treat your will save as a dispel magic check.

Also I thing Manna cost=CR and simply multiply toughness by 10=HP what is the verdict on these ideas?

[Latronis]

I guess the biggest question is: What is a discard?

I thought a hand size would be the action economy. Losing a substantial amount of cards (2) could be losing a move action. I also dislike the concept of ability drain/damage--the bookkeeping is too much work (gotta do HP, and Fort Saves, and skill checks. Gross). Negative levels, sure, but the spell level needs to be high and/or the save needs to be specifically weakened.

Ability damage isn't that bad, well maybe if its several abilities. Almost everything is based on the modifier so it's not much work at all. Lose 2 wisdom and all you do is subtract 1 from each wis based skill, subtract 1 from your will save, -1 save DCs if appropiate. It's only really a major issue to check up on bonus spells, check any feats still meet the prereqs. Even max spell level is pretty simple. 19wis cleric who takes 2 wis damage just drops all 8th and 9th lv spells.

That's why i feel it matches discard so well it affects everyone with a mind to some degree, though naturally it harms the spellcasters more.

Action economy could work actually if you look at cards in hand as abilities rather than spells, a better fit than negative levels imo (which affect physicality in ways discard really doesn't fit)

Potentially brutal though.


I suppose you have a good point. Perhaps take a common ground of they can choose to either loose one prepared spell/spell per day for the day, or take one point of temporary int damage. Fare enough?

Might aswell be just loose a spell or take ability damage if you can't. A wizard is never going to take int damage over a single spell slot if given a choice.


Another question is how to deal with destruction of perminants. How about apposed will saves, or for enchantments treat your will save as a dispel magic check.

See any issues with D&D dispel magic type stuff vs lingering magical effects(enchantments) ? I can't at the moment. But i may be overlooking something.

Artifact destruction can range from targetted dispel to sunder type spells


Also I thing Manna cost=CR and simply multiply toughness by 10=HP what is the verdict on these ideas?

I don't think it's that easy. You'd probably end up with too good for CR critters, and too weak for CR critters. Might be more accurate to average out power\toughness to get a HD(higher power = high BAB\CL. Higher toughness = higher hitdie size? or con mod?) with a bonus or penalty based on converted mana cost with a CR to match adjusted by any special abilities as appropiate. If you want a quick and dirty method. Though that's not that quick, though probably plenty dirty

[Popertop]

Blightning is especially damaging to spellcasters, because they use their brains more, right?

So shouldn't this spell be more dangerous to casters than non casters?

Negative levels seem to do just that, with non casters suffering from worse attack, skill checks, saves and losing hp, and casters also lose a spell of their highest level.

Enervation doesn't have a save, it's a ray, SR does apply though.

[drack]

Artifact destruction can range from targetted dispel to sunder type spells



I don't think it's that easy. You'd probably end up with too good for CR critters, and too weak for CR critters. Might be more accurate to average out power\toughness to get a HD(higher power = high BAB\CL. Higher toughness = higher hitdie size? or con mod?) with a bonus or penalty based on converted mana cost with a CR to match adjusted by any special abilities as appropiate. If you want a quick and dirty method. Though that's not that quick, though probably plenty dirty

I was thinking that artifacts are simply defended (opposing will saves) by their user, or in the case of creatures they can make their own.

Also sorry for the lack of clarity, but I meant CR=Manna cost for the sake of manna cost reliant spells, like destroy target creature with manna cost 5 or less (I made that effect up), or the such, but you are most likely right about creatures not being so simple. The only problem being that most of them don't have HP higher than that of a first level fighter (up to 12)

[Latronis]

I was thinking that artifacts are simply defended (opposing will saves) by their user, or in the case of creatures they can make their own.

Also sorry for the lack of clarity, but I meant CR=Manna cost for the sake of manna cost reliant spells, like destroy target creature with manna cost 5 or less (I made that effect up), or the such, but you are most likely right about creatures not being so simple. The only problem being that most of them don't have HP higher than that of a first level fighter (up to 12)

oh right.. like this (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=141817)

I guess it could work. Targetting CR seems weird though. For creatures would not HD be more logical? for magical effects.. level? though i guess CR is a more appropiate comparitive measure to spell level.

Well the figure would need to be multiplied by some small amount, very very few creatures get power and or toughness as high as say 11, even 10's are rare. Let's take the grizzlies for example 1G 2\2 averaging PT gives 2, with no other abilities on the card 2\2 for 2 CMC is decidely average. So it has a rating of say 2. But bears in D&D arn't 2HD they are about 6 iirc. So something else has to happen but you can get an idea of overall HD based on a combination of P\T imo. Its just trying how to slot it in appropiately.



Blightning is especially damaging to spellcasters, because they use their brains more, right?

So shouldn't this spell be more dangerous to casters than non casters?

Negative levels seem to do just that, with non casters suffering from worse attack, skill checks, saves and losing hp, and casters also lose a spell of their highest level.

Enervation doesn't have a save, it's a ray, SR does apply though.

That's the problem with enervation though, it does have an effect on the physicality of the target not related to their mental ability. From a pure flavour perspective anyway. Unless it is literally electrocuting their brain. It fits mechanically but not really the flavor? so which do you prefer?

[drack]

Yes I understand that that would take some working on the creature part, but cards like this http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=87917 shouldn't be able to take out a particularly stupid dragon as easily as a goblin, but rather since it was meant to like week things easily it should have a substantial X beyond saying this red dragon isn't a Magic creature, and therefor has manna cost of 0

Also I personally prefer matching mechanics to mechanics, over matching abstract fluff to mechanics. For example think of some guy watching his dog while writing this, and tell me the card was centered towards this flavor text: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=121206

[Popertop]

That's the problem with enervation though, it does have an effect on the physicality of the target not related to their mental ability. From a pure flavour perspective anyway. Unless it is literally electrocuting their brain. It fits mechanically but not really the flavor? so which do you prefer?

Really? Negative levels don't affect mental ability?
Aren't certain skills and saving throws based off of mental ability?

And I prefer matching mechanically.

You can change flavor all you want.
Simply change the effect from a negative energy beam to a blightning beam.
And bam, you has a blightning spell.

Or, you could actually change it.
Like, combine lightning bolt and enervate.
Limit it to one target, and give it half damage and half negative levels, scaling with caster level, with pretty low caps for each. Maybe 1d6 electricity per two caster levels(max 5d6) and 1 negative level per five caster levels (max 1d2).

Eh, I tried.

[Latronis]

I said the problem with enervation was the physical effects. I didn't say it wasn't negatively affecting the target's mind.

So the next question is.. what kind of power level do you want it to have?

[drack]

I would personally match power levels with spell levels on some slightly skewed scale (magic spells are double their manna cost in spell level or some such mechanics of spell strength o another.)

[vicente408]

Trying to translate the mechanics of M:TG directly into D&D terms is the wrong approach, I think. Adapting the flavor of an effect is more important than figuring out what exactly is represented by "discarding a card". For example, Blightning is, at its basic essence, a bolt of electricity that damages the body and the mind of the target. Lightning damage plus ability damage to mental stats seems like a simple and reasonable adaptation. The fact that it doesn't perfectly simulate the effects of "discarding cards" is less important than the fact that it imports the look and feel of the spell. Different kinds of discard spells might not work with ability damage, though; The card Coercion is something that might be better off being a "lose a prepared spell of the caster's choice" kind of effect.

[drack]

Now that is simply a differing of oppinion to which I can only say "to each his own."

[Schylerwalker]

I'm actually in the process of going through all of my Magic decks and converting as many cards as I can into monsters, spells, feats, magic items, and adventure locales (Places like Castle Sengir, the Wizard's School, etc.) Maybe someday I'll finish this colossal project and post the homebrew up here. :)

However, some of the spells that people think would be really overpowered are actually quite simple. Like, say, Unsummon simply grants a summoned creature (Or anything pulled out with a planar ally or binding spell) a Will save or be sent back to its home plane. Probably second level or so.

And Wrath of God would kill everything that failed its Fortitude save within one mile, and do 20d6 damage to everything that made its save. Including the caster. :smallamused:

[Zombie_Jack]

Ive been toying with different conversion systems for MTG <--> DND 3.5 its tough to say the least for example any cards with the draw or discard effect doesnt have a mirror comparison within d20 to keep the card/game balance simply omitting card effects diminishes the point of the conversion.

[JessGulbranson]

Schylerwalker, I'd love to see what you have so far.