Question about feeding and the Hunger track.

[Mr. Death]

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?

[Becq]

I'd suggest that feeding should be 'lossy' -- that is, that feeding should benefit the vampire less than it harms the victim.  So, for example, inflicting a moderate allows you to clear a mild hunger consequence, and so on.  See my post earlier (page 3, I think) for my take.

[Tedronai]

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?

It's a substantial improvement over what you seemed to be presenting earlier, but I'm still wary that it would devalue to costs of being Feeding Dependant.
I think it's good enough to go into playtesting, though.

[Jimmy]

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?

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.

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.

[Becq]

Some good points.

Regarding Thomas' "sipping", though, (and I'll put this in spoiler tags because it save me the effort of checking to see whether any part of this violates the spoiler rules):

(click to show/hide)

I think he was specifically trying to sip so lightly that none of his 'victims' would even realize that anything untoward was happening.  In earlier books, however, I believe that he had been routinely feeding from Justine, though short of causing serious harm to her.  My recollection was that while there was the constant temptation to "go all the way", he was able to control it yet still was able to exert himself.  It was only when he was critically wounded and near death that feeding from Justine caused significant harm to her.

This would argue in favor of having a middle ground of some sort.

Distinguishing between "combat" feeding and "at leisure" feeding makes a good deal of sense.  At first I was going to argue that RCVs always use combat feeding, but then I realized that the don't; they subdue their victims with their narcotic saliva, then feed from an artificially willing victim, much like a WCV.

So perhaps the system should look like a combination of some of the thoughts above:

* First, a vampire can only "sip" from a victim (enough to barely sustain the vampire, but little more) that has not been subdued.  Only a victim rendered unable to resist allows the vampire to feed more deeply.  Taking a target out with Incite or Addictive Saliva would certainly qualify, though more conventional means including knocking the victim unconscious also work.
* Once the victim is subdued, the target can feed from each consequence consistent with the vampire's feeding habits (emotional consequences for WCVs, trauma for RCVs).  The vampire can inflict new consequences and feed from them if consequence slots are available.  Either way, the vampire can benefit from one consequence per exchange spent feeding (starting with mild and working upward).
* 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.

Note that the above rules still allow a vampire to feed while in combat, but require a victim that has been 'taken out' and takes several exchanges to accomplish.  It might also be interesting to add in a control roll to simulate the struggle Jimmy referred to.  Perhaps after feeding from each consequence, the vampire should roll Discipline to control the urge to feed from the next consequence, then the next, and so on until the victim is dead.

[Tedronai]

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.
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.

[Jimmy]

I agree with Tedronai here, there shouldn't be any extra reward for killing them while feeding beyond what you get through inflicting consequences.

[Sanctaphrax]

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?

I agree. Feeding Dependency is already easily ignored by some characters, it should not be made more so.

On the other hand...

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...

I doubt it. Mr. Death is not inclined towards that sort of thing.

It looks to me like he just finds that the rules fail to create the narrative he wants, which is an excellent reason to change things.

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.

[Tedronai]

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.

My mistake, I missed that last sentence.

[Mr. Death]

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.

@Becq: I like this

* 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.

But I'm not so hot on the victim having to be taken out first, mainly because you tend to allow yourself to be taken out to avoid taking further consequences. I think it might be more appropriate to have to place a maneuver on them to keep the victim temporarily complacent (incite emotion or addictive saliva), but still have it be in play and allow the victim to act.

Even without subduing them, though, the vampire wouldn't likely have carte blanche to just feed and feed--the victim still has turns to themselves, as does whatever allies the victim might have. A Red Court vampire might get one turn of feeding in before the victim manages to throw them off or one of their allies pounces--hell, you could easily make a declaration or a compel that the vampire's too busy feeding to adequately defend himself and give yourself a bonus to such an attack.

[Becq]

The bolded section goes substantially beyond 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.

I disagree with your interpretation of the following exerpt from the RAW:

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.