[Powers/Supers] Using Bind to hold something elevated

[Mark Skarr]

Thane has a ST 23 (KYOS) with a BL of 399. He’s holding a 3,500 lb car up, about 3 yards.

Candi has a ST 26 bind (KYOS, so a hypothetical BL of 796), with Area Affect (4 yd), Persistent, Selective Area and Wall (Rigid, any shape desired).

Thane and Candi are team mates. Candi’s power effects are Force Fields.

Can Candi hit the car Thane is holding with her bind, and keep it elevated, allowing Thane to release it and move away?

[Kelly Pedersen]

I would rule that Binding has a "default surface" that it extends from, set when you get the power. For most Bindings, that's probably the ground, but if you wanted to set the ceiling instead, you could - in that case, the binding would hold things up off the ground, but you'd probably have to consider the strength of the ceiling as well as the Binding when asking how much it can hold. The ability to pick which surface the binding extends from on the fly is probably a +10% enhancement, while the attachment point actually being an invisible point in space, effectively unbreakable, would be a +25% enhancement.

[Phantasm]

Since this Binding has Wall on it (though I'm not sure that combo is RAW-legal), I'd imagine that it could hold things up by "binding" them at the top of the wall formed.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

I would rule that Binding has a "default surface" that it extends from, set when you get the power. For most Bindings, that's probably the ground, but if you wanted to set the ceiling instead, you could - in that case, the binding would hold things up off the ground, but you'd probably have to consider the strength of the ceiling as well as the Binding when asking how much it can hold. The ability to pick which surface the binding extends from on the fly is probably a +10% enhancement, while the attachment point actually being an invisible point in space, effectively unbreakable, would be a +25% enhancement.

Well, the Bind does have Area Effect and Wall (Any shape desired), so it could, theoretically, support itself from the ground as a solid shape.

I can agree that an unbreakable, floating source point would probably be worth +25%. Or even +50% because bind is only 2 pts/level.

I would judge that the support point would be the nearest, relevant, surface in range. If the material strength came into question, and there were two surfaces, one which could and one which could not support it, I would say that it would automatically go to the stronger surface.

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Since this Binding has Wall on it (though I'm not sure that combo is RAW-legal), I'd imagine that it could hold things up by "binding" them at the top of the wall formed.

Actually:

Originally Posted by Characters, pg 40

To simulate vines, webs, and so forth, add one or more of Area Effect (p. 102), Persistent (p. 107), and Wall (p. 109)

So, it's RAW. To have Wall, you have to have both Persistent and Area Effect.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

I would rule that Binding has a "default surface" that it extends from, set when you get the power. For most Bindings, that's probably the ground, but if you wanted to set the ceiling instead, you could - in that case, the binding would hold things up off the ground, but you'd probably have to consider the strength of the ceiling as well as the Binding when asking how much it can hold. The ability to pick which surface the binding extends from on the fly is probably a +10% enhancement, while the attachment point actually being an invisible point in space, effectively unbreakable, would be a +25% enhancement.

However, this brings up another very good question:
If I bind a flyer . . . do they immediately fall, or do they stay bound at altitude?

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Well, the Bind does have Area Effect and Wall (Any shape desired), so it could, theoretically, support itself from the ground as a solid shape.

True, yeah. In that case, I'd allow the Binding to support the object using its own strength. I think I'd rule that a "flexible wall" Binding (e.g., how Spider-Man's web-walls are usually portrayed) should probably take a -5% Environmental limitation to represent the need for anchor points. Something like a "sticky force field" though, wouldn't need that.

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I can agree that an unbreakable, floating source point would probably be worth +25%. Or even +50% because bind is only 2 pts/level.

I prefer the +25% value because I was sort of comparing it to Selective, which is only +20%. +50% just feels a bit too strong to me.

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

If I bind a flyer . . . do they immediately fall, or do they stay bound at altitude?

By default, I would rule that a Binding without a valid attachment point still goes off, grappling the target, but they then fall until they impact a surface, at which point they stick to that. Of course, a flying target with unmodified Flight wouldn't care about being grappled to stay in the air, so they could continue to move, they'd just be bound up while doing so. But someone with Flight with any of the modifiers that make it more like real flying would be in trouble.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

I prefer the +25% value because I was sort of comparing it to Selective, which is only +20%. +50% just feels a bit too strong to me.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

By default, I would rule that a Binding without a valid attachment point still goes off, grappling the target, but they then fall until they impact a surface, at which point they stick to that. Of course, a flying target with unmodified Flight wouldn't care about being grappled to stay in the air, so they could continue to move, they'd just be bound up while doing so. But someone with Flight with any of the modifiers that make it more like real flying would be in trouble.

However, by default, Binding specifically states that the target "cannot select the Move or Change Posture maneuvers".

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

However, by default, Binding specifically states that the target "cannot select the Move or Change Posture maneuvers".

I think that has to be interpreted in context, though. It's referencing the grappling rules, which disallow movement. But the grappling rules basically assume that both grapplers are on the ground, and that their movement requires some kind of physical movement. For unmodified Flight, where it seems to be basically just mental, no body motions required, I wouldn't say to someone "sorry, you're grappled, you can't keep moving". I'd allow them to fly (though they'd still have to take the encumbrance of the grappler into account), but they'd take the other usual penalties of being grappled.

And, since Binding is basically grappling, I'd apply the same ruling to it. I don't think that's unfair to people with Binding, especially since the penalties of grappling still make flying a lot more difficult.