Psychobabbler

[Ephraim]

Psychobabbler
{U}
Creature – Wizard
1/2

Each player plays with his or her hand revealed. If a player has a card in his or her hand with the same name as a nonland card that player controls, that player can't draw cards.

***

Well, the suggestion received in #themanadrain for the card I should create tonight was a creature with a prison ability. This ability is what I came up with. I had a bit of a hard time deciding on what colour to make this. Not drawing cards seems like a black ability, while playing with hands revealed and encouraging singleton decks is blue (although Cornered Market, which also encourages singleton, is newer and white.) It seems like a tremendously powerful ability, but note that this won't come down early, which means that it really only encourages people to play duplicate copies of cards they may or may not want duplicates of. I can see ways of making this harder to play around, but that's what building a prison deck is about.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Psychobabbler
{2}{U}{U}
Creature – Wizard
1/2

Each player plays with his or her hand revealed. If a player has a card in his or her hand with the same name as a nonland card that player controls, that player can't draw cards.

[Jacob Orlove]

Is this too good with land destruction?

[Ephraim]

I considered that, which is why I gave it double in its mana cost. Or are you suggesting that the ability, coupled with land destruction, is broken at any cost? If not, I'd be happy to increase the man cost to {U} — with a nominal increase to the stats — maybe make it a 1/3 creature.

[Jacob Orlove]

The problem with this card is that I really have no idea how good it is, in both casual and competitive games. It's quite possible to get a hard lock for many turns by following this up with a Sunder or Geddon effect, but it can lock you down too. It's the kind of card we'd have to actually build decks for and test, but we have no Future Future League.

[asmoranomardicodais]

I'm almost positive this is too powerful. A creature should never be able to shut the game down this tightly, since Chronatog. And Chronatog wasn't even the main part of the stasis combo; stasis was. This is an easy lock that can shut down the game, period, no questions asked. Worst case, he does nothing, but with a geddon deck, that won't happen often. Worst feasible case, it shuts both people down, and a draw comes about. Best case, the opponent is shut down, and they can't do anything about it, period. And that just isn't fun. Anyway, I've been ranting quite badly here, so I hope you can nderrstand my point. If you like the card, it should:

a. Have an out, since this could randomly create a hard lock out of dumb luck.

b. Cost 4UUU.

[Ephraim]

That seems like a little bit of overkill. This plus land destruction is a strong lock, but I can't say it's any worse than Zur's Weirding plus Ghost-Lit Redeemer.

[MrZuccinniHead]

this is nice.  Better in a deck with more one-ofs (like combo).

[Slay]

This seems way too powerful at anything 4cc or less, and way too overpriced at anything 5cc or more. In short, I can't see this card kept the same way without changing the ability. The player needs some way to overcome the lock, and it definitely shouldn't be as hard a lock as you have. Here's my revised card:

1UU
Psychobabbler
1/2
Each palyer plays with his/her hand revealed
If a player has two o more cards in his hand with the same name, that player skips their draw phase.
0: Discard a card and all cards with the same name. Play this ability only if you have two or more cards with the same name in your hand. Any player may use this ability.

That's a templating nightmare, but it accomplishes the same effect you're looking for while still not being overly powerful against permanent-based decks(this does jack squat against most control decks), and having an expensive way to get out of the lock. It's also cheap enough to be abusable but not turn one-able without a lotus, so you give the opponent some time to be able to react. It's also a juicy drain target. I think this card is about as fair as it can be.
-Slay

[MrZuccinniHead]

also, this then meddling mage for something in a player's hand and that's probably game.

[Ephraim]

also, this then meddling mage for something in a player's hand and that's probably game.

This still isn't any worse than Zur's Weirding plus Ghost-Lit Redeemer or Honden of Cleansing Fire. Yes, this card seems strong, but I would like somebody to clarify why a draw-lock combo with this card is any worse than the draw-lock combo that already exists.

[Jacob Orlove]

All the cards is a Zur's Weirding deck are terrible on their own--lifegain, and the weirding. Plus, you have to run bad tutors because you can't win without the combo. This combines with already good cards (meddling mage, land destruction) to form a hard lock, which means your deck will be a lot stronger and able to win even without getting the combo down.

[asmoranomardicodais]

As well, every once in awhile the card will end the game just by dropping. For instance:

First Turn: Land
Second: Land, Pentad Prism
Third: Land, Play something for five (Vesuvan Doppleganger), something that can't be cast again, because you used some sort of expendable mana.

Opponent Plays Psychobabbler

You have Vesuvan in your hand,and no way to kill the babbler. GG


I'm not saying this will happen often, or at all, but a single card should never be able to hard lock a game by dumb luck. In that scenario, it wasn't the opponent's skill or the players lack of it that created the hard lock. It was dumb luck. And there's nothing worse than losing a game because of something random that neither player could have forseen.

[Ephraim]

Would this be fair at this price if I were to add a second ability: At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player may discard a card.

[Jacob Orlove]

Would this be fair at this price if I were to add a second ability: At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player may discard a card.

It'd be cooler if it let players discard a card for some random effect.

edit: by "random" I mean small, not coinflippy.

[Ephraim]

I just thought of something that may require me to nix this card idea. When dealing with a card that causes players to play with the top card of their library revealed, drawing multiple cards occurs sequentially, allowing the top card to be revealed after each draw. Would this behave similarly, checking after each card is drawn to see whether the player can draw the remaining cards? If that is the case, then I don't want to proceed with this card.

[Jacob Orlove]

I just thought of something that may require me to nix this card idea. When dealing with a card that causes players to play with the top card of their library revealed, drawing multiple cards occurs sequentially, allowing the top card to be revealed after each draw. Would this behave similarly, checking after each card is drawn to see whether the player can draw the remaining cards? If that is the case, then I don't want to proceed with this card.

It would work the way you describe, so I'm going to close this thread. PM me (or Matt, obv) if you want it reopened.