User talk:Luigifan18:VFX Split (3.5e Feat)
Level 5 is a bit early to be destroying every building you find
The coherent way to read this is that the region you move is stable, but the other part is not; therefore, you can move a structurally important wall, and the rest of the building will collapse (on your head).
Oh wait; there is no coherent way to read this: "if you use VFX Split to move part of a wall, that part of the wall would remain in midair as if it was still being supported by the wall beneath it" and "If one or more object(s) sit(s) on top of another, VFX Split can be used to move the object(s) on top over empty space, which will cause them to fall down" are contradictory, because D&D only distinguishes between creatures and objects, not creatures, walls, and objects. --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- This power doesn't destroy buildings. It temporarily separates parts of the wall, but once the power is deactivated, everything snaps back into place. The only objects that fall are objects that were loose to begin with. (BTW, the source material for both this and VFX Scratch is Viewtiful Joe: Double Trouble for the Nintendo DS. The Viewtiful Monarch also hails from that game, being based on its final boss.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Define "loose". --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming that you do come up with a decent definition, consider the situation of a loose ball resting on the floor of the second story of a building. If Split splits at exactly the right place, the ball falls down. However, if Split splits a millimeter lower, the ball continues to rest on the millimeter-thick floor, which is resting mysteriously on air. If Split splits a millimeter higher, the ball is presumably not only loosely attached to itself, so the fact that a millimeter of ball is stable somewhere means that the ball does not fall down. --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- The scenario you described can (and sometimes does) happen in Viewtiful Joe: Double Trouble, but the game is deliberately designed to make such a situation as uncommon as it possibly can. Millimeter-thick layers of space aren't really significant for D&D purposes. As for the definition of "loose", it's basically objects that are stacked on top of each other and are not physically adhered to each other. For instance, a stack of bricks could be separated by VFX Split, dropping the bricks on the top of the stack to the ground. Bricks bound together by mortar could not be separated. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- What if they're bound together by syrup (thick or thin) or they're bound together by water's surface tension?
- D&D purposes have no arbitrary limit to the precision of measurements, so millimeter-thick layers can easily be arranged, and are quite likely once the DM realizes they're possible. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Surface tension of water and thin syrup are too weak as adhesives to keep VFX Split from regarding objects as separate. Thick syrup is actually an arguable case; I'd lean on the side of saying that syrup of any thickness is too weak, and that the adhesive in question would actually need to be something that can set and become permanent (such as glue) in order for it to keep VFX Split from separating objects, but YMMV.
- A DM who uses millimeter-thick layers to No-Sell the players from separating objects is really splitting hairs, and I'd hazard a guess that he's already doing everything in his power to drive the players insane through sheer frustration. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you disputing the part where millimeter-thick layers, when they happen, are sufficient to keep things from falling down? In that case, you can use this to shave off the bottoms of things very easily.
- Or are you disputing the part where millimeter-thick layers are likely? Maybe the Viewtiful Warrior is very good at being infinitely precise with this thing, but they're still going to occur every time the floor is slightly slanted or otherwise deformed. --Foxwarrior (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
→Reverted indentation to one colon