Please fix burning blood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shade]

Most DDO spells are not cut and dry like that anyways. Burning blood is weird in that 1d8 is actually 1d8.. Where other 1d8 spells are 1d4+4. Really hard to put together some math and say its accurate being the way DDO does its math is always different per spell.

Anyways, I only seen other sorcs do that dmg to me. My 2ndary sorc that has it is not high enough lvl to max enhancements and doesnt have all the items to boost it, but even he does over 120 on crits per type with only 1 lore item. Regardless, let the dmg discussion die or make a new thread for it as its not the topic of this one.

Thx for posting the PnP version chaos. That one makes sense, a save per every tic would be fair.

[Shade]

I know, why dont we give all melee types blanket spell immunities in the pvp pits, that way they can be total "Haxxor Pwn you" little casters.

Funny. PvP melee vs caster is actually fairly balanced aside from a couple spells like this. Both classes can near-insta kill each other, but there defenses against each attack for both side, except this broken spell where there no defense and they can just hide or leave the arena while you die.

[Cowdenicus]

Funny. PvP melee vs caster is actually fairly balanced aside from a couple spells like this. Both classes can near-insta kill each other, but there defenses against each attack for both side, except this broken spell where there no defense and they can just hide or leave the arena while you die.

and there should be no defense against it, that is the way the spell is set up.

[Borror0]

I know, why dont we give all melee types blanket spell immunities in the pvp pits, that way they can be total "Haxxor Pwn you" little casters.

Really? The thought of Polay Ray scares the heck out of me. 16d6 + all Improvement... no saves... it'll pwn the heck out of us. Burning Blood is bugged, admit it and live with it.

[GeneralDiomedes]

It's not the case because, right now, it offers either no save or only a save against the first hit of it, as opposed to a save on every tick (as the spell should be) or a save to negate it (as their description states).

That's what the problem is.

The PnP version also prevents you from taking action if you fail your save if I understand it. So the DDO version is more powerful in some respects, but less in others.

On another note, I find it hilarious that one day you see several posts about how Burning Blood is one of the most useless spell in the game, the next day you see one on how it is totally overpowered and needs to be nerfed.

[TreknaQudane]

The PnP version also prevents you from taking action if you fail your save if I understand it. So the DDO version is more powerful in some respects, but less in others.

On another note, I find it hilarious that one day you see several posts about how Burning Blood is one of the most useless spell in the game, the next day you see one on how it is totally overpowered and needs to be nerfed.

What a difference being killed in pvp makes heh?

[ChaosTheEternal]

The PnP version also prevents you from taking action if you fail your save if I understand it. So the DDO version is more powerful in some respects, but less in others.

And it should have that effect in DDO (probably translatable to a hamstring-esque effect for each failed save, or a nauseated effect, like from Stinking Cloud... ooh, that's more painful).

Either way, they don't have the description and the effect matching. If they want to go about the description, the spell is bugged. If they want to go by the effect... well... they did say some mobs will start using Empower and Maximize (and other Metamagic feats), and if a mob can hit one that does over 30 fire and acid damage a tick, then it really falls into the overpowered boat (and I've been hit by spells from mobs that do over what the dice cap for the spell allows).

Oh, and since the whole spell is affected by either fire or acid items/enhancements (both the base damage increase and the crit chance and multiplier), that's even better. Since these mobs are probably also considered to have class levels... why not expect them to have Potency items that poof when they die or the proper enhancements to boost their damage?

Players casting one like that is a waste of SPs (100 SPs now, 65 at Mod 5) and does less overall damage to mobs (plural for a reason, AoEs do as much or more damage to many mobs and lower level spells can do more damage while costing less). And mobs have infinite SPs, so the damage potential is a lot more dangerous to us.


The big thing that makes Burning Blood useless, for us, is that mobs have inflated HPs and don't make Concentration checks. If at least the latter were different, it'd be more useful.

[Shade]

Funny you see several posts about how Burning Blood is one of the most useless spell in the game, the next day you see one on how it is totally overpowered and needs to be nerfed.

Wheres the thread asking for it to be nerfed or sayings it overpowered?
Fixing bugs has nothing to do with nerfing.

Polar ray won't be that bad in PvP, unlike burning blood - you can actually dodge it.

[Soul-Shaker]

Polar ray won't be that bad in PvP, unlike burning blood - you can actually dodge it.

If they nerf the current ray speed and cast time that mobs have atm which I bet they will

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Really sick of dying to a fortitude save spell on my barbarian, who has a +40 fotitude save.

(currently has no save, but description lists it as a fortitude save)

Reported this in game long ago. Please fix this.

Ya should have a fort save, but don't you just drink a fire&acid pot and are fully protected?

Oh, or are you talking PVP? eh...don't really care about PVP

[Elthbert]

Once agian no spell or affect nor anything else should be balanced nor adjusted do to PvP conciderations. Not ever.

[BlueLightBandit]

Complaint:
In Game Experience different from Description.
or
Burning Blood behaves differently than it's description describes it as.

Solution:
Change either Burning Blood, or its description.

Done:
Turbine has already stated they will change the description.

The End.

[Mad_Bombardier]

Ya should have a fort save, but don't you just drink a fire&acid pot and are fully protected?

Oh, or are you talking PVP? eh...don't really care about PVP

Once agian no spell or affect nor anything else should be balanced nor adjusted do to PvP conciderations. Not ever.

Clarification: this has NOTHING to do with PvP! The OP simply experienced/noticed the problem while in PvP.

Burning Blood description was confusing so they changed it. Now, the description is flat-out WRONG. It says, "Save to negate" but a successful save should only remove the first damage tick (effectively buying you time to buff against the effect). Furthermore, there is currently NO SAVE AT ALL. Just like when Holy Smite was broken with no save, and Symbol of Flame was broken with no save.

The save needs to be fixed/reinstated and it needs to prevent the first damage tick ONLY. And the description needs to be rewritten AGAIN, to correctly explain what the save does.

[Elthbert]

Clarification: this has NOTHING to do with PvP! The OP simply experienced/noticed the problem while in PvP.

Burning Blood description was confusing so they changed it. Now, the description is flat-out WRONG. It says, "Save to negate" but a successful save should only remove the first damage tick (effectively buying you time to buff against the effect). Furthermore, there is currently NO SAVE AT ALL. Just like when Holy Smite was broken with no save, and Symbol of Flame was broken with no save.

The save needs to be fixed/reinstated and it needs to prevent the first damage tick ONLY. And the description needs to be rewritten AGAIN, to correctly explain what the save does.

No the complaint ws about it's effects in PvP, the fact that there is a description issue is irrelevant, he is complaining about getting owned in PvP and asking for a nerf to BB. The fact that it is actually having an issue is irrelevant to The OP's posting. Go back and read his post.

[Mad_Bombardier]

No the complaint ws about it's effects in PvP, the fact that there is a description issue is irrelevant, he is complaining about getting owned in PvP and asking for a nerf to BB. The fact that it is actually having an issue is irrelevant to The OP's posting. Go back and read his post.

The Spell Description is NOT irrrelevant. It's the main point. Here's what the OP has to say about the description/save. Yes, at one point, he did suggest a save against every damage tick. But, that was a tangent and never the primary point. His point was that the current INCORRECT description says, "save to negate" and there is no save. Devs need to change the spell to match the incorrect description or rewrite the description to match the game mechanic.

(currently has no save, but description lists it as a fortitude save)

Reported this in game long ago. Please fix this.

Nope. There was never a save. The description was bugged, they dont mess up desriptions later, they fix them as was noted in the release notes. <snip>

And you get no save roll at all, not even vs the first hit.

Burning Blood - In game description:
You taint a living creatures blood with a hot corrosive infusion, dealing both 1d8 points of acid and 1d8 points of fire per round per caster level. A successful Fortitude save negates this effect.

That reads very clearly to me, save and it doesn't work. Pretty cut and dry, no weird incorrect description - they fixed the description as listed in the release notes.

All I'm asking is for the spell to be fixed so it works per the description.
Just doesn't makes sense to me to try to argue against a bug fix.
<snip>
Again, for the third time. IT HAS NO SAVE. Not even on the initial hit. Nothing is shown in the combat log, there are no rolls, and scrolls land on CR 24 mobs 100% of the time imediately with no initial delay.

So please, if you want to continue to post and say theres a save, go test it first.

Wheres the thread asking for it to be nerfed or sayings it overpowered?
Fixing bugs has nothing to do with nerfing.

[Elthbert]

The Spell Description is NOT irrrelevant. It's the main point. Here's what the OP has to say about the description/save. Yes, at one point, he did suggest a save against every damage tick. But, that was a tangent and never the primary point. His point was that the current INCORRECT description says, "save to negate" and there is no save. Devs need to change the spell to match the incorrect description or rewrite the description to match the game mechanic.

I really hate it when people only site part of a post in an attempt to manipulate it into saying what they want it to say.

The entire post:
[QUOTE=Shade;1336274]
Nope. There was never a save. The description was bugged, they dont mess up desriptions later, they fix them as was noted in the release notes. Having it work as you described would make no sense at all, it hits like 20+ times, stoping 1 hit is useless.

And you get no save roll at all, not even vs the first hit.

And 1d8 is not 1d8 in ddo... You know that. Burning blood does over a 100 damage per tic with max enhance/item/feat, then it hits a ton of times as it lasts like 44 seconds, then with the maximum resist at 30, makes it pretty ******** for PvP as a caster can just hit anyone and then run away until there dead, with no save, no spell resist, no dodging, nothing possible to avoid it.[/QUOTE]


THe OP is mad about getting executed in PvP... that is his motivation, he is not complaining about so PvE sorcerer doing this to him, but a guy in PvP. Show me a balance issue with the save in an adventure, and I will be a great supporter, but as a PvP issue, well tough, it's nice to a have a spell which actually does damage to the enemy for a change.

[Shade]

Man nobody can read, not even a guy who quoted me 4 times.

Seriously I think its totally inept to think the descriptiion is wrong, when they already said they fixed the description. Thats like calling turbine an ******, not cool.

My point is much simpler. Make the spell work per the description.

Beleve it or not, the spell functions the same in PvP and PvM. Even if all it does in PvM is cause you to cast a couple buffs, thats not a good reason to ignore a bug.

And just because right now not a single mob max/emps there burning blood does not mean that in the future they wont, then you noobs that never pvp will be here complaining too.

[Shade]

THe OP is mad about getting executed in PvP... that is his motivation, he is not complaining about so PvE sorcerer doing this to him, but a guy in PvP.

Whats your motivation to post?
Pretty clear - You'd prefer the game keep spells that are clearly bugged for your benefit to use.

Sorry but actually purposely exploiting bugs is actually against the CoC and you could be reported for it. In this case the act is pretty innocent regardless so hard to prove, but the rule remains.

[Elthbert]

Man nobody can read, not even a guy who quoted me 4 times.

Seriously I think its totally inept to think the descriptiion is wrong, when they already said they fixed the description. Thats like calling turbine an ******, not cool.

My point is much simpler. Make the spell work per the description.

Beleve it or not, the spell functions the same in PvP and PvM. Even if all it does in PvM is cause you to cast a couple buffs, thats not a good reason to ignore a bug.

And just because right now not a single mob max/emps there burning blood does not mean that in the future they wont, then you noobs that never pvp will be here complaining too.

No then it will be a problem, but it is not a problem if it only a pv[ one.. I think the thing should indeed have it's description rewritten to fit, but that is not what you said you wanted.

[Shade]

No then it will be a problem, but it is not a problem if it only a pv[ one.. I think the thing should indeed have it's description rewritten to fit, but that is not what you said you wanted.

Well what you want, is for turbine to admit there dumb and they messed up the description TWICE. Not only that you want a description that makes no sense and doesn't line up with the PnP version at all.

I want a bug fixed.

Very different.