Tunneling curiosity

[unclevlad]

That at least tries to connect things, but figure...if I have 4m of Tunneling through 8 PD, I can tunnel through 4 meters of reinforced concrete in a phase.  If we equate reinforced concrete and stone?  That's 15 BODY, extrapolating the Wall Body table out one step.  (6E2 172.)  The tunnelihg would get through cast metal plates...same hardness, 8.  And 2m of *that* has 19 BODY.

 

Mind, this is making a case that tunneling is defined very, very badly.  By the same token, redefining it in terms of BODY per phase would add a fair bit of complexity, to a power that isn't taken very often, it seems to me.  

 

And there's still the huge cost mismatch.  +1m movement is 1 point, and has no restrictions.  +1 BODY (with no additional PD/ED) is still 5 points.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I wouldn't slow tunneling by the body of materials to dig through, that defeats its purpose as a movement power.  But as a way of "healing" an attack power, its a balancing measure.  You buy 6d6, 6 PD entangle and I try to dig through it with my 8 PD, 6m tunneling, its not going through.

Comparing the cost of a movement power to an attack power is always going to give you an error on your calculator because they aren't equivalent.  for 60 active points I can fly several hundred miles an hour and do an amazing move through, that doesn't make it unbalanced vs a 12d6 blast, because its comparing apples to rivets.  They aren't even both fruit types.

 

Given how unusual tunneling is as a movement power, the idea that it breaks entangle is frankly ludicrous to me.  If everyone in your game suddenly starts buying tunneling or a multipower to stick tunneling in "just in case" then that's a problem with min maxers in your player base, not the rules.

[unclevlad]

But this is an application of tunneling that is a form of attack.  That's the problem.  It's *not* costed right for that purpose.  And yeah, I get where you're coming from, but 

a)  all I need do is go to 6 PD and 12m...24 points instead of 22.

b)  the player goes back to my argument earlier...my 8 PD, 6m can't get through 6 BODY, 6 DEF???  It goes through 3x that much *as tunneling* so you're just making a bizarre translation.  For that matter, your suggestion says "tunnel through ANYTHING" 20 PD, 6m wouldn't get through.  So the mechanism of just having the movement rate relate to the BODY of the entangle is inadequate.

 

Why shouldn't tunneling relate to how fast you can remove BODY?  You can roughly translate "the BODY you can move through each phase" to meters.  You can adapt...if your tunneling works on 10 PD and the material only has 5, perhaps it adds +3 (half) or +5 (full difference) to the BODY of material removed each phase.  You should be able to move faster through chalk than through granite.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Why shouldn't tunneling relate to how fast you can remove BODY? 

 

That should work, yeah.  It lets you get through, eventually, but not instantly unless you put a lot of points into tunnel

[unclevlad]

IMO it's a better model.

 

That said, it's a lot slower at the table.  RAW makes it...mostly pretty simple and quick.  And the Wall Body chart is *really* shaky, IMO.  1 meter of stone has 11, 2 meters has 13?  Feels like this is for cracking that much, but it doesn't make sense in terms of BODY to be removed.

[Pattern Ghost]

Here's what 6E, p. 215 says in the Entangle description:

 

Quote

When a character is Entangled, his arms and legs are restrained, giving him a DCV of 0. Typically an Entangle completely immobilizes a character, making it impossible for him to move or use any Movement Powers except Teleportation, but the exact effects depend on the special effects of the Entangle and Movement Power.

 

So, regardless of the description of Tunneling, I'd say it's still falls under GM fiat based on SFX. If your tunneling was bought as vibrating your whole body instead of digging with claws, for example, the GM might allow it. Spinning? Probably impossible to build momentum when restrained. The Entangle is a sphere entrapping someone or otherwise loosely restrains them (with appropriate Limitation, since that's a mechanical change)? Then Tunnel away.

 

I'd just go with the general principles that SFX can sometimes impact game play, and that it's your game to run as you see fit. 99.9% of SFX combination wouldn't logically allow Tunneling to be used by the character entrapped by an Entangle anyway. The error is with the book in making an absolute statement in the Tunneling entry, IMO. Another Hero axiom is no absolutes, right?

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Here's what 6E, p. 215 says in the Entangle description:

 

 

So, regardless of the description of Tunneling, I'd say it's still falls under GM fiat based on SFX. If your tunneling was bought as vibrating your whole body instead of digging with claws, for example, the GM might allow it. Spinning? Probably impossible to build momentum when restrained. The Entangle is a sphere entrapping someone or otherwise loosely restrains them (with appropriate Limitation, since that's a mechanical change)? Then Tunnel away.

 

I'd just go with the general principles that SFX can sometimes impact game play, and that it's your game to run as you see fit. 99.9% of SFX combination wouldn't logically allow Tunneling to be used by the character entrapped by an Entangle anyway. The error is with the book in making an absolute statement in the Tunneling entry, IMO. Another Hero axiom is no absolutes, right?

 

And on 216, Escaping From Entangles...one of the methods is Contortionist to get out of handcuffs.  Contortionist implies movement of body parts.

 

I generally dislike making too much of SFX vs. SFX, but this might be one of the cases where you may have to.  I'll disagree on one thing:  the rule you cite does say "typically" it renders a character fully immobile.  Personally, I'd be very hard-pressed to allow a limitation when it doesn't, because the SFX might allow one type of escape, but not another.  If you're going to use SFX issues in your adjudication process, some seeming mechanical limits have to disappear, IMO.  A sphere completely surrounding someone, assuming it's basically solid (no holes), blocks Shrinking and Desolid that can't pass through solids, as well as alternate desolid below fully desolid.    

[Pattern Ghost]

21 hours ago, unclevlad said:

  Personally, I'd be very hard-pressed to allow a limitation when it doesn't, because the SFX might allow one type of escape, but not another. 

 

I don't think we disagree in general on that issue. My example was entrapping someone in a sphere, which would allow more freedom of movement than the rules assume, so worth a limitation, IMO.

[Christopher R Taylor]

In 6th at least theres a limitation of "does not restrict use of foci" for Entangle which the bubble idea would cover.

[unclevlad]

30 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

In 6th at least theres a limitation of "does not restrict use of foci" for Entangle which the bubble idea would cover.

 

I'd grant that one.  Someone could pull a dagger, and the character's STR would still apply.  Plus, of course, doing killing dice to the entangle.  But just allowing some movement isn't enough in itself.  Go with the Limited Power guideline...how often would this make the entangle less effective?  A funky speedster-like spinning power isn't something I'd expect to see.  That's not to say there might not be some other examples where it might apply, but it seems unlikely to me.