I see what you are saying, but I think you are overthinking this. Perhaps because you are an English teacher where those who wrote it are not. The original language can be traced back to 1e and Gygax was absolutely NOT an English teacher. I'm also positive that over the years I've seen modules where a small item was broken in two or more pieces and Mending was mentioned as a way to fix it.
2e changed the wording a bit and added this, "One turn after the spell is cast, the magic of the joining fades, and the effect cannot be magically dispelled.".
4e says, "This spell repairs a single break or tear in an object you touch, such as a broken chain link, two halves of a broken key, a torn cloak, or a leaking wineskin. As long as the break or tear is no larger than 1 foot in any dimension, you mend it, leaving no trace of the former damage."
I think that it's pretty clear from the official sources over the various editions that it was intended from the get go to allow the rejoining of breaks in small objects. There's really no reason in the 5e description to mention a slender dagger if what's being mended is just a small gash in it and not a clean break. The gash will be the same size regardless of the size of the weapon that has the gash in it.
As for "ruin" and "destroyed," I just don't see it as catastrophic as you do. It just needs to be unusable for its original function. A dagger reduced to 0 hit points and snapped in half has taken relatively little physical damage and is ruined/destroyed(reduced to 0 hit points), even though it's really just snapped in two. Hit point being abstract don't mean a whole lot. It only really matter what 0 means, unless you are playing an edition with bloodied where things trigger at other amounts.
I may be overthinking it as you say, or others may be downplaying the importance of words. I'll take a 50/50 on that. I'm sure Gygax and his team had editors and were much smarter than I, and that they were certain before publishing their works. We can only imagine the fierce debates they had before it ever made the clearinghouse.
We are strictly using 3.5e.
If you cut your finger, you can heal it with a simple spell, but if you sever your finger, it can be healed but not reattached without the higher level regeneration spell. The size is the same, only 1 inch (which is foundation of the slender dagger argument), but it does give credit to the basis that a
severed thing is more serious than a cut/abrasion/slice, or whatever equivalent word is used to describe the material, enough that a simple spell isn't suffice.
I keep hearing this argument that they mention a
slender dagger... well, does it not make sense that it is the reference point by which players may use to gauge the kind of break can be mended in a larger weapon, like a battle axe. If they used a short sword as an example, then the proportion of that crack in that sword would be beyond what the spell was intended because it's a larger blade. The break in that bastard sword may be no longer crack in a dagger.
Break a bone in your finger, it's small by the standard of measurement, less than one inch, yet there are various types of breaks that differ in degrees of seriousness, a hairline fracture being the least, and a clean break being the max. Breaks in objects also have different degrees of seriousness. The words used to describe a broken bone are identical to the ones you use with a broken dagger. A fracture, a clean break, etc. There isn't a break (single) greater than a clean break, unless you count shattered, which isn't a break. I am not being unreasonable, it's evidence based logic in how we use every day language to describe things. The severity of a type of damage is equivalent to the words used to describe it, of any sized weapon, clothing, wound, etc.
So, are we sure that what we are describing is regarded as "small", or are we just squeezing as much as we can out of it because to us a 1 inch dagger isn't a big deal, but if that 1 inch was your finger....suddenly we have a different perspective.
Cut your finger, you put a bandaid on it.
Gouge your finger, now you're a bit more concerned because it's more serious, no small thing. You go get stitches.
Sever your finger completely off, you go to the hospital to get surgery.
Mending is the bandaid.
Make whole is the surgery.
The zero HP ruling in the players handbook seems very clear cut to me, and I don't see how it supports any other argument without stretching your imagination or completely ignoring it. That to me is forcing a square peg into a round hole.
I don't know what publication this references, but I've found these:
*edit: I see that they're pathfinder publications, I realize now. They are also the only references that go into such detail.
www.d20pfsrd.com
"A damaged object remains functional with the
broken condition until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the
Craft skill and a number of spells. (eg.
make whole or
mending)"
And the broken condition is defined here:
www.d20pfsrd.com
"Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total
hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
- If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
- If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills.
- If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty.
- If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used.
- If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value. If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item’s. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item’s total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined)."
This supports the sentence referring to "can mend a broken such and such provided but one break exists", where broken is the condition by which an item is severely damaged but not reduced to zero HP, at which point it is ruined/destroyed and requires the level 2 spell make whole to repair.
In the dnd wiki page, a "Broken Condition" was included described here:
dnd-wiki.org
Broken (3.5e Condition)
This condition is meant to replace the normal effect of Sundering or otherwise destroying items.
Broken[edit]
This condition is not added to creature, rather it is added to items which hit points have been depleted. A broken item's magical qualities are suppressed until it is repaired. Broken armor double their Armor Check penalty and arcane spell failure, halves their AC Bonus and Max Dexterity bonus. Broken weapon deal minimum damage with each attack and count as improvised weapon.
A broken item can be repaired with spells such as
make whole or with a appropriated DC 20
Craft check and 10 minute of work per hit point of the item. An item destroyed by
disintegrate or similar effect cannot be repaired but can be restored by a
wish or
miracle spell.
It's homebrew, so I don't give it as much weight, but it also supports the basis that an object reduced to zero HP is effectively dead, and can be repaired with a Make Whole spell.
