Question about feeding and the Hunger track.

[Mr. Death]

That would be a matter of opinion.  I don't think the RAW supports this but YMMV.  For me I believe that the Feeding Dependency should be a significant challenge for the character and it becomes much less so if the character can just "take a bite" right in the middle of combat with no downside and that's why I believe the rules make it an all or nothing proposition (at least in scene, anyway.)

Well, the way I look at it, feeding means he's not doing something else.

Say for the sake of argument that feeding works the way I proposed--you take the straight roll difference as stress swapping, without factoring in claws or strength. That means that while the vampire's gaining nourishment, he's doing a much less effective job of actually taking out his opponent, and therefore he's semi-compelled into taking a less-than-optimal action in battle if he wants to feed effectively.

[Jimmy]

It's the latter.

This pretty clearly contradicts your interpretation. It actually uses the word must.

But the next bit implies that your interpretation is correct, and frankly I like your way better.

That being said, you are not clearly right. The people who disagree with your interpretation are not delusional, not stupid, not illiterate, and not wrong.

Ah, got you there, I wasn't claiming my interpretation as definitive, just an interpretation and I agree with you that it's written poorly there. As we haven't had someone take a Feeding Dependant character yet we haven't had a chance to flesh out our way of handling this.

What's everyone's opinion on allowing a declaration using a feeding ability (through skill roll as an attack, of course) to grant an aspect to tag as a bonus to the Hunger roll? I'm keen to see what people think.

[Tedronai]

Making a declaration along the lines of 'that mook was a tasty snack', and using the tag, or subsequent invoke, to boost defense against the Hunger roll would seem perfectly legitimate, to me, RAW and otherwise.

It could also serve as a short-term patch if someone wanted something to represent the benefits of in-combat-feeding while awaiting or working on a more substantial rework of Feeding Dependency in general (or as a smaller-scale replacement for such a rework, though I do think that it would leave a few issues unaddressed).

[Silverblaze]

Pretty sure taking stress means the attack connected and was not dodged etc.

I'd say anytime you take stress the hit was at least a graze.  Unlike in Star Wars D20 where Vitality is narrow misses tiring you down.

Here's why:

#1. Size powers add stress.  I've met plenty of big guys who do not deal with fatigue or mental stress any better than anyone half their size.   This leads me to believe physical  stresses are things like scrapes, bruises, little cuts, grazes etc.

#2 Strength powers: How does dodging a attack from an ogre with a strength power take more out of you than dodging a guy with a knife or dodging a bullet.  The physical force obviously plays a factor. Follow my logic for a moment.



Now, I can see how dodging wears someone down in a fight and makes them get slow and then get hit (consequences).  However, at the very least Size powers begin to shoot holes in that line of thought.

I suppose there is room for both views, but size powers make it easier to believe that the hits are indeed connecting in order to remove stress.

I also think number of consequences and size powers should contribute to feeding.  there is simply more blood in something much larger than an average being.  I would also think additional mild consequences should play some part in feeding: mild consequences allow you to take more damage before being taken out... so it isn't a far leap to assume more tasty; nutritious  life force is in there.

in the case of emotional vampire: I think mild mental consequences should offer more food as would any [ this is going to sound REAL dumb ] mental size powers.

(I know this was explained away in Vampire The Masquerade by stating life force is a matter of quality vs quantity...so that can shoot a hole in my theory on size powers and mild consequences easily.)

[Tedronai]

Silverblaze, even with the application of a consequence, the attack has the possibility of missing (narratively, at least).
My go-to example here, is the 'Mack Truck'.

And yet you somehow manage to conclude that stress in the absence of consequences can mandate a 'narrative hit'?

[Silverblaze]

Why does size grant stresses then?

[Tedronai]

Sometimes it is appropriate for stress-only attacks to be represented narratively as 'successful'.  I do not believe that such should be unilaterally mandated by the attacker as would be necessitated by the inclusion of feeding benefits from stress-only attacks.

Why is a Mack Truck travelling at highway speeds capable of inflicting 'sprained ankle'?

[Silverblaze]

Sometimes it is appropriate for stress-only attacks to be represented narratively as 'successful'.  I do not believe that such should be unilaterally mandated by the attacker as would be necessitated by the inclusion of feeding benefits from stress-only attacks.

Why is a Mack Truck travelling at highway speeds capable of inflicting 'sprained ankle'?

Because I'm a badass.

If you were looking for logic, I have none...though a sprained ankle indicates a hit was at least successful. Not totally dodged.

[Tedronai]

The 'hit' was mechanically successful, but in all probability, and the absence of substantial Toughness, you sprained that ankle in your (narratively successful) attempt to dodge that truck.
Narratively, the truck missed.  Mechanically, the attack hit.

[Sanctaphrax]

The separation between narrative and mechanics is, once again, super important. If I had to pick one thing that everyone should understand about this game, it'd be that.

Ah, got you there, I wasn't claiming my interpretation as definitive...

You said that your position is clearly stated in Your Story. If that's not a claim of definitive-ness, what is?

The Declaration-tag thing could work, but it feels like an ugly band-aid.

[Radecliffe]

Making a declaration along the lines of 'that mook was a tasty snack', and using the tag, or subsequent invoke, to boost defense against the Hunger roll would seem perfectly legitimate, to me, RAW and otherwise.

It could also serve as a short-term patch if someone wanted something to represent the benefits of in-combat-feeding while awaiting or working on a more substantial rework of Feeding Dependency in general (or as a smaller-scale replacement for such a rework, though I do think that it would leave a few issues unaddressed).

I would say the exact opposite.  If a vampire has taken Hunger stress that means he/she is Hungry and if he/she has lost powers they'd be really Hungry.  I don't see taking a sip and saying "I'm good!" to be much of an option.  It's like an alcoholic walking into a bar, having one drink and then walk right back out like nothing happened.   

[Mr. Death]

That's what compels are for. But given the habits of both Red and White court vampires in the fiction, it's clearly entirely possible for them to feed, and be well-fed, without killing. And if feeding without killing is an option during play, then it should have an effect during play.

In regard to the 'stress as a narrative hit' thing...honestly, it doesn't matter. The power says, "If you cause your target to bleed." So make that a prerequisite: If you want to feed, the target has to be bleeding. Whether he's bleeding from a consequence or from a stress hit doesn't matter. What matters is whether he's bleeding, and yes, it's possible to be bleeding from a stress hit.

Then, in the next exchange after bleeding is established, the character can choose to do a feeding attack, justified in their trying to eat from the previously-established wound.

[YPU]

I would say the exact opposite.  If a vampire has taken Hunger stress that means he/she is Hungry and if he/she has lost powers they'd be really Hungry.  I don't see taking a sip and saying "I'm good!" to be much of an option.  It's like an alcoholic walking into a bar, having one drink and then walk right back out like nothing happened.

Ooh, I like that point of view. Its not a logical sane message from your body saying your running low on fuel, its much more like an addiction. Your awesome when your high, but your terrible when your low, and your ready to do everything to get back that high.

[Radecliffe]

That's what compels are for. But given the habits of both Red and White court vampires in the fiction, it's clearly entirely possible for them to feed, and be well-fed, without killing. And if feeding without killing is an option during play, then it should have an effect during play.

I completely agree with this, but not during a physical conflict and not while you needing a fix at the same time.  Look at what happened in White Night. 
  It turned into a case  of fight or feed (but not both) depending on how flipped out they were.

In regard to the 'stress as a narrative hit' thing...honestly, it doesn't matter. The power says, "If you cause your target to bleed." So make that a prerequisite: If you want to feed, the target has to be bleeding. Whether he's bleeding from a consequence or from a stress hit doesn't matter. What matters is whether he's bleeding, and yes, it's possible to be bleeding from a stress hit.

Then, in the next exchange after bleeding is established, the character can choose to do a feeding attack, justified in their trying to eat from the previously-established wound.

You are taking a power that gives one benefit (+1 to attacks) and then just extrapolating yourself another benefit (erases stress/restores powers) out of whole cloth.  As a house rule it's fine if your group goes for that, but under the RAW I don't see it.  It also bothers me a little that you appear to want to just gloss over the Taste of Death and Feeding Frenzy aspects of Feeding Dependency. 

[Mr. Death]

I completely agree with this, but not during a physical conflict and not while you needing a fix at the same time.  Look at what happened in White Night. 
  It turned into a case  of fight or feed (but not both) depending on how flipped out they were.

Well, yes. Those would be the compels. And why I suggested that feeding attacks not take into account things like Strength and Claws.

"Here's a fate point. You're so hungry you are going to be too focused on feeding to fight or hold yourself back."

You are taking a power that gives one benefit (+1 to attacks) and then just extrapolating yourself another benefit (erases stress/restores powers) out of whole cloth.  As a house rule it's fine if your group goes for that, but under the RAW I don't see it.  It also bothers me a little that you appear to want to just gloss over the Taste of Death and Feeding Frenzy aspects of Feeding Dependency.

Well, no. If you feed, you reduce hunger. That's hardly "extrapolating another benefit out of whole cloth." That's pretty much the purpose of feeding.

And no, I don't want go gloss over either. Feeding Frenzy is the stuff of compels, which I've mentioned before, and the Taste of Death is still going to come up--particularly if you're feeding on someone who just isn't that tough and is going to fold up and die after a comparatively small stress hit, or if you have a whole hell of a lot of powers that need to be replenished (lookin' at you, Black Court).