Author Topic: Give voracious a mechanical drawback  (Read 3372 times)

Ryujin

  • The Wayfarer Kinship
  • Dark Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2023, 07:22:08 PM »
I understand in some cases there can be danger and severe consequences if caught but I've often seen the act tolerated for some inexplicable reason.

...and...

Quote
The whole onus is just having players respect using it (which yes, i've seen many of them not do this). If that angle could get cleared up more it would be much more successful as an RP tool. Because it already has implicit drawbacks by it's very nature. It's just reliant on character perception to actually make it come out.

If there is a mechanical problem, then by all means ask the Devs to fix it, but if the problem is primarily one of RP (that is, on players), then players (along with DMs) need to try to address it themselves.

When Voracious was first introduced, many players--particularly those new to the server--grabbed it for the obvious mechanical benefits and learned only later all of its RP downsides. In fact, much forum discussion ensued about the need perhaps to make explicit that a character might well have a very short (and sometimes frustrating) game life because of the social limits of being a cannibal in a society in which cannibalism is viewed as it is in most of the Core. Some thought the feat should be gated in some way.

If all that has swung the other way, it is not because mechanics have changed but because players are likely slipping too much into complacency about something that should be viewed as "forbidden, profane, and perverse."

Character longevity is definitely something to consider when taking voracious.  I personally wouldnt recommend anyone takes it until theyre in the mid - high range of levels and have friends and the legs to stand on their own.  Or the skills to hide their acts more easily (stealth or disguise).  You can live without the 2 str and con easily enough early on.  Getting it later will feel like a big jump when you're getting like 30 more hp.

Even then- Voracious counts towards the ability cap from spells/effects. You're not going to have benefits from it later on when you venture in a party, since you're able to hit the cap easily without it. There is no need for additional mechanical drawbacks, when those that take it already have significant social drawback, depending on RP.
Active: Naexalim Alearaheal. Chen Mei
Shelved: Corin Bluespire, Osirion Shivan, Dukgeth, Valathar El'lyn. Closured: Cyrun Mask

Legebrin

  • Outlander
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2023, 09:09:29 AM »
Yes I think voracious feat needs some love. It must drop yer cha to 1 and give you +4 str +4 con, for sure. +2 is nothing bruh.

Nemesis 24

  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2023, 09:45:52 AM »
Also, see this thread from soon after Voracious was introduced.

This is one of those things that they just kill you for as either a freak, monster, or other Iadul spawned creature to be killed or burned.  At that point you're not a person any more.  Theres nothing distinguishing you from a werewolf, ghoul or other flesh eating monster.  You are to be destroyed.

Edit: Also Barovian law has no courts of law.  Guilt and law is generally what the garda say it is.  If they decree your death, you are to die.  You don't get to argue the point of law.  Its a tyranny for a reason.

The above was reinforced by (at the time) a DM:

What Nem said. And remember, the list of laws published is not a list of every law that exists. Read the fine print.


I already said it there.  But personally on a lot of this conversation part of my thoughts now run thus.

The attitude towards PvP and consequence based play has definitely changed since Voracious was first introduced.  The server is more accommodating to various forms of play, but one thing that I have noticed is that consequence to action is something harder to enforce.  The notion that fatal consequences for taking a feat is something that 'can' be met with difficulty.

I think, based off some experiences that I have had or been part of, that the problem is not that people are somehow more accepting of cannibalism and voracious - what they are, however, is burned off of dealing with the confrontation, and the PvP that follows with how complicated it can be, how divisive, how problematic and how upsetting.  Players 'do' hide behind making PvP more trouble than it is worth to deal with by dint of their actions in reaction to it.  Voracious is mixed in with that, in that it is often a trigger for such action that is then met with the sort of no-fun difficulties that tends to end with players being disheartened or leaving, even if they've done nothing (or less) wrong.

Maiyannah

  • First Watcher
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1329
  • Courage is the soul of life.
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2023, 10:02:01 AM »
I already said it there.  But personally on a lot of this conversation part of my thoughts now run thus.

The attitude towards PvP and consequence based play has definitely changed since Voracious was first introduced.  The server is more accommodating to various forms of play, but one thing that I have noticed is that consequence to action is something harder to enforce.  The notion that fatal consequences for taking a feat is something that 'can' be met with difficulty.

I think, based off some experiences that I have had or been part of, that the problem is not that people are somehow more accepting of cannibalism and voracious - what they are, however, is burned off of dealing with the confrontation, and the PvP that follows with how complicated it can be, how divisive, how problematic and how upsetting.  Players 'do' hide behind making PvP more trouble than it is worth to deal with by dint of their actions in reaction to it.  Voracious is mixed in with that, in that it is often a trigger for such action that is then met with the sort of no-fun difficulties that tends to end with players being disheartened or leaving, even if they've done nothing (or less) wrong.

Livu has personally killed four people eating corpses in the back of the outskirts church in the past month or so, so to say there aren't people enforcing consequences for doing so is patently false.

As to people getting disheartened by getting punked for being a cannibal, one has to be willing to accept the consequences of their roleplay, if they are not, then they should probably find another concept.
Currently:
Livu Olmstead - First Watcher of Helm
Emmanuelle de le Foret - Ezrite escapee from Hazlan

Also:
Sarabeth d'Gagne - Ghastrian artist
Sabina Ennaies - Barovian road warden

Day Old Bread

  • Red Academy
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1873
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2023, 10:18:47 AM »
The way I see it is that Voracious is an RP feat that is often taken only for mechanical reasons. Players are choosing to take a feat purely for the mechanical advantage it gives rather than investing in the RP that it generates. That isn't to say that all players are choosing this route, but that many seem to.

Regardless, there are drawbacks to the feat in place already that do make sense. I've not seen any suggested drawbacks to the feat that make a lot of sense. The feat does not make your character less charismatic, does not make your character hunger for more flesh, does not make you into a monster, it just makes your character evil.

As pointed out, there are mechanical disadvantages already associated with the feat, but the real disadvantage is the RP that comes long with it. You become a monster in the eyes of your fellow PC's (generally speaking) and that's all there needs to be. The focus should be on the RP aspects of the feat, no further mechanical disadvantages need be added. Newer players will learn the hard way that it is not a feat taken lightly.

Cody

  • Church of Ezra - Refuge of Fifth Light
  • Undead Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2023, 12:30:37 PM »
I feel like the players that this thread is worried about will basically be filtered out by design of the server anyway. The problem corrects itself.

In Livu's example it sounds like it was the standard case of level 2 new players popping up to do something crazy, and then never log in again after that.

 If players are playing to powergame instead of roleplay it tends to be their interest drops off over time on the server. Other players recognize when others are playing more for action rather than roleplay, and tend to avoid them. So these players in question are filtered out and do not get as much enjoyment from their time playing here from the lack of interaction.

Most leave I think eventually due to the playstyle, and it doesn't really require somebody to be taking Voracious to end up like that. It's just a feat that is easy to spot as a symptom of the behavior.

And as others went over voracious isn't -too- strong but it definitely remains a black mark and a major concern to be discovered for those actually interested in RP.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2023, 12:36:25 PM by Cody »

zDark Shadowz

  • Dark Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2023, 06:22:26 PM »
Livu has personally killed four people eating corpses in the back of the outskirts church in the past month or so, so to say there aren't people enforcing consequences for doing so is patently false.

If it was a notable level 18+ character doing it, would Livu still do the same, at the risk of losing and closing their character? Would you be fine with that being how your characters' story permanently ends?

While the answer may be yes, the question is more rhetoric, to highlight a posing of level difference. Which "shouldnt matter" in the context of RP,  but in your situation its almost guaranteed those are low levels with no established high level friends.

Almost anywhere else outside of your confined domain is a different scenario that significantly dissuades being proactive against cannibalism. Which is awful, I'll admit, but if someone dies on an obscure hill it's not as satisfying of a story.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2023, 06:24:21 PM by zDark Shadowz »

FinalHeaven

  • Ba'al Verzi
  • The Underworld
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1796
  • dat boi
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2023, 07:00:01 PM »
I don't think the feat needs to be changed.  It's an attitude thing and there are a lot of areas on POTM that could use an attitude adjustment, but it doesn't happen over night, and also rarely seems to happen due to OOC discussion.



Nemesis 24

  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2023, 08:57:52 PM »
I already said it there.  But personally on a lot of this conversation part of my thoughts now run thus.

The attitude towards PvP and consequence based play has definitely changed since Voracious was first introduced.  The server is more accommodating to various forms of play, but one thing that I have noticed is that consequence to action is something harder to enforce.  The notion that fatal consequences for taking a feat is something that 'can' be met with difficulty.

I think, based off some experiences that I have had or been part of, that the problem is not that people are somehow more accepting of cannibalism and voracious - what they are, however, is burned off of dealing with the confrontation, and the PvP that follows with how complicated it can be, how divisive, how problematic and how upsetting.  Players 'do' hide behind making PvP more trouble than it is worth to deal with by dint of their actions in reaction to it.  Voracious is mixed in with that, in that it is often a trigger for such action that is then met with the sort of no-fun difficulties that tends to end with players being disheartened or leaving, even if they've done nothing (or less) wrong.

Livu has personally killed four people eating corpses in the back of the outskirts church in the past month or so, so to say there aren't people enforcing consequences for doing so is patently false.

As to people getting disheartened by getting punked for being a cannibal, one has to be willing to accept the consequences of their roleplay, if they are not, then they should probably find another concept.

Not saying it 'doesn't' get enforced, but that in quite a few notable cases it somehow has been overlooked before, when it really shouldn't have been.  Also - four in a MONTH?  Good lord.

inkcorvid

  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2023, 10:09:55 PM »
The issue with eating corpses in the back of the Sanctuary of the Coming Dawn is that it's almost certainly a rulebreak.

Eating a player corpse is a PvP action. And I doubt the owners of said corpses have all opted in with the people eating them.

So if you find people chowing down back there, it should really go to the DMs. But as zDark Shadowz implies above, these are probably low level new players who don't know any better. This has also been an issue for a while, where the majority of voracious PCs are total newbies who haven't read the rules but whose eyes light up at the thought of such powerful buffs. I think that's maybe the real issue with voracious: it's a bit too accessible, but a bit of a trap.

Ditto, killing a PC solely for being voracious is a potential rulebreak. They probably haven't opted in to PvP. And if "well, surely you're opting into consequences by taking voracious in the first place" then it follows that high level necromancers should be able to gank paladins for existing. Snow elves should be able to no-RP attack drow etc. Paladins get to exist with a certain amount of assurance in which to tell stories on the server, even though they should be automatically opted in with anyone and everyone with "Evil" on their character sheet.

Voracious is weird because it sort of goes halfway towards applying an AMPC template, but without any of the safeguards of the AMPC application process.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2023, 10:11:28 PM by inkcorvid »
Active: Nissa Arden, Chiara Grassini
Shelved: Dindalmogra Ggol, Serinda Takmarin, Lyra Rimewood, Sofie Reiss, Aidelina Gatteux, Odette Sautereau, Livny Skovgaard, Innogen Ashe
Closed: Anjeza Bajramovic, Nim Farboffle

APorg

  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Fanatic Xenophile
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2023, 10:18:18 PM »
The issue with eating corpses in the back of the Sanctuary of the Coming Dawn is that it's almost certainly a rulebreak.

Eating a corpse at the back of the church is certainly ignoring the NPCs.

Though the last time I had this argument with Arawn a few years ago:

Eating a player corpse via Voracious is not a PvP action, as long as you don't badly impair it.

Taking a player corpse out of the church is not a PvP action, unless the intent is to hide it or damage it to badly impaired.

So chowing down on a PC corpse at the back of the church is a rule break. But picking up a body, taking it to somewhere out of sight, and chowing down is not a rulebreak or a PvP action, as long as you don't badly impair the corpse or try to hide it.

If the DM rulings have changed on this, I'd like to know, of course.
“Moral wounds have this peculiarity - they may be hidden, but they never close; always painful, always ready to bleed when touched, they remain fresh and open in the heart.”
― Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo

Skelni

  • Society of the Erudite
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1079
  • You can always contact me
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2023, 10:50:41 PM »
Taking a player corpse out of the church is not a PvP action, unless the intent is to hide it or damage it to badly impaired.
I'm uncertain of this, as I've always been told that moving a corpse after it has been placed somewhere is going against the rules. And even as I have picked up a corpse seemingly in the middle of the road with the intention of reviving the character, I was immediately contacted by a DM curious what I was doing with it.

I'm not convinced you can take a corpse out of there at all. First being ignoring NPCs that you just, taking a corpse and secondly because of mechanical rules.
Active: Vorrala Dalael

Shelved: Dirge Driftwood - Jezebel Redcherry - Silf Argyros - Ledewif Oberholtz

Closured: Razik Slepnel - Azaulia Curantus - Gavril Dragnea

Maiyannah

  • First Watcher
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1329
  • Courage is the soul of life.
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #37 on: March 04, 2023, 11:47:09 PM »
Livu has personally killed four people eating corpses in the back of the outskirts church in the past month or so, so to say there aren't people enforcing consequences for doing so is patently false.

If it was a notable level 18+ character doing it, would Livu still do the same, at the risk of losing and closing their character? Would you be fine with that being how your characters' story permanently ends?


My brother in Ezra, you're talking to someone who suicided their garda after a month.
Currently:
Livu Olmstead - First Watcher of Helm
Emmanuelle de le Foret - Ezrite escapee from Hazlan

Also:
Sarabeth d'Gagne - Ghastrian artist
Sabina Ennaies - Barovian road warden

Grendlykins, Simp of Azalin Rex

  • Society of the Erudite
  • Dark Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2023, 03:11:10 AM »
Taking a player corpse out of the church is not a PvP action, unless the intent is to hide it or damage it to badly impaired.
I'm uncertain of this, as I've always been told that moving a corpse after it has been placed somewhere is going against the rules. And even as I have picked up a corpse seemingly in the middle of the road with the intention of reviving the character, I was immediately contacted by a DM curious what I was doing with it.

I'm not convinced you can take a corpse out of there at all. First being ignoring NPCs that you just, taking a corpse and secondly because of mechanical rules.

The last time this debate was brought up, the DM response was as Aprog pointed out, despite it flying in the face of all reason that removing corpses from the temple isn't an 'ignoring NPCs' rulebreak, regardless of the intent behind the corpse's removal. From an in-character perspective, those remains are held by the Morninglordian faith to ensure that they aren't defiled until either they are revived, or buried and presented with final rites. But as the example was given previously; there's zero recourse for even a Morninglordian PC to intervene if someone walks in and just starts taking bodies.

Given that the possibilities for what a person can do with a body is; removing it to another area, which is in all forms 'hiding the body', or to feed on the remains which is only a rulebreak if they badly impair the body. Even if they did impair the remains and that's a PvP action, the most that's required is for them to hostile the character the remains belong to if they are online. Furthermore, if someone does steal a body and then feed on it, they're very unlikely to actually return it afterwards because if anyone's witnessed them pick up the body and then bring it back half an hour later, they're going to wonder what the hell they were doing with it.

TL;DR, removing bodies from the ML Temple or any other similar place is not a rulebreak, even when it should be.

Dardonas

  • Guest
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2023, 03:41:29 AM »
Taking a player corpse out of the church is not a PvP action, unless the intent is to hide it or damage it to badly impaired.
I'm uncertain of this, as I've always been told that moving a corpse after it has been placed somewhere is going against the rules. And even as I have picked up a corpse seemingly in the middle of the road with the intention of reviving the character, I was immediately contacted by a DM curious what I was doing with it.

I'm not convinced you can take a corpse out of there at all. First being ignoring NPCs that you just, taking a corpse and secondly because of mechanical rules.

The last time this debate was brought up, the DM response was as Aprog pointed out, despite it flying in the face of all reason that removing corpses from the temple isn't an 'ignoring NPCs' rulebreak, regardless of the intent behind the corpse's removal. From an in-character perspective, those remains are held by the Morninglordian faith to ensure that they aren't defiled until either they are revived, or buried and presented with final rites. But as the example was given previously; there's zero recourse for even a Morninglordian PC to intervene if someone walks in and just starts taking bodies.

Given that the possibilities for what a person can do with a body is; removing it to another area, which is in all forms 'hiding the body', or to feed on the remains which is only a rulebreak if they badly impair the body. Even if they did impair the remains and that's a PvP action, the most that's required is for them to hostile the character the remains belong to if they are online. Furthermore, if someone does steal a body and then feed on it, they're very unlikely to actually return it afterwards because if anyone's witnessed them pick up the body and then bring it back half an hour later, they're going to wonder what the hell they were doing with it.

TL;DR, removing bodies from the ML Temple or any other similar place is not a rulebreak, even when it should be.

I think the issue is more that the Morninglord Sanctuary would become an "anti-corpsehide" zone. If bodies are put there and taking them was ignoring NPCs, someone who died anywhere would be safe from having their body yoinked and corpsehidden. It might sound counter-intuitive, but having an area where bodies can't be picked up without DM oversight (except to resurrect) would be a glaring issue of fair play for conflicts considering you can't hide people's bodies in places with NPC presence.

Imagine you are in a conflict and you die and for whatever reason you can't be resurrected immediately. Well, your buddies know that if they put you in the Morninglord sanctuary, they don't have to worry about the people you are in conflict with grabbing your body and running off with it (unless they are a guard).

The principle might sound odd, but I think it's for the best personally.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2023, 03:43:01 AM by Dardonas »

PrimetheGrime

  • Full-time Hunter, Part-time Outlaw
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2023, 05:45:01 AM »
The official stance is that you cannot pick up a body with the intent to hide/eat without it being a PvP/Hostile action. Picking up bodies out in the world with the intent to return them to life/bring them to a place of revival or discovery is perfectly fine and does not require any pvp action.

Grendlykins, Simp of Azalin Rex

  • Society of the Erudite
  • Dark Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2023, 06:19:40 AM »
I think the issue is more that the Morninglord Sanctuary would become an "anti-corpsehide" zone. If bodies are put there and taking them was ignoring NPCs, someone who died anywhere would be safe from having their body yoinked and corpsehidden. It might sound counter-intuitive, but having an area where bodies can't be picked up without DM oversight (except to resurrect) would be a glaring issue of fair play for conflicts considering you can't hide people's bodies in places with NPC presence.

Imagine you are in a conflict and you die and for whatever reason you can't be resurrected immediately. Well, your buddies know that if they put you in the Morninglord sanctuary, they don't have to worry about the people you are in conflict with grabbing your body and running off with it (unless they are a guard).

The principle might sound odd, but I think it's for the best personally.

If someone has custody of your corpse and can bring it to the Morninglord Temple, their inability to resurrect you is solely due to lacking funds. Having enough gold to get resurrected, even when badly impaired, is a trivial thing and if you've entered into the sort of conflict where someone would take the opportunity to steal your corpse and hide it, you'd take measures to ensure that you'd likewise be resurrected in a timely fashion. I still say that tacit allowance of corpse theft from places where the NPCs would absolutely not allow it should require DM oversight, elsewise it's ignoring NPCs. People have been reported for ignoring NPC rulebreaks in far less egregious circumstances, but for whatever reason it's been decided that the ML Temple doesn't benefit from those same rules.

The official stance is that you cannot pick up a body with the intent to hide/eat without it being a PvP/Hostile action. Picking up bodies out in the world with the intent to return them to life/bring them to a place of revival or discovery is perfectly fine and does not require any pvp action.

Even if it is a PvP/Hostile action, the requirements to legitimately engage in that are so trivial as to be a formality. 'Valid IC reason' here is covered by 'My character is hungry and wants to eat a corpse'. If the player character is logged on at the time you toggle them hostile, then yoink the corpse and just stroll out of the ML Temple uncontested and you've fulfilled your obligations. All of the other PvP rules are worded with stipulations that can be soundly ignored and often are.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2023, 06:22:29 AM by Grendel »

APorg

  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Fanatic Xenophile
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2023, 09:09:43 AM »
At any rate, taking PC corpses out of the church to eat them is not ignoring NPCs, which is perhaps the pertinent point here. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what a DM ruled years ago; and to my knowledge we have no reason to think the rulings have changed.
“Moral wounds have this peculiarity - they may be hidden, but they never close; always painful, always ready to bleed when touched, they remain fresh and open in the heart.”
― Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo

Kleomenes

  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2023, 09:29:45 AM »
At any rate, taking PC corpses out of the church to eat them is not ignoring NPCs, which is perhaps the pertinent point here. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what a DM ruled years ago; and to my knowledge we have no reason to think the rulings have changed.

It made playing a morninglordian watching over the sanctuary hard as you might imagine. As you just have to stand by as you -can't- pvp (its ignoring NPCs) but they are not doing so by snatching a corpse and running out cackling.

Its a very frequent issue, and with respect to Dardonas I dont think a minor issue relating to the corpse hide system should outweigh the immersion breaking impact on the ML faction that the outskirts temple is Snacks 'R Us for cannibals.

Lexica

  • Red Vardo Traders Front
  • Dark Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2023, 11:35:29 AM »
Wouldn’t you be able to PvP if you’re a faction member? They’re intruding in your faction area if you tell them to knock something off and they refuse.
Michelle Anciaux

Wilkins1952

  • Society of the Erudite
  • Dark Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
  • For good to win evil must do nothing
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2023, 11:58:50 AM »
Regarding the temple. I wonder if a redesign might be best. Place an NPC near the bodies so that is someone does start snacking then there is the OCR hit and most likely NPC reaction to it.
"Its like watching people walk up to the line for "Be excellent to each other" and seeing how far they can spit across it." -GMNO

Kleomenes

  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2023, 12:10:25 PM »
Wouldn’t you be able to PvP if you’re a faction member? They’re intruding in your faction area if you tell them to knock something off and they refuse.

Its not deemed a faction area afaik - its intended to remain an accessible place for new players. It is years since I've played an ML but it was pretty clear how it was handled back then and was one of the challenges of playing a ML.

Anarcoplayba

  • Red Academy
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1639
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2023, 12:15:48 PM »
The buff cant always be maintained and becomes obsolete in party compositions that boost strength and constitution to their maximums.

I post a lot of build advice on the discord, but voracious isn't something I advise (except in jest), it just doesn't seem worth it when there's potions that do 2d4+1 in the STR and CON range that are feasible to make and there's casters throwing aura of vitality about.

Easier to stockpile potions than it is corpses. It doesnt need an additional malus, I think. It already costs a feat.

I don't think voracious need a nerf mostly because voracious isn't THAT GOOD, as quoted above.

The benefit is a +1 bonus frm str and con, which obviously is nice.

The drawbacks are that this buff is VERY frail (chances of losing it at a knock out are big) and corpses are not something easy to come by. You lose healing upon rest, usually needs to invest in potions and medkits (unless you have access to spells) and all the rest people pointed out.

If you don't plan on frontlining probably EVERYTHING is more desirable. Most of the time I see PCs who don't NEED voracious using it for inventory management, which seems silly.
Noignar Huillen: Ilmater Cleric.
Hedien Gine: Arrow and Bow Artist.
Dolin Schneim: Dwarven Soldier

DM Despot

  • Never Again Conquered, Home Forevermore
  • Dungeon Masters
  • Dark Lord
  • *
  • Posts: 859
  • Let him be the king of ashes!
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2023, 12:22:32 PM »
Regarding the temple. I wonder if a redesign might be best. Place an NPC near the bodies so that is someone does start snacking then there is the OCR hit and most likely NPC reaction to it.

Just on topic of this. I would say Mother Lizuca and the Lightcarrier would keep an eye or watchful look over the bodies there when there isn't any MLer faction members around or at least in my head - however I know it may be hard to justify how they'd even know if the people are taking the bodies for a feast or not. Though the DMs may rule it differently.

I would say adding some sort of system where the NPCs in there react to such acts would be needed.

I only heard of a few small cases of people feasting on the bodies when I was an MLer when no faction member was around and I found it pretty stupid for someone to be in the back going for a munch when the Lightcarrier guards are only a few feet away.
"Morninglord?" - Martyn Pelkar

Cody

  • Church of Ezra - Refuge of Fifth Light
  • Undead Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
Re: Give voracious a mechanical drawback
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2023, 08:33:52 PM »
The buff cant always be maintained and becomes obsolete in party compositions that boost strength and constitution to their maximums.

I post a lot of build advice on the discord, but voracious isn't something I advise (except in jest), it just doesn't seem worth it when there's potions that do 2d4+1 in the STR and CON range that are feasible to make and there's casters throwing aura of vitality about.

Easier to stockpile potions than it is corpses. It doesnt need an additional malus, I think. It already costs a feat.

I don't think voracious need a nerf mostly because voracious isn't THAT GOOD, as quoted above.

The benefit is a +1 bonus frm str and con, which obviously is nice.

The drawbacks are that this buff is VERY frail (chances of losing it at a knock out are big) and corpses are not something easy to come by. You lose healing upon rest, usually needs to invest in potions and medkits (unless you have access to spells) and all the rest people pointed out.

If you don't plan on frontlining probably EVERYTHING is more desirable. Most of the time I see PCs who don't NEED voracious using it for inventory management, which seems silly.

I would kill for an inventory weight feat.