Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Envisioner" data-source="post: 8008040" data-attributes="member: 6749263">I care because I like the Ravnica setting, and one of the things I like about it is the very clear identities that have been established for the guilds, and the decision to port Ravnica into D&D without porting the MTG magic system into D&D along with it has diluted that very clear identity that Ravnica had.  An Orzhov being able to cast Fireball is like a Necromancer being able to cast some kind of Rainbow Sparkle Magic Love Beam from the "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" universe (I'm not a Brony so forgive me if I don't have all the details exact there).  It's fundamentally incoherent with the identity that the Orzhov are defined by, as they were presented way back in 2005 when they were first created, and still as of their last appearance in the third block of Ravnica sets (I forget exactly when these were but it wasn't more than 5 years ago).I don't want it personally for my game, and if someone else is playing a game that way, then I probably don't want to play in that campaign or in another campaign run by that same person (note the "probably", it's still subject to negotiation, but to borrow the 3E D&D term from the Diplomacy rules, my starting attitude is one step lower).  I would understand if they had published the Ravnica book and said "We're not going to go into the full details of the MTG magic system, just use the base D&D spells as a proxy for now, and an upcoming book will detail how Ravnica magic really works", but as far as I noticed (I admittedly only gave the Ravnica book a fairly cursory look-through), that wasn't what they did, they didn't even pay lip service to the idea that they were doing an inadequate or preliminary job.  And the fact that they're moving on and making another MTG setting part of D&D without doing any more work to acknowledge this issue, that bothers me a little.  Not a lot, but a little.Not sure if the smiley indicates that you're kidding, but assuming you're not, I very much disagree.  Those categories you listed only very, very loosely fit; there are many Abjuration spells that aren't White (such as Dispel Magic, which overlaps a bit with Disenchant and the like, but can also function as Counterspell which is restricted to Blue), and an absolute legion of White spells that aren't Abjurations (Armageddon, anyone?).  There are several spells in D&D which I couldn't even guess at a correctly fitting MTG color for, and even D&D itself already contains a number of spells that don't properly fit into the eight Vancian schools (remind me, is Cure Light Wounds a Necromancy or Conjuration spell?).  Frankly I'd likely have been happier if they dropped the somewhat ill-considered Vancian system and went full-bore with the MTG system, although I would doubtlessly still have some issues with that as well.  At least that would make a little more sense as a full hybridization of the two settings under the rules created by the new ownership of the IP, rather than this very awkward stapling-together of two totally incompatible things that we have now.</blockquote>

Verification