Bloodwalk

[Side]

I think the thought process behind it is that a blood magus has to get the blood from another creature in order to bloodwalk to them.

This could either be done with consent or without consent in character, but (from our perspective) requires out of character consent and coordination for it to occur as legitimate PVP. You can't simply say you got blood from a character who hasn't bled.

You can cut them, or collect their blood after cleaning their wounds, or gather it from the site of a battle they fought in and took injuries from. But all of this requires some sort of out of character "OK" from the other player, as you are otherwise assuming that they bled, they left their blood behind, and you were able to collect their blood unnoticed -- and then are able to PVP them without offering an RP out (by essentially exploding out of their body). The RP out in this situation is coordinating with them the collection of their blood.

I don't think most people will deny it if there's a legitimate RP reason behind it. This just prevents people from being marked without even the character's player knowing it. Which is something that generated a number of complaints from the player base.

As Endelyon states, I also have no pony in this race, and don't mind if it's changed later on. But I am glad the devs are at least working on fixing it to the point where the class ability is actually operational. It may require some additional tweaking before it's operating fully as intended -- but if the fix generates a lot of outcry from the player base, we can of course consider alternatives to the current setup. Ideally, though, we'd like to keep the ability as in line with the PVP rules as possible (for an ability that allows you to damage people from maps away with very little warning).

My worry here is that there are now cases where, ICly, you can have blood that is not collectable or usable due to OOC reasons. To use your example blood from an injury during a battle is currently acceptable, but with the new changes you can have a battle where someone could easily be bleeding, could RP being injured, but a blood mage would not be able to use the blood. I can understand why the one class would get the short end of the stick instead of the many classes, but in this case it does feel like the short end is a bit too short.

Perhaps a description change can be made to specify the quality of the blood, or some other piece of writing can be added to the class to limit the IC form of blood needed to one that basically requires IC consent. That doesn't completely solve the problem, but it might at least push everything to be IC, instead of IC actions being guided by OOC reasons. That might be a start.

[Invoker]

There has been some new updates and bloodwalk was one of them

Changes to Bloodwalk, Blood Mark now creates two runes. One has to be given to the targeted PC and consent is achieved by accepting the rune and keeping it in the player's inventory. Bloodwalk should now also correctly teleports to the marked PC.

Why ?? Just why ?!?

Being one of those relatively few people taking 10 levels of Blood Magus for one of my characters, I fully understand how clunky the mechanic feels. That cannot be disputed.

However, it could not continue like it was originally. A BM 10 could mark anyone without notification for the marked players, and then proceed to, one day, for whatever reason, fully buff up and burst out of their asses anywhere on the atlas, with next to no defense for it, and the only chance at fixing it was RCRing the character.

I don't believe it very fair to have the chance to do that, on top of what my character could already do, to be fully honest.

[Valefort]

But this will still be possible

[Invoker]

But this will still be possible

Only if the target accepts the rune, and keeps it in the inventory.

That seems safe, as far as fairness is concerned.

[Valefort]

If anything that's a way to detect bad sportsmanship

[Empoweredfan]

I for one is really grateful to the developers for this fix.

[metaquad4]

I consider the "requires OOC consent to bloodwalk" to be a move in the wrong direction, and a huge nerf onto all blood magus'.

Instead, I would have seen it be implemented it like this:

Player A bloodwalks to Player B (the teleport function).

Player B is prompted with a menu: Resist or Allow.

If Player B allows, all proceeds as normal.

If Player B resists, player B is prompted with a save (same save as burst forth). If player B fails, player A is teleported to and bursts through player B (in the same fashion as the burst through function of the feat). If player B succeeds, then player A doesn't teleport.

Player B cannot chat, move, attack, use feats, or cast spells during this process, they must select Resist or Allow before they can proceed on other actions. (This can be achieved by imposing the inability to do the above actions, or something else)

In order to be marked, from what I understand, you require a sample of blood. Assuming this is the case:

Player A attempts to mark player B.

If player B allows, Player A gets player B's mark.

If player B resists (assuming they are able in RP), player A must make an attack against player B. All near-by notice this attack, and PvP consent is allowed on player A. Player A must roll a melee touch attack against player B's AC. If player B resists, nothing happens. If Player A succeeds, a rune on player B is acquired.

Also @Invoker:
That would be a breach of PvP rules, unless the player consented to it. If the player consented (refused the RP out), its no big deal. If the player took the RP out, then they couldn't have been attacked. Attacking with no warning/RP out, however, isn't permitted. So, that wouldn't be valid in RP even if it was done.

[Tantive]

Bloodwalk requires a bit of faith in the code of conduct of the players in the roleplay, which like pvp requires. It has much more possibilities for abuse or misuse to the aggravation of all parties, if its just a mechanical click with less things leading up to it. The idea that another player can show up anywhere at any time wherever you are (with exception maybe dimensional locked areas, if thats how it works) is too powerful to not let it be done proper.

In the interest of fair play, I find the ooc consenting a much more palatable choice.

[tribunal]

Being one of those relatively few people taking 10 levels of Blood Magus for one of my characters, I fully understand how clunky the mechanic feels. That cannot be disputed.

However, it could not continue like it was originally. A BM 10 could mark anyone without notification for the marked players

Good! Why not to be notified ? After you took his blood ( and marked him ) he could get message like '' That person marked you''. It' can be considered like Bloodseeking ability, also as a PvP action, why not.

... and then proceed to, one day, for whatever reason, fully buff up and burst out of their asses anywhere on the atlas, with next to no defense for it, and the only chance at fixing it was RCRing the character.

I never had problem with PvP. I killed many, others killed me as well. I never abused such ability in the way you said. And I really doubt that someone ever has. This ability is used mostly for the tracking and RP reason . And even if you tracking him just to kill him one day it is also very fair. The only thing they could change is that when you kill that person he will lose that mark.

I don't believe it very fair to have the chance to do that, on top of what my character could already do, to be fully honest.

As I said I think it is ( well,it was) very fair! What about unbuffed Grey Orc mage ? Or many low leveled Orcs, slayed to many times in front of Friendly Arm Inn, on the sight ! Or necromancers slayed by entire groups , for summoning undead ? So, what you do ? You just avoid those places or you avoid to summon undeads when you are in the big group.

Same if you see that someone is ''playing around'' with your blood. You just need to avoid such persons or kill them ! Or accept them after all !

There should be obligatorily RP description for such act as taking blood but NOT consent of the other player to be marked or not. It can be really very simple. If you don't want to be marked then just kill the blood magus. If you succeed he will be obliged to remove any marks.

It is so funny! Because we need to hide our abilities from the other players and NPC not to be slayed! And '' at the end of the day '' (as someone said here) for what ?!? What is our gain in all that story ?? All that hiding, for what ? Playing ''horrifying'' ''dark'' class whose greatest power Awaken Blood and 3 caster levels ??

When you see blood magus around you should be very careful my friend and scared with the REASON. And yes, you should probably be ''uneasy'' for seeing someone, playing with your blood. And no,you should NOT be able to choose if you will want to be marked or not. You should only be able to react. To prevent that only by killing the blood magus.

That's how it should be In the worst case scenario for this class.

[Valefort]

I changed things a bit so that it won't require a rune in the inventory of the target.

Whenever a blood mage casts mark blood on a rune the nearby PC will get a pop up GUI saying this :

"A blood magus attempted to mark you blood. Click OK if it was legitimate, Cancel otherwise."

If cancel is clicked the blood magus gets a feedback message saying that the mark blood attempt was refused.

If OK is clicked then the rune is marked with the target's ID. You can use bloodwalk or burst forth feats on that rune, bloodwalk for a teleport without a bloody exit, burst forth for a bloody one.

Btw it is still possible to burst forth on any PC you see without needing consent.

If the targeted player refuses the mark blood attempt maybe try to talk it out ? And if you can't find an agreement and feel cheated there is always the "screenshot and PM the DMs".

[Hawke]

I changed things a bit so that it won't require a rune in the inventory of the target.

Whenever a blood mage casts mark blood on a rune the nearby PC will get a pop up GUI saying this :

"A blood magus attempted to mark you blood. Click OK if it was legitimate, Cancel otherwise."

If cancel is clicked the blood magus gets a feedback message saying that the mark blood attempt was refused.

If OK is clicked then the rune is marked with the target's ID. You can use bloodwalk or burst forth feats on that rune, bloodwalk for a teleport without a bloody exit, burst forth for a bloody one.

Btw it is still possible to burst forth on any PC you see without needing consent.

If the targeted player refuses the mark blood attempt maybe try to talk it out ? And if you can't find an agreement and feel cheated there is always the "screenshot and PM the DMs".

I can see this as a feasible alternative. For those who don't want to be marked, don't RP with them since they dont want to RP with you.... but if they are hostile towards you (aka ready for or are PvPing you) you can still burst forth.

Kudos!

[Mallore]

I think Valforts fixes are good. Great and I agree with


I would further state that if someone tries to blood mark you and you do not like it they have auto concented to pvp. So go kill them. It's with in the rules. That alone should prevent abuse.

One might argue if someone blood marks you with out rp prior also failed to give you an rp out and thus broke pvp rules.

These are minor and super rare occasions. Though enforcing our pvp rules on the caster of blood mark should address any issues players may feel about the spell. If you fear being pvped by te blood Mage you have these options to you. If the blood Mage fears that using this spell will consent them to pvp, then they should be very wary of their targets and careful. It is a nice check and balance.

[Hawke]

I would not go so far as Auto consent for pvp for marking a target.

There are very subtle ways of marking someone without them even knowing about it. The consent is a purely an OOC action.

[tribunal]

I think Valforts fixes are good. Great and I agree with


I would further state that if someone tries to blood mark you and you do not like it they have auto concented to pvp. So go kill them. It's with in the rules. That alone should prevent abuse.

One might argue if someone blood marks you with out rp prior also failed to give you an rp out and thus broke pvp rules.

These are minor and super rare occasions. Though enforcing our pvp rules on the caster of blood mark should address any issues players may feel about the spell. If you fear being pvped by te blood Mage you have these options to you. If the blood Mage fears that using this spell will consent them to pvp, then they should be very wary of their targets and careful. It is a nice check and balance.

It should be considered as PvP action.And you should get notification that he marked you . But you should NOT be able to accept or decline that decision. You should be able to prevent such act by killing him or not . That is the worst acceptable scenario for this class.

You are the one who should be feared of Blood Magus more than he of you since he know that almost every of his act draws people into PvP.

But speaking how you should have ability to decline his mark, and then to PvP with him ... ? Really no comment ...

[Mallore]

Those are the pvp rules. Some people do not want to participate and we should protect them first. Sorry.

It's this or take the spell out of the game.


I would further add that casting blood mark with out pvp concent would be a rules violation. You can not cast on another player with out there okay. Valforts script automates this as to save the ooc issues. This is a clever good fix.


No one will force you to use this spell however.