Hunger stress (but not consequences and/or lost powers) is cleared entirely upon a successful defense roll against the hunger 'attack'.Yes, I am aware of that. I think I phrased the question wrong (not surprising since I'm exhausted). My real question is do you allow a player to feed mid combat (or even out of combat in some situations), without actually killing someone, in your games? If so, what mechanics do you use? I ask because I feel that, logically, a vampire who is Hungry, but not necessarily Famished, may want to feed, without killing someone, and the game rules should provide a method for doing so. Further, I feel there is support for this in the books, based on several vampires routinely feeding without killing.
There's nothing in the books that suggests that every feeding is or should be fatal.I don't think anyone is advocating against this interpretation.
The way I read it, you do a feeding "attack," and however much physical stress you do to the bleeding enemy is how much stress you get back on the hunger track.I would say that I do not see anything in the text of either feeding powers or feeding dependency itself that would lead me to this conclusion. Moreover, I highly suspect that a meaningful analysis would find this interpretation to quite thoroughly neuter any 'bite' that feeding dependency has, and thus its justification for providing a rebate.
I don't think anyone is advocating against this interpretation.The OP's question amounts to "is it possible to feed without killing?" That's what I was answering, since he seemed to be under the impression that feeding was fatal to the victim by default.
I would say that I do not see anything in the text of either feeding powers or feeding dependency itself that would lead me to this conclusion. Moreover, I highly suspect that a meaningful analysis would find this interpretation to quite thoroughly neuter any 'bite' that feeding dependency has, and thus its justification for providing a rebate.Neither power says it explicitly, no. But both powers refer to the player "inflict[ing] enough stress and consequences to kill a victim from feeding." I.e., that feeding is done as an attack, which causes stress to the victim. Further, Emotional Vampire says,
This is done as a psychological attack with an appropriate skill (usually Deceit or Intimidation). If you have the Incite Emotion ability, inciting the emotion and feeding on it may be done as a single action, based on a single roll.
The first is feeding resulting in a death. This relieves the vampire of all hunger, clearing the hunger stress track, clearing hunger-related consequencesBy my reading, lethal feedings clear all stress tracks.
There's nothing in the books that suggests that every feeding is or should be fatal. The way I read it, you do a feeding "attack," and however much physical stress you do to the bleeding enemy is how much stress you get back on the hunger track.Like Tedronai, this isn't my interpretation of the rules. However, like you, the rules lead me to believe that this should be viable. But I also feel that of you inflict four stress and wipe out all boxes on the Hunger track up to and including the fourth, it takes the sting out of feeding dependency.
By my reading, lethal feedings clear all stress tracks.Right, because it grants a scene's worth of healing -- which clears all of the normal stress tracks and mild consequences (and may do considerably more, depending on the character's Recovery).
Maybe if the feeding attack doesn't include strength or claws powers, or just weapon ratings in general. That would make it so feeding was less advantageous while in combat, since it would reduce the attack power of most creatures that would have a feeding dependency. Plus you'd need to have a really, really good roll compared to the target to get substantial nourishment out of it.
Because we know from the canon that it's possible to feed substantially without killing, and there really needs to be a way for Red Court Infected players to combat hunger stress without either going full vampire or sitting out bunches of scenes in a row.
Not entirely sure if you recover your powers with a successful defence roll, but I am sure somebody will be along to answer that any time now.
Just the stress track, I'm afraid.Yea I just noticed a post earlier in the topic actually mentioning it. My bad.
Though whether the loss of powers is mandatory or just another option alongside consequences to 'soak' the stress is a matter of debate.
And the quickest way to do that is by killing.
Otherwise, you end up going the Toe-Moss route and spending large portions of your days, for weeks at a time, doing nothing of much importance other than 'safely' feeding (combined with whatever activity you dress that feeding up with/as).
Player of WCV to GM: "Actually, I'll buy that off, since I don't want to kill anyone. Here's a fate point. What are my other options?"GM: No, you were refunded a refresh to open yourself up to the hard choice of playing without (some of your) powers, killing, or sitting out scenes. The compel you just refused was to limit your options even further. If you don't like the way this character is working out for you, there should be a Milestone coming up pretty soon where we can try to address the problem.
GM: "Oh, you'll have to sit out half a dozen scenes instead."
Player: "So, what you're saying is that I just spent a fate point to either play without powers or not play at all? That sounds incredibly unfair."
Or...GM: Well, during that scene you also suffered a number of attacks that were affected by your Recovery power, despite the additional speed granted to you by your Speed power, and restrained your victim with your Strength power. All of that was quite strenuous.
Player: "So I just spent the whole last scene of conflict feeding, filling up all my opponent's stress boxes and causing a moderate mental consequence of, 'Addicted To Love,' just through feeding attacks. How many stress do I recover on my Hunger track?"
GM: "None."
Player: "What?"
GM: "Well, it was on screen and you didn't kill him, so since the rules don't explicitly say exactly what the mechanism is for in-game feeding, you don't get anything out of it."
Player: "Well, that's incredibly unfair."
GM: No, you were refunded a refresh to open yourself up to the hard choice of playing without (some of your) powers, killing, or sitting out scenes. The compel you just refused was to limit your options even further. If you don't like the way this character is working out for you, there should be a Milestone coming up pretty soon where we can try to address the problem.I'm not talking about character creation. I'm talking about that situation in particular: the GM is offering a fate point to compel a character to do something he wouldn't want (killing an innocent)--and the only way out of it is to pay a fate point to do something the player doesn't want (not playing or playing without powers).
GM: You're right, you didn't actually exert your Hunger significantly during that scene, sp you should gain some benefit. We'll take a look at the power later for a more permanent solution, but for now, I'll give you the benefit as though you had 'sat out' one scene for the purposes of recovering from your Feeding Dependency. You won't get more than that since you didn't actually indulge in a lethal feeding."So I caused over 8 shifts of effect, but only got one shift of benefit out of it? That still seems pretty darn unfair."
The problem with this is that stress is usually meaningless. Seriously, inflicting stress doesn't even require you to hurt the target at all.That's when you break out the compels--and make them really roll for it. Hand out fate points to make it so that the feeder's feeding roll is a lot higher than normal (you're really, really hungry...), or the other is defending badly (you don't really realize how hungry she is and don't put up any resistance...), so there's the risk of the feedee taking consequences over it.
And stress goes away very quickly, at no cost.
So your proposed revision would promote munchkin-ish shenanigans in which people inflict small amounts of stress on their allies in order to recover hunger stress.
I'm not talking about character creation. I'm talking about that situation in particular: the GM is offering a fate point to compel a character to do something he wouldn't want (killing an innocent)--and the only way out of it is to pay a fate point to do something the player doesn't want (not playing or playing without powers).Then the player should not have, at character creation, chosen to play a character that was likely to be limited to those choices. Those are the Rules As Written, so barring Houserules, those are the rules the game is played by.
Saying that the only options are killing or sitting out scenes is reading the rules far too stringently, in my opinion. Nothing in the books or in the canon say that the only way to get substantial feeding is through killing--take Thomas and Justine pre-Blood Rites, for example. And forcing a player to only recover non-lethally by not playing for long stretches at a time just plain isn't fair to the player.A solution to this would be called a Houserule. And depending on its specifics, one I would wholeheartedly endorse. The Feeding Dependency rules are not well written, and could definitely use some tweaking, both in terms of having elegant mechanics and in terms of shaping those mechanics to more closely resemble the novels. But changing those rules? Still a houserule.
So I caused over 8 shifts of effect, but only got one shift of benefit out of it? That still seems pretty darn unfair."
Once more: We see in the canon that creatures can feed, substantially, without killing. Red and White Court vampires do it all the time, and in fact seem to prefer it that way, and always seem to be at the top of their game. A Red Court Infected player would end up with little choice but to sit out long stretches if that's the case, which just plain isn't fun for that player.
Then the player should not have, at character creation, chosen to play a character that was likely to be limited to those choices. Those are the Rules As Written, so barring Houserules, those are the rules the game is played by.Then how do you reconcile the text of the feeding powers--where it describes the act of feeding as attacks--with the idea that that feeding is meaningless if it isn't fatal? A fatal feeding is described as a possibility in the text, meaning that it's not the default. If a character isn't gaining sustenance from it, then by definition it's not feeding.
A solution to this would be called a Houserule. And depending on its specifics, one I would wholeheartedly endorse. The Feeding Dependency rules are not well written, and could definitely use some tweaking, both in terms of having elegant mechanics and in terms of shaping those mechanics to more closely resemble the novels. But changing those rules? Still a houserule.
Then how do you reconcile the text of the feeding powers--where it describes the act of feeding as attacks--with the idea that that feeding is meaningless if it isn't fatal? A fatal feeding is described as a possibility in the text, meaning that it's not the default. If a character isn't gaining sustenance from it, then by definition it's not feeding.Easily: by noting the fact that the text in no place describes any mechanically-backed 'nourishing' effect of non-fatal feedings apart from their (barely) implicit inclusion in the 'sit out a scene' option.
I think that was the intention: That feeding would be an in-game action, with fatal feeding as a possibility and sitting things out as another option, akin to doing the same for thaumaturgy rituals.If that was the intention, then the writers failed. And as I implied above, I do think the writers failed.
Otherwise, it's akin to saying that a man dying of thirst won't get any relief by drinking several glasses from a 5-gallon jug, but instead has to drink the whole jug all at once.
To begin with, an attack that inflicts stress without having any other effect (some portion of stress being 'soaked' as consequences, a 'Special Effect' attack, etc) is not necessarily appropriately described, narrateively, as a 'successful' attack. The punch likely did not actually land, the bullet highly likely did not hit, the mack truck probably didn't even get all that close.This is very similar to what I had in mind. Here's a brief outline on what I was considering:
In terms of feeding, that means it is probably not appropriately described as providing any nourishment. That attempt at taking a psychic bite out of your target's life force came up with, at most, a chunk of metaphoric gristle.
I would recommend something along the lines of clearing a single stress box of a value equal to or less than 1/2 the value of any consequence inflicted, with multiple consequences clearing multiple stress boxes.
The main problem I have with that is two-fold. First, in the canon, we've seen relatively minor "wounds" make up for significant loss of power. In Changes, Susan recovers from having her spine broken (a Severe consequence at least) in moments (implying Supernatural Recovery), from Harry cutting his hand and dripping just a bit of blood into her mouth (at most a mild physical consequence). That's a 4-shift power being recovered by, at most, a 2-shift consequence.I don't recall the details on that one. Is there evidence suggesting that her Supernatural Recovery was actually lost at any point, or is this just another example of the narrative of the novels being wholly opaque when it comes to interpreting the application of the mechanics of the game? (ex. try finding a definitive example of Harry refusing a compel, I dare you)
And bleeding in and of itself doesn't need to be a consequence. By my read, it's only really a consequence if it somehow hinders the character--a light cut above the eye doesn't have enough bite to be a consequence, for example, unless it's bleeding bad enough to get into your eyes and obscure vision.Anything that isn't a consequence, though, doesn't necessarily hit at all. Even inflicting a consequence with an attack doesn't necessarily mean that your attack connected.
The second thing is, practically speaking, causing a Moderate consequence isn't really creating a 4-shift effect, since most characters aren't going to take a consequence unless the hit would've broken through their whole stress track. Ergo, with Rougarou's proposition, you'd only be able to recover 2 shifts of hunger stress by causing 7- or 8-shifts of stress.Again. Shifts absorbed by the stress track are not shifts of success.
While I'm still personally in favor of direct shift-for-shift trade-off, how about one of these:Stress track hits are not narrative hits.
A. Direct shift-for-shift stress swapping for boxes on the hunger track, but to recover powers or consequences, you have to cause consequences of equal strength. (Don't like this one much, honestly.)
B. Instead of halving the consequence value, halve the total shift strength of the attack--so if you cause 8 shifts of stress, you can recover up to 4 hunger stress boxes.Stress track hits, even halved, are not narrative hits.
C. Make hunger attacks consequential contests (Don't much like this one either, because it doesn't make much sense if the defender wins and causes a consequence).Feeding can cause someone to be Taken Out. It should be an attack. And I agree, that 'defender wins' scenario doesn't make sense.
Stress track hits are not narrative hits.What do you consider a 'narrative hit'? Because under RAW, every time you record stress on your track (as opposed to buying the stress down to zero through consequences), you also lose access to powers. And while the stress track can recover completely simply by succeeding on a later hunger roll, the powers don't come back until you either kill someone while feeding or sit out scenes. (All of which I consider to be very poorly designed rules.)
Stress track hits, even halved, are not narrative hits.
I don't recall the details on that one. Is there evidence suggesting that her Supernatural Recovery was actually lost at any point, or is this just another example of the narrative of the novels being wholly opaque when it comes to interpreting the application of the mechanics of the game? (ex. try finding a definitive example of Harry refusing a compel, I dare you)It's after their duel with the vampires in the Erlking's hall. Susan takes a bad hit, and is lying there unconscious with her back twisted the wrong way around. She doesn't stir or heal at all until Harry feeds her some of his blood (implying that she's too hungry for the power to work, i.e. she failed her hunger check and had to buy out with a power). Once she's fed, she immediately, automatically twists back into shape without conscious effort (implying that Harry's feeding her was enough to restore the power).
Anything that isn't a consequence, though, doesn't necessarily hit at all. Even inflicting a consequence with an attack doesn't necessarily mean that your attack connected.Isn't necessarily =/= never is the case. If the victim is solely choosing all the results of an attack, then no vampire will ever be able to feed on a PC's blood.
And that's not even getting into the issue of the consequence being chosen by the victim of the attack.
'Your RCV was trying to eviscerate me and drink my blood and managed to inflict a minor consequence? I stubbed my toe on a table as I dodged his claws.'
From a narrative perspective, allowing feeding from any consequence is extremely generous.
Again. Shifts absorbed by the stress track are not shifts of success....Are they shifts of failure, then? They're not meaningless, because they can have a tangible outcome on events. If I cause stress on someone, that means the attack was successful. A Fists attack that causes 4 stress means it was a Great success.
Stress track hits are not narrative hits.I can read very well, thank you. Bolding an entire line is entirely unnecessary and a little rude. You may not intend it at such, but putting something in bold like that strikes me as the equivalent of going, "Hey, stupid!"
Stress track hits, even halved, are not narrative hits.
Three things I don't like about the feeding dependency rules (RAW):
1) The results of taking hunger stress are huge, unlike any other stress type. Any time you take hunger stress you lose powers, and if you don't have powers left to lose then you're taken out regardless of the normal rules for take-outs. Not only that, but even when you do recover from the stress, you don't recover from the associated loss of powers.
What do you consider a 'narrative hit'?If you're firing a gun, a 'narrative hit' would include the bullet striking its target in a meaningful way. If you're swinging a sword, then the sword connects in some meaningful way with your target.
Because under RAW, every time you record stress on your track (as opposed to buying the stress down to zero through consequences), you also lose access to powers. And while the stress track can recover completely simply by succeeding on a later hunger roll, the powers don't come back until you either kill someone while feeding or sit out scenes. (All of which I consider to be very poorly designed rules.)That is one way to read the RAW. It's also one of the first things I'd fix with any houserule to Feeding Dependency.
Seems to me that losing access to powers is pretty significant.
It's after their duel with the vampires in the Erlking's hall. Susan takes a bad hit, and is lying there unconscious with her back twisted the wrong way around. She doesn't stir or heal at all until Harry feeds her some of his blood (implying that she's too hungry for the power to work, i.e. she failed her hunger check and had to buy out with a power). Once she's fed, she immediately, automatically twists back into shape without conscious effort (implying that Harry's feeding her was enough to restore the power).Had enough time actually passed since the initially injury that it can reasonably be said that it definitely would have been healed if the power had not been lost, though?
Isn't necessarily =/= never is the case.Attaching feeding benefits logically imposes that it often, or possibly always, depending on the benefits provided, would have to be the case, though.
If the victim is solely choosing all the results of an attack, then no vampire will ever be able to feed on a PC's blood....And yet, with the exception of limitations on the basis of 'reasonableness', the victim IS solely choosing all the results of any attack that stops short of taking that character out.
Are they shifts of failure, then? They're not meaningless, because they can have a tangible outcome on events. If I cause stress on someone, that means the attack was successful. A Fists attack that causes 4 stress means it was a Great success.Mechanically, they contribute to eventual success. Narratively, they could just as easily represent failure. It would just be a failure that cost the target something to ensure.
I can read very well, thank you. Bolding an entire line is entirely unnecessary and a little rude. You may not intend it at such, but putting something in bold like that strikes me as the equivalent of going, "Hey, stupid!"That was not my intent, and I apologize.
And, anyway, this isn't accurate. They're not necessarily narrative hits--but they can be. A shallow, bleeding cut that doesn't actually debilitate the character in any way is a perfectly fine example of stress. Hell, the rulebook even mentions that getting punched in the face is stress.Getting punched in the face can be stress. So can ducking that same punch.
Did you perhaps mean to say this differently? Because anytime you take Hunger stress you do not need to lose powers. You may OPT to lose powers to pay off the stress hit, much like taking a consequence.
This is an old argument. Because of not-very-good writing, it's not clear how it works. If you think your interpretation is definitively correct, you are fooling yourself.
If you have physical or mental consequence slots open, you may use them to buy off the stress as per the normal rules (page 203). If you cannot or do not wish to spare consequences, then you must lose access to a number of your powers, up to a refresh cost equal to the amount of stress taken.
Had enough time actually passed since the initially injury that it can reasonably be said that it definitely would have been healed if the power had not been lost, though?Admittedly, the way feeding dependency works in the canon doesn't typically match up with how it works in the game--the canon seems to treat it more along the lines of a fuel tank. A vampire has a finite reserve of energy, and uses some of it up with each power usage, and has to top up afterward.
Because otherwise, I could just as easily see that as simply a well-roleplayed bit of fluff.
Attaching feeding benefits logically imposes that it often, or possibly always, depending on the benefits provided, would have to be the case, though.The reasonableness would have to cut both ways, then. If it's reasonable that the attack could make someone bleed and the vampire's making a deliberate effort to feed, then the GM has to moderate it. But again, it's still a possibility, so there's no reason to rule it out.
And yet, with the exception of limitations on the basis of 'reasonableness', the victim IS solely choosing all the results of any attack that stops short of taking that character out.
Mechanically, they contribute to eventual success. Narratively, they could just as easily represent failure. It would just be a failure that cost the target something to ensure.Again, since it can go either way, I see no reason to exclude them. The feeding power just says, "If you cause your target to bleed" after all--it says nothing about it being a consequence.
Getting punched in the face can be stress. So can ducking that same punch.And I disagree.
And attaching feeding benefits to that stress logically mandates that there be some sort of connection that allows feeding. I find this to be inappropriate.
Again, since it can go either way, I see no reason to exclude them. The feeding power just says, "If you cause your target to bleed" after all--it says nothing about it being a consequence.
Failure Recovery. You can recover your lost abilities at the rate of up to one point per scene so long as you opt out of the scene, essentially because you are spending it feeding. You can regain all of your lost abilities in one scene if you feed so forcefully as to kill a victim outright. In either case, your hunger stress clears out completely, and any consequences that resulted from feeding failure vanish
Where does it say that? As far as the RAW it appears to me that if you have lost powers it is because you have failed a hunger check. The following paragraph appears to outline the only ways to get your powers back again:I'm referring to the Blood Drinker power, not the Feeding Dependency power.
Feeding safely takes time OR you can feed fast and kill someone. Now I can see doing a house rule that does it differently so long as your group doesn't care but that does seem to trivialize the feeding dependency to me.Yes, but there should be degrees between "get miniscule recovery over a period lasting up to an hour" and "kill and recover totally."
As far as how the books work vs. the RAW... well that is a problem for every game system I've every played that has fiction to go along with it. It generally works a little better when the rules come first but regardless there will be times when author fiat trumps rules no matter what.Yes, but the rules should come as close as they can to what's seen in the narrative if we're talking about a game based directly on said narrative.
I'm referring to the Blood Drinker power, not the Feeding Dependency power.
Yes, but there should be degrees between "get miniscule recovery over a period lasting up to an hour" and "kill and recover totally."
Yes, but the rules should come as close as they can to what's seen in the narrative if we're talking about a game based directly on said narrative.
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.
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.
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'?
Ah, got you there, I wasn't claiming my interpretation as definitive...
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.
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.
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.Well, yes. Those would be the compels. And why I suggested that feeding attacks not take into account things like Strength and Claws.
It turned into a case of fight or feed (but not both) depending on how flipped out they were.
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.
Okay, how about this. To feed in-scene:
A. Bleeding must be established. This can be done through a consequence, maneuver, or even stress if the target/GM allows it.
B. After bleeding is established, if the vampire wishes to feed, it rolls an appropriate skill (Fists) as an attack, without taking into account weapon ratings or strength powers. The shift difference of a successful attack translates into shifts the vampire will gain as sustenance.
C. A single feeding attack can clear one Hunger stress box equal to or less than the amount of shifts gained on the feeding. A successful feeding attack that inflicts 2 stress, then, can erase the highest stress box between 1 and 2, but not 3 or 4. If you inflict a consequence, that allows you to clear the Hunger stress equal to the level of the consequence in addition to the stress box filled on your opponent's track after the consequence.
D. Powers can be regained either through inflicting consequences via feeding (with each consequence allowing the restoration of powers equal in refresh to the shifts of the consequence) or through a successful feeding attack when there are no hunger stress boxes filled--that 2-stress successful attack can restore up to 2 refresh of powers, if the vampire has no hunger stress already.
Things like feeding frenzy should be handled via compels (Here's a fate point--you can do nothing but feed, and unless you're stopped you'll kill the target).
Thoughts?
If the vampire kills a victim through feeding, then he is sated (at least temporarily): clear all hunger stress and hunger consequences.The bolded section goes substantially beyond the RAW.
I still think that making it so easy to clear hunger is not in the spirit of the template you've chosen. If you can so easily push aside such a fundemantal flaw of a supernatural creature it would hardly be worth the +1 to refresh now wouldn't it?
Introducing a system to exchange stress hits for hunger stress to me is just an example of a player trying to min/max in my opinion...
PS: Tedronai, I think you're looking at the wrong section of the rules. The relevant section here isn't Blood Drinker, it's Feeding Dependency.
I can't remember which book it was, but Thomas gives Harry a very good description of what its like to take 'sips' while hungry, after racing him down the beach and back again. Thomas lets him take a slight draw on a bottle of water and then slaps it away. That's just what feeding in combat should be like. It's giving you a taste of whats to come and allowing your demon to fight with you some more (hence the extra damage). Feeding during combat is not the same as feeding at your leisure, and the rules reflect this as written.Becq is correct here--in fact, Thomas uses that example to contrast how he was when he was feeding on Justine regularly (daily, I believe--without significant harm to her). Ergo, a vampire can feed, substantially, on a single person on a regular basis, without killing them.
Introducing a system to exchange stress hits for hunger stress to me is just an example of a player trying to min/max in my opinion, if you find the hunger rules are too restrictive maybe you shouldn't think about playing a character who is cursed with a demon living inside you trying to make you into a monster.Sanctaphrax is correct, and I'll clarify further: I'm not a player with a character who has feeding dependency--I'm GMing a game where one of the players has it, and I want to figure out a way for it to work right.
* Each consequence fed from allows the vampire to clear one lesser hunger-related effect; feeding from a severe consequence allows a moderate or mild hunger consequence to be cleared, and feeding from a mild consequence can clear a single hunger stress box. If the vampire kills a victim through feeding, then he is sated (at least temporarily): clear all hunger stress and hunger consequences.
The bolded section goes substantially beyond the RAW.I disagree with your interpretation of the following exerpt from the RAW:
A lethal feeding allows the vampire to gain the benefit of a scene's worth of healing. It is not likely to heal even a severe physical consequence, and those are modified by Recovery powers. Hunger consequence recovery is not so modified.
You can regain all of your lost abilities in one scene if you feed so forcefully as to kill a victim outright. In either case, your hunger stress clears out completely, and any consequences that resulted from feeding failure vanish regardless of the usual recovery time.