Tunneling Query

[Black Rose]

This might be something I'm simply overlooking, but how would you pull off this effect with Tunneling:

Character can move at normal speed (16m/Phase in this case) through up to... say... PD 6 material. For every +1 PD they can Tunnel through, their move is reduced by 2m.

 

The only thing I can think of is a Multipower, but that feels very kludgy. The idea seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

Thoughts?

[Doc Democracy]

Seems like a custom limitation "Movement through substance reduced 2m for every +1PD above 6PD".  You simply then have to consider how much that is worth.  +1/2??

 

I think people sometimes look for complexity rather than reach for the obvious solution but this looks nailed on to me.

 

Doc

[LoneWolf]

I would probably do a partially limited power.  Buy the movement and 6 PD with no limitation and buy extra PD with a custom limitation like Doc is recommending.  I would place the value of the limitation higher if doing this way because it is more restrictive on what it is being applied for.  About a -1 limitation seems right.  The cost work out pretty close either way but this is a more accurate way of doing it.    

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd start by looking at the cost of 16m through 6 PD and 2m through 13 PD (the two extremes).  Either would cost 28 points.

 

A Multipower of both would cost 28 + 3 + 3 = 34 points.

 

If we went to the extreme of a multipower for every increment, there are 8, so 52 points. 

 

Usable as a second form of movement is +1/4 - I'm not sure anyone has ever assessed how this might be applied to Tunnelling, but it feels like we have multiple modes of Tunnelling here.  We'd have to assess how many different forms.

 

Allocatable resistant protection is a +1/4 advantage (with a caution sign). It seems like moving defenses around is no less useful than shifting Tunneling around.  If we applied a +1/4 advantage to one of the two extremes, we would get 35 points, which is remarkably close to placing the two extremes in a Multipower (although that's skewed a bit by rounding - we could bump to 20 meters/6 defense or 2 meters/15 defense for 32 + 6= 38 vs 40 for a ++1/4 advantage on 32.  Still in the ballpark.

 

This is a bit more flexible than just choosing one or the other.  I'd also interpret it as "auto-adjusting" - the player moves 4 meters through defense 6 (or less), then hits rock with 10 PD, so "spends" 8 meters to shift up to 10 defenses and has 4 meters remaining, just as if he had allocated 18m/8 PD from the outset.

 

 

If it were a VPP, it could have a 28 point pool, Cosmic, no skill roll, Tunnelling Only(-1 1/2), so 28 + 17 = 45 - a bit more pricy but with many more variations (including advantages) available.  That also backs up 42 points.

 

So a bit more flexible and valuable than a +1/4 advantage, which leads me to a +1/2 advantage or 42 points.  More pricy than a "pick one or the other" multipower and less pricy than "pick any combo" as a multipower.  This does not seem unfair, so let's call allocatable a +1/2 advantage.

I think I'd also call it +1/2 for defenses, and even for Entangle switching between dice and defenses.

[Doc Democracy]

Hugh provoked me to go look at numbers. 

 

If you look at the "full power" here you would have 16m Tunnelling through 13PD.  That is 3+15+24 = 42 points.  Any answer to the cost of the more limited power needs to cost less than this. 

 

If you look at LoneWolf's plan, then the core cost is 28 points, with an additional 12 points that add PD at the cost of reducing movement.  With a -1 limitation that is +12 points that comes to a total of 40 points.  I think the limitation on this power is probably worth more than two points.

 

If you used my custom limitation then you would be paying 28 points...it is the same as the extreme at either end so you might think that you have more flexibility than purchasing either extreme, so perhaps a 1/4 limitation is the right one.  that comes to a cost of 34 points.

 

Doc

 

 

 

 

[LoneWolf]

Check your math on my way.  The base cost is 28 +14 (Active cost) to go through an additional 7 DEF for a total of 13 DEF.   The cost of the extra DEF is 7 points not 12 (14/2 = 7). That puts it to 35 not 40.  You are paying 1 point per extra DEF you can move through.  Being able to tunnel through more than 6 DEF should cost more than tunneling through 6 DEF.   Your method cost the same as tunneling through 6 DEF.  

[Doc Democracy]

24 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

Check your math on my way.  The base cost is 28 +14 (Active cost) to go through an additional 7 DEF for a total of 13 DEF.   The cost of the extra DEF is 7 points not 12 (14/2 = 7). That puts it to 35 not 40.  You are paying 1 point per extra DEF you can move through.  Being able to tunnel through more than 6 DEF should cost more than tunneling through 6 DEF.   Your method cost the same as tunneling through 6 DEF.  

 

I used the whole additional 12PD instead of just using the additional 7PD as you noted - well picked up. As you expected, your method  and mine come to a very similar cost, 34/35 points. 

That will teach me to pay attention when I am posting from work and allowing my job to distract me from the important issues of Tunnelling costs!!  😄

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

I would probably do a partially limited power.  Buy the movement and 6 PD with no limitation and buy extra PD with a custom limitation like Doc is recommending.  I would place the value of the limitation higher if doing this way because it is more restrictive on what it is being applied for.  About a -1 limitation seems right.  The cost work out pretty close either way but this is a more accurate way of doing it.    

 

It's worth noting that the power always has 30 active points in each variant;  +1 PD == 2m.  The baseline here is 2m move and 6 PD, for 16 points.  This is essentially a 7 slot MP of 14 points:

+2m, +6 PD

+4m, +5 PD

+6m, +4 PD

etc.

 

That would be 37 points total.  This makes a good upper bound;  the slots in a case like this are pricey.  By the same token?  You could cut the # of slots down, with no significant loss in utility.

+14m

+2 PD, +10m

+4 PD, +6m

+6 PD, +2m

 

That's now 34 points, and it's a clean definition;  there's no need to fret the value of a custom limitation.

 

Also note:  Hugh's auto adjusting, as a +1/4 advantage, would cost 7 points...and if it matters, increase the END from 3 to 4.  I like the notion of auto adjusting;  I'm playing with it with END.  But...rather than make it an advantage, which messes up active points and END costs in itself...I'm playing with using the Power skill for this.  It's probably NOT something a lot of you want to try...beyond the rules, it becomes somewhat complex.  Me...I solved that with a little app I wrote that derives the most effect you can get, for any possible level of END.  Consider this:
 

Teleportation 12m, x2 Increased Mass, Safe Blind Teleport (+1/4), MegaScale (1m = 10 km; +1 1/4) (42 Active Points) 

 

Then, for

0 END:  9m

1 END:  10m

2 END:  11m

4 END:  12m

 

Note that 0 END for the entire power would only be 6 points.  OTOH, 

 

Teleportation 36m 

0 END:  24m

1 END:  29m

2 END:  32m

3 END:  36m  (technically, because 0 END on 1m is still only 1 point.)

 

So for this discussion?  The notion of adjustable, via a power skill, could certainly apply here.  It's not free...you have to pay for the power skill.  You'd have to decide where it applies;  my focus has been to END costs, but this feels like another pretty good one.  IMO, replacing Allocatable with this, *doesn't* feel right to me because Allocatable is so powerful.  As Hugh notes, there's a Caution sign on there, with good reason.  But YMMV.

 

And I like the notion of using the power skill for things like this.

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'd just do a limitation on it, as Doc said.  Maybe a side effect, it doesn't always go off but its triggered by circumstances, slows you when you hit harder material.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'd start by looking at the cost of 16m through 6 PD and 2m through 13 PD (the two extremes).  Either would cost 28 points.

 

A Multipower of both would cost 28 + 3 + 3 = 34 points.

 

If we went to the extreme of a multipower for every increment, there are 8, so 52 points. 

 

Usable as a second form of movement is +1/4 - I'm not sure anyone has ever assessed how this might be applied to Tunnelling, but it feels like we have multiple modes of Tunnelling here.  We'd have to assess how many different forms.

 

Allocatable resistant protection is a +1/4 advantage (with a caution sign). It seems like moving defenses around is no less useful than shifting Tunneling around.  If we applied a +1/4 advantage to one of the two extremes, we would get 35 points, which is remarkably close to placing the two extremes in a Multipower (although that's skewed a bit by rounding - we could bump to 20 meters/6 defense or 2 meters/15 defense for 32 + 6= 38 vs 40 for a ++1/4 advantage on 32.  Still in the ballpark.

 

This is a bit more flexible than just choosing one or the other.  I'd also interpret it as "auto-adjusting" - the player moves 4 meters through defense 6 (or less), then hits rock with 10 PD, so "spends" 8 meters to shift up to 10 defenses and has 4 meters remaining, just as if he had allocated 18m/8 PD from the outset.

 

 

If it were a VPP, it could have a 28 point pool, Cosmic, no skill roll, Tunnelling Only(-1 1/2), so 28 + 17 = 45 - a bit more pricy but with many more variations (including advantages) available.  That also backs up 42 points.

 

So a bit more flexible and valuable than a +1/4 advantage, which leads me to a +1/2 advantage or 42 points.  More pricy than a "pick one or the other" multipower and less pricy than "pick any combo" as a multipower.  This does not seem unfair, so let's call allocatable a +1/2 advantage.

I think I'd also call it +1/2 for defenses, and even for Entangle switching between dice and defenses.

 

As Doc notes above, for 42 points, I can have 16 m through 13 PD - what we want s clearly less powerful than that, so 42 is not the right answer. Possible options:

 

 - use a +1/4 advantage instead of +1/2.  That would leave a cost of 35 points, which falls between the two.

 - keep +1/2 advantage on Allocable, start with 2m Tunnelling through 6PD (14 points) and add 14m Allocable (+1/2, so +21) = 35 points again.  The character is not getting Allocable on the base 2m + 6 PD.

 

I prefer the latter.  The character could also choose to buy 16m, 6 PD allocable.  This would allow 26 meters through 1 PD, an option the character suggested in the original post does not have.  Now we have broader options.  This would cost 3 + (25 x 1.5) = 40.  The base 3 points is not allocatable - you need 1 meter and 1 PD to Tunnel at all.

 

It looks like we are in the same cost range (34 vs 35), so the only question is how to get there. I like Allocatable because it can be fine tuned (how much fixed vs how much allocatable) and it seems portable to some other concepts (like Entangle or Defenses).

[Black Rose]

Thanks, everyone, for all your comments.

 

Looking at them, I think I'm going to <sigh> fudge it slightly and use Allocable (+1/4) on 14 Active points worth of PD/meters. That would give me:

3 (base) + 1 (2m Tunneling) + 10 (6 PD material) = 14

+ 14 * 1.25 (Allocable between meters and PD) = 17

for a total of 31 pts.

 

I was thinking of doing something with Lockout on the PD and Meters above the minimums (2m and 6 PD):

3 (base) + 1 (2m Tunneling) + 10 (6 PD material) = 14

+ 14 / 1.25 (+14m Tunneling) + 14 / 1.25 (+7 PD), both Lockout on the other (cheesy, I know) = 11 + 11 = 22

14 + 22 = 36

 

And the RAW do say you should go for the more expensive option...

 And 36 isn't a crazy amount for the ability, considering the alternative is only 31 pts.

[Doc Democracy]

6 hours ago, Black Rose said:

And the RAW do say you should go for the more expensive option...

 

I think that rule is there for someone using stuff beyond its intended use to achieve an effect that is reasonably directly covered by a power that costs more.

[Hugh Neilson]

Agreed, Doc - taken to its ultimate extreme, that rule should eliminate Mental Attack in favour of a Blast with IPE, LoS range, AVAD and ACV.

 

All the options seem to come in a pretty comparable prices, and clearly the cot should land somewhere between "16m, 6 DEF, no variation" and "16M, 13 DEF all the time".

Edited November 9, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[unclevlad]

Plus, as we've said, the notion built into Allocatable is a useful one...as long as it's used appropriately.  This definitely feels like such a use.

[Grailknight]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Agreed, Doc - taken to its ultimate extreme, that rule should eliminate Mental Attack in favour of a Blast with IPE, LoS range, AVAD and ACV.

 

That metarule only applies to combinations of Powers, Advantages and Limitations to achieve results not covered by an existing Power. If Mental Attack did not exist, then your method would be the correct one.