Tunneling curiosity

[Christopher R Taylor]

I was flipping through the Champions Complete book and noticed this tidbit:
 

Quote

A character can Tunnel through Barriers, and (depending on Special Effects) can often Tunnel through Entangles from the outside. However, a Tunneling character trapped by an Entangle cannot use his own Tunneling to escape it.

 

Now... this doesn't make sense to me in the slightest degree.  I think you should be able to tunnel out of anything you can tunnel into, both depending on the special effects and how your tunneling is built.  I mean if you have to gesture, you can't tunnel out, etc.

 

What is the basis for this ruling?  I mean it cannot be something about tunneling not actually dealing damage, since you can tunnel to set someone free from an entangle.

[unclevlad]

I think they don't want it to be a super-cheap escape power.  Movement rate is largely irrelevant;  2m gives you a 1m half move, and how often would you need more?  So all you have to buy is the penetrability, it's only 2 points per, and it's PD only.  Now contrast this with Entangle, where there are firm restrictions on buying up the additional DEF for the entangle...and you have to buy more balanced.  2m Tunneling through up to 12 PD is 26 points;  this beats a 4d6 Entangle with +8 PD (max) and +2 ED (required) that costs 60.  And while Teleport and Desolid are alternate escape routes, there are advantages to block escape by those means.  There's nothing in RAW to stop tunneling,

 

So, yeah, it's a totally illogical distinction, but it's not the only one in the book.  And note that they make pretty clear, that they don't want Tunneling to be anything but blatant.  Fill In is fairly expensive, and still listed as Obvious...the ground's clearly disturbed.  I've always felt it's one of those "well it's a power you see occasionally so we gotta include it, but by gosh we don't want to."  

[LoneWolf]

Using tunneling from the outside is only at the GM’s option.  This is clearly stated on page 310 of volume 1.  When you are entangled, you cannot use any form of movement except teleportation.  One justification would be that in order to tunnel you have to be able to move at least a small amount.  When you are outside the entangle your movement is not restricted so you can at least push against the entangle, but if you are inside, it you cannot. 

 

[Utensil]

I think as a Game Master I can offer a character an Ad Hoc modifier like +5 CP to cost of Tunneling to escape Entangle if special effects is similar.

 

Example would be if one can command Earth so that even the earth parts to allow you passage ... no pressure applied or required, and the Entangle is an Earth Effect. This seems fair to me.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think the more consistent and logical way to handle it is to either make tunneling never work to break free entangle (except maybe in very obvious special effects, like wrapping someone in rock or earth) or to let it work from both sides.  Honestly I don't see any game breaking effect letting people break out (how many characters have tunneling?) with tunneling, but I haven't had it ever come up in a game.

 

I want to take a Chesterton's Fence approach to this, to really understand why it is in place before considering house ruling anything.

[unclevlad]

But how many people would try to come up with some way to ADD tunneling?  Multipowers are a cheap way to go;  you don't use more than one at a time.

 

And note, that's the kind of issue that underlies making it the rules default...but it's also one that justifies going a different way with a house rule.  RAW should err on the conservative side.

[Steve]

Bricks with an ability like “Super Strength Smash Through” (I think is the name) would be able to burst out of any Entangle if they can use it from within. I don’t really have a problem with them being limited to using it only from the outside of one.

 

It strikes me as a game balance decision.

[Ninja-Bear]

I don’t see a problem with using Tunneling to escape an Entangle. So long as SFX is appropriate just compare how much DEF and Body the Tunneling does compared to DEF and Body of the Entangle.

[Hugh Neilson]

The only real problem is that Entangle is already a niche power - at campaign-standard DCs, it's a single phase delaying tactic.   If every MP has an EntangleBuster tunneling slot to turn it into a half move to demolish the Entangle, the power's utility is pretty much gone.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah but that's true if you let people tunnel through from the outside, as well isn't it?  If breaking entangle with tunneling breaks the game or ruins entangle, it does so no matter how you do it.

[Ninja-Bear]

8 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The only real problem is that Entangle is already a niche power - at campaign-standard DCs, it's a single phase delaying tactic.   If every MP has an EntangleBuster tunneling slot to turn it into a half move to demolish the Entangle, the power's utility is pretty much gone.

I noticed Unclevlad noted first MP objection which is fair. However why is “everyone” taking both the MP AND Tunnel-Break Entangle? I can see the cheap point cost argument but as with anything Hero, something like this should he reigned in by either GM the Player or Both. 
 

Fundamentally, a Super Strong Character isn’t penalized for using his Strength to break an Entangle. Its an extension on his Power. If the Entangle is designed in a certain way like Ropes, it can be escaped by a DEX Roll and or Contortion. So I see disallowing Tunneling to Affect Entangle as against the Spirit of Hero System. You are punishing one clever use of a Power for the sake of “Balance”.     

[Ninja-Bear]

And real quick let me add @Hugh Neilson, I’m sure that you’ll point out that the High STR character paid a fair amount of points so it should be fair for him to be reasonable against Entangles. And I’ll mention that with a high STR even in 6th he gets more use out of those points than Tunneling.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's actually odd that Tunneling lets you Tunnel through the Entangle - do you have to do a Move Through? You should be moving in to the Entangled character's space to move through the Entangle itself.

 

Can I also Tunnel through the character inside the Entangle (or one who is not Entangled)?

 

This seems more like "you don't buy a movement power to do damage" issue than anything else.

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

You are punishing one clever use of a Power for the sake of “Balance”.     

 

You mean like D&D, where it was "punishing creativity" to prevent targeting eyeballs with Magic Missiles, or ruling against Creating Water in an opponent's lungs?  More extreme, but Hero is supposed to be about paying for what you get, not creatively making your power do more than was intended.

 

Maybe Tunnelling should have a minimum Movement per Defense, like Entangle requires xd6 to have Y Defense, and tack on limitations for having only 1 meter movement or limited Defenses.  Or maybe "you can't tunnel through a character - buy a Killing Attack" should be extended to Tunnelling through an Entangle.

[Ninja-Bear]

10 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Hero is supposed to be about paying for what you get, not creatively making your power do more than was intended.

And do we wonder why 6th edition is considered a text book? And why one  of the major complaints of character builds are that they are too complex because people try to buy each and every iteration of a Power?  Just as creative use can be bad for a game so can “you get what you pay for” also. 
 

FWIW, I just ran an OSR for my kids and man did I find it relaxing to just make rulings. They ask I they could do X and I gave a chance in D6. They had a blast and I had a blast.

[Grailknight]

25 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

And do we wonder why 6th edition is considered a text book? And why one  of the major complaints of character builds are that they are too complex because people try to buy each and every iteration of a Power?  Just as creative use can be bad for a game so can “you get what you pay for” also. 
 

FWIW, I just ran an OSR for my kids and man did I find it relaxing to just make rulings. They ask I they could do X and I gave a chance in D6. They had a blast and I had a blast.

 

Because Entangle as a Power is there to stop Movement. For every SFX than can be logically escaped by Tunneling, there is one that can't be at least on the part of the restrained target. Since HERO has "pay for what you get" as one of it's core precepts it is consistent with that precept that you can't Tunnel out and that the the ability to Tunnel in is an optional rule dependent on SFX and GM judgement. Perhaps this SFX dependent option should also be extended to Tunneling out. I'd allow it as a GM but only because Tunneling has an element of damage built into it. "Rule of Cool" should always be a factor but you have to start from a solid consistent rules basis.

 

Perhaps the Entangle and Character both take Damage advantage should cause Tunneling to apply against the Resistant Defense of the trapped character in these cases also?

 

As far as Hero reading like it does, that was a side effect of Steve Long giving so many sidebar examples in the Powers section rather than the GM section. He tried to cover everything but that's an impossible chore given how open HERO is.  A  character creation book more in line with CC and and a GM book combined with a basic version of Champions Powers would better suit things IMO. 

 

    

[Ninja-Bear]

And yet Super Smash to represent how easy it is for Bricks to put holes in the wall is bought as Tunneling because its quicker than rolling dice. 
 

This example just shows how the dogma of Hero System can be a trap-imo..

 

 

And I find it weird now with the argument of using tunneling to affect Entangles that somehow the target in the Entangle so be hurt. In a standard Entangle, if I use my sword to cut open the Entangle do I ever endanger the target in the Entangle? Or use Super Strength? But now to justify against the use of a Movement Power there is an inherent danger? Weak argument.

[Grailknight]

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

And yet Super Smash to represent how easy it is for Bricks to put holes in the wall is bought as Tunneling because its quicker than rolling dice. 
 

This example just shows how the dogma of Hero System can be a trap-imo..

 

 

And I find it weird now with the argument of using tunneling to affect Entangles that somehow the target in the Entangle so be hurt. In a standard Entangle, if I use my sword to cut open the Entangle do I ever endanger the target in the Entangle? Or use Super Strength? But now to justify against the use of a Movement Power there is an inherent danger? Weak argument.

 

??? This is just an extension of RAW.

 

Unless you take penalties, you always endanger the Entangled character when you attack an Entangle from the outside. It rarely does anything because the Defense and BODY are subtracted before the attack is applied against the Entangled characters. But if the target relies on certain types of conditional defenses(RSR, Accessible Focus, or Restrainable for example), being Entangled can be a serious issue.  

 

One of the main objections to this use of Tunneling is that it doesn't have that danger and is also not subject to bad die rolls

[Christopher R Taylor]

One of the main objections to this use of Tunneling is that it doesn't have that danger.

 

But again... that's true from the outside, too isn't it?

[Grailknight]

You have to take penalties to OCV. I don't see how that would apply to a Movement power.

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

One of the main objections to this use of Tunneling is that it doesn't have that danger.

 

But again... that's true from the outside, too isn't it?

 

Yes.  Grail was specifically speaking of tunneling from the outside of the entangle.  And he's right.  The only balancing factor for allowing tunneling from the outside, rather than from inside, is it is taking up another character's action, and actions are the currency of combat.  I'll grant, it's quite likely to be a bargain...but using Tunneling against an entangle is an explicit *option.*  So...?  Just say no.  Then symmetry is maintained.  Or, just say yes, both sides can do it...but change the costs so it's not so bloody dirt cheap, and so, SO badly misaligned with the costs of Entangle.  

 

Honestly, Tunneling is the second most specialized form of movement in the game, IMO.  FTL is more specialized.  Tunneling is incredibly rare...even teleporting at least short distances is vastly more common.  So another approach would be to allow it from inside or outside an entangle...but ONLY allow Tunneling when it darn well FITS.  At least for supers games.

[Ninja-Bear]

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

??? This is just an extension of RAW.

 

Unless you take penalties, you always endanger the Entangled character when you attack an Entangle from the outside. 

Really cause in all the years that I’ve played, we never played it this way. Now that’s not to say that we just never used that rule either.

[Ninja-Bear]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

…but ONLY allow Tunneling when it darn well FITS.  At least for supers games.

Speaking for myself (and I thought so was everyone else Pro-Tunneling), was saying this exact thing-especially if you are going to allow it for free. And I also said that one should compare how much Tunneling DEF and BODY compared to the Entangle so its not an automatic escape either.
 

Btw, technically you could buy Second form of Movement  Advantage on tue Tunneling the second form being T-Port. Make it Partially Advantaged at that and throw on some limitations and make it real cheap.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Really cause in all the years that I’ve played, we never played it this way.

 

Yeah its standard rules.  I had a character playing a druid build a spell that was entangle on themselves that didn't restrict any movement.  It just gave him a quick blast of ablative defenses that attackers had to get through.

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Speaking for myself (and I thought so was everyone else Pro-Tunneling), was saying this exact thing-especially if you are going to allow it for free. And I also said that one should compare how much Tunneling DEF and BODY compared to the Entangle so its not an automatic escape either.
 

Btw, technically you could buy Second form of Movement  Advantage on tue Tunneling the second form being T-Port. Make it Partially Advantaged at that and throw on some limitations and make it real cheap.

 

Tunneling works through material up to its PD limit...but it doesn't care about BODY.  It's got a movement velocity instead.

 

Attacking the Entangle is in the rules, 6E1 216.  It's -3 OCV, but the entangle itself is DCV 0, so it doesn't matter much.  SFX comes into play, tho, quite a bit, so specific entangles may be different.  And that's before the different advantages you can tack on.  Entangle gets to be pretty complicated.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Maybe tunneling through an entangle should factor in the body: you get -1m movement of tunneling per 1 Body the entangle has