Talk:Retalitory Eating (3.5e Feat)

Ratings
== Needlessly Complex ==

Why all the variables? The move action damage is weird (why not attack action?). Half lethal and half nonlethal is clumsy paperwork. The bonus is ok, but then the energy defenses bit is just confusing. And as written it looks like you provoke for doing this is you lack IUS.

Why not say "If someone grapples you, each round you deal unarmed damage with no AoOas you bite them back." If they have DR, that kind of stuff will be resolved as normal. Make it lethal, since it IS a bite. Drop the rest, since it's just clutter."

Also your "Fat Ass" theme disturbs me to no end. Waaaay too much effort put into something like that. -- Eiji-kun 00:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Move action so that you can also try to escape (a standard action) while eating. The energy defenses represent the thing your eating not agreeing with you (gelatneous cube, while tastey looking, is not good to eat.) Finally, half lethal because you are physically eating the things that is holding you, but most human teeth deal non lethal.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 00:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're using escape artist it's a standard action, but I figure someone with this feat will be making counter-grapples rather than escape artists, which is an attack action and can be done many times a round up to BAB. Heck, I'd be ok making it PART of the attempt to escape (either way).


 * For damage, just say its an unarmed strike and it's lethality or nonlethality will be taken care of by what it is normally.


 * Eating dangerous creatures is a non-issue. Things that are on fire, made of acid, and otherwise will be dealing that damage on contact with an attack anyways, and since your escape-bite is an attack, it applies regardless. -- Eiji-kun 00:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But the thing is, your EATING those hazardous materials/creatures. It be like saying that a character who swollows a lung full of lava while drowning in the stuff is not going to have any problems once pulled out. There are consequences.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think it'll do any more damage than normal (after all, you don't deal more damage stabbing the tarrasque from the inside, the AC is just lower). Actually that's a good example... lava doesn't care if it's burning your esophogus or your chest from the outside, your skin just doesn't have enough of a toughness difference between inside and out.  Really, the only things that arguably would have a different effect being eaten would be poisons and disease.  That one I could get behind: eat a poisonous/diseased being and have to make the save against it. -- Eiji-kun 05:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the thing- it doesn't deal more damage than normal. It deals the damage once a minute later right before acid reflex sets in. Simple.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats was I was refering to. Yeah it happens a minute later but its extra damage all the same.  I figure by then any meat you tore off is enjoying a stomach acid bubble bath.  Dunno, maybe it's because I see most of the bestiary as something edible, with the rare exception of poisonous things are things made of fire or something.  But the poison handles itself, and the firestuff would go inert once severed from the body.  Unless their like... Xenomorphs or something which form pools of hazard on their death. -- Eiji-kun 06:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. The human(iod) digestive system is largely ineffecuient and needlessly complex. Hell, you can't even digest a fraction of what you eat by yourself, as you need bacteria to digest it into digestible shit you can use (literally), thus my thinking is if you eat something that naturally produces fire or something you will have digestive problems. Also, the idea that such effects just turn off when severed is an exercise in lunacy. In the real world humans continue digesting and growing hair and nails after death, so why wouldn't a devored balrog arm continue to burn?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 02:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, a Balor that uses polymorph to turn into a snake will continue to have a Flaming Body. From this one can (try to) assume that the Balor's burning is inherent to the Balor, and not to its body. Anyways, it's my general opinion that random "realism" penalties to actions are supposed to happen when you try to do weird yet plausible things without a feat or class feature: if you get the feat, you should know how to vomit out the bad bits on time, thus avoiding any penalties for using it against the sorts of creatures who you'd actually want to use it against. --Foxwarrior 03:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not even talking about digesting it. We can eat a lot of things we don't digest.  I'm simply talking about swallowing things.  Besides repeating Foxwarrior's words above, and discouraging getting too much 'realism' in the idea of eating a creature made of solid fire in general, I'm mostly speaking from a purely mechanical perpective that that amount of detail and fiddly bits is both unnessicary and unhelpful to the feat as a whole.


 * Fun factoid- Death Throes is a balor property too. Would you imply that if you bit of a chunk o' balor, that suddenly you and your stomach would be subject to 200 points of damage from death throes, or would you attibute that to a property of a balor, rather than a piece of balor. -- Eiji-kun 04:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Low Power?
Should the balance level be put to Low? This seems far too situational to even come into play more than a few times over an adventuring career. --Aarnott 18:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)