Bloodwalk

Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:58 pm

I think it best to apply to both. There was considerable abuse back then, even I participated in, that I'd rather not see happen today with any of those feats. The labor involved mitigating those exploits isn't worth pouring hours of development over with little to gain by.

7threalm · Unread post by **7threalm** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:05 pm

we learn in the past from the older version of bloodwalk people will abuse it to no end, the server will never go back to that version.

The dm's are most likely against it
The Dev's are most likey against it.

People will not abuse a two token system its pretty simple, the mature players will rp it accordingly and as needed.

It's a mechanically fix due to the abuses of the past, thats what it is. I would rather have a feat that works then no that does nothing and the way this thread is going thats what were gonna get nothing.....a broken feat because people are still hoping it will go back to the way it was and thats not gonna happen.

BigJ · Unread post by **BigJ** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:07 pm

Just quoting this from the first page stating the lore

"In most cases, though, the destination creature finds being the endpoint of a magical portal surprising and quite unsettling."

So it seems the person is quite aware their body has just been used for magical transport.

BigJ

Aeb Ankor · Unread post by **Aeb Ankor** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:09 pm

Defining blood walk as different than pvp burst forth for effects and use, with different need for consent or ooc rune use.

With blood walk equalling a feat style teleport to a mobile location or spying target is totally worth fighting for to me, clearly, based on my continued involvement.

Aeb Ankor · Unread post by **Aeb Ankor** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:15 pm

BigJ wrote:Just quoting this from the first page stating the lore

"In most cases, though, the destination creature finds being the endpoint of a magical portal surprising and quite unsettling."

So it seems the person is quite aware their body has just been used for magical transport.

BigJ

It also says painless and seemlessly emerging, most cases being surprised or unsettled...

Unaware or aware ,

I say, should be determined similar to detection of a hidden or invisible creature or spellcraft/lore.

Do this in character

Side · Unread post by **Side** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:26 pm

To be fair I don't think I've ever been surprised by something I didn't notice, and therefore was not aware of. I guess it depends on what exactly is surprising or unsettling, the act of being used as a portal or the idea of it.

BigJ · Unread post by **BigJ** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:32 pm

Aeb Ankor wrote:
BigJ wrote:Just quoting this from the first page stating the lore

"In most cases, though, the destination creature finds being the endpoint of a magical portal surprising and quite unsettling."

So it seems the person is quite aware their body has just been used for magical transport.

BigJ
It also says painless and seemlessly emerging, most cases being surprised or unsettled...

Unaware or aware ,

I say, should be determined similar to detection of a hidden or invisible creature or spellcraft/lore.

Do this in character

You have clipped together different parts of the lore book to put together that sentence. The lore states it is painless, not unnoticed. It also clearly states . .

"In most cases, though, the destination creature finds being the endpoint of a magical portal surprising and quite unsettling."

Ie. the destination creature (Not just sentient races) knows they are the endpoint of a magical portal, painless or not. They know something is up, otherwise the phrase 'endpoint of a magical portal' would not have been used and something like 'something happened' would have been used instead.

Sorry, I'm stickler for looking at the choice of words in a sentence and 'endpoint of a magical portal' is quite specific. You have not crossed into the shadows or etherealness, you have not been invisible, you have activated the power in the blood of the destination body to create and fuel an end portal to your ability, and they felt it.

BigJ

Isen Isdjorn · Unread post by **Isen Isdjorn** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:21 pm

Isen Isdjorn wrote:Post subject: Re: Bloodwalk is broken 2015-01-11
PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:55 pm
Asking consent is a bummer and ruins my idea of how bloodwalk should work or how other PC might be aware of the act. It makes a huge flaw in adding metagame knowledge to the PC target when none is needed. RP out the situation and allow the target of bloodwalk/ blood magic knowledge to do this IN character and legitamitely, without forcing the blood mage to rely on some ooc message that 'outs' them as a blood user and then the targeted character's 'player' can deny consent, while still gaining the metagame knowledge of the blood mage's existence.

Still this

Valefort · Unread post by **Valefort** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:31 pm

Not going to change unless I'm told otherwise, if a PC denies consent for bad reasons screenshot and PM the DMs.

Hawke · Unread post by **Hawke** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:11 pm

Hawke wrote:
Valefort wrote: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!

Too bad. I was hoping this could make the change.

Anyways, the hard work is appreciated, thank you.

Hawke · Unread post by **Hawke** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:11 pm

Hawke wrote:
Valefort wrote: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!

Too bad. I was hoping this could make the change.

Anyways, the hard work is appreciated, thank you.

Valefort · Unread post by **Valefort** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:26 pm

Ah but that is what should be in game at the moment, I merely said the consent part is staying.