Talk:Inescapable Embrace (3.5e Maneuver)

Ratings

	DanielDraco opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	This throws grapples off the RNG. Further, it beefs up an already incredibly beefy feat. And finally, even with the jocular and coy phrasing, I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that you not only specified the possibility for rape, but actually attached mechanical significance to it.

ThunderGod Cid is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.

So, not only does this defy some normal conventions of maneuvers by having ability score prerequisites and such, but it's also something of a text wall. Fluff is nice and all, but this toes the line between between having fluff and having just too much text, like the whole bit about it getting the Evil descriptor when the perform an unspecified act. In short, redundant text should, in my opinion, be stricken for a more concise description. Essentially, this stance could be the first paragraph alone, and while the feat synergy is nice it could also be crunched down to less text.

...The unspecified act is rape. Now do you see why it's Evil?!? --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why any ability should be inherently evil because it can be used to do bad things. Since Magic Missiles, Fireballs, and, hey, even swords are used on good people, should they be considered evil? Should rope be considered evil because it could be used in a rape? Heck no. And as DanielDraco mentioned, the addition of mechanics for rape are, well, disturbing indeed. Usually, you don't mention some things. Yeah, Hold Person could allow the caster to cop a feel, but you don't put ideas into the players' heads. You let them decide what to do with the tools at hand.--Quey (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)