Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

[James Gasik]

The Broken condition is, as you noted, a Pathfinder rule, not 3.5. That having been said, 3.5 is very unclear about how Mending interacts with the rules for damaging and breaking objects. It seems to completely bypass how those rules work, allowing you to repair small items regardless of how many "hit points" they have remaining (even zero, as a Sundered dagger would have).

Pathfinder chose to fix this by making Mending read as follows:

This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points. All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function. Magic items can be repaired by this spell, but you must have a caster level equal to or higher than that of the object. Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities. This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs). This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted, but it can still repair damage done to such items.

 

[smuckenfart]

The Broken condition is, as you noted, a Pathfinder rule, not 3.5. That having been said, 3.5 is very unclear about how Mending interacts with the rules for damaging and breaking objects. It seems to completely bypass how those rules work, allowing you to repair small items regardless of how many "hit points" they have remaining (even zero, as a Sundered dagger would have).

Pathfinder chose to fix this by making Mending read as follows:

This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points. All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function. Magic items can be repaired by this spell, but you must have a caster level equal to or higher than that of the object. Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities. This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs). This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted, but it can still repair damage done to such items.

I don't agree that the spell mending makes reference to repair any object regardless of hp's, that's a player reading into it.

I do agree that the quotes were from pathfinder, I did mention that, and that it was the only online publication that went into such detail as to define what "broken" means. It was also an illustration that the most recent public iteration coincides with the belief that an item reduced to zero hp is ruined/destroyed. I also believe the spell mending is very clear with how it interacts with the rules, the rules in the dnd books are guidelines, but not words in a dictionary. The words the authors use do not imply broken off or in two, that's players perspective that "1 inch" is small regarded as small, despite the fact that the term severed/cut off/broken in two is not.

May I take a small sip of your drink?
How much can I drink before you feel it's not a small sip? 10%? 20% 50?
It's preposterous to me that people can't see the relevance there.

The authors chose to say that it can mend small breaks, and a break is an opening or a gap. A clean break is not a small break it's the max. So long as the dagger has HP's and it is still attached, it can be mended.

I would even be comfortable if the dagger broke because you rolled a critical 1, yet it still has 1 hp and could therefore be mended. Amending one rule, but not breaking the other rule regarding broken objects.

 

[smuckenfart]

I don't agree that the spell mending makes reference to repair any object regardless of hp's, that's a player reading into it.

I do agree that the quotes were from pathfinder, I did mention that, and that it was the only online publication that went into such detail as to define what "broken" means. It was also an illustration that the most recent public iteration coincides with the belief that an item reduced to zero hp is ruined/destroyed. I also believe the spell mending is very clear with how it interacts with the rules, the rules in the dnd books are guidelines, but not words in a dictionary. The words the authors use do not imply broken off or in two, that's players perspective that "1 inch" is small regarded as small, despite the fact that the term severed/cut off/broken in two is not.

May I take a small sip of your drink?
How much can I drink before you feel it's not a small sip? 10%? 20% 50?
It's preposterous to me that people can't see the relevance there.

The authors chose to say that it can mend small breaks, and a break is an opening or a gap. A clean break is not a small break it's the max. So long as the dagger has HP's and it is still attached, it can be mended.

I would even be comfortable if the dagger broke because you rolled a critical 1, yet it still has 1 hp and could therefore be mended. Amending one rule, but not breaking the other rule regarding broken objects.

The point of the thread was whether you are in support of rules as law or guidelines.

I purport that the spell was intended to mend "small breaks" as regarded as small and defined by the dictionary definition of "a break (n.)", just google it up and see, understand the words you use. The mend spell could mend a broken object provided but one break (same definition as in the topic sentence), it must still adhere to the small stipulation. Only a clean break is total separation, and it is regarded as the largest possible gap or opening in an object, it's total. You can't possible reasonably refute that.

However, if you want to homerule that it should be able to, that's a reasonable proposition to use the "rules are just a guideline" excuse, unlike the first example in my original post.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't agree that the spell mending makes reference to repair any object regardless of hp's, that's a player reading into it.

I do agree that the quotes were from pathfinder, I did mention that, and that it was the only online publication that went into such detail as to define what "broken" means. It was also an illustration that the most recent public iteration coincides with the belief that an item reduced to zero hp is ruined/destroyed. I also believe the spell mending is very clear with how it interacts with the rules, the rules in the dnd books are guidelines, but not words in a dictionary. The words the authors use do not imply broken off or in two, that's players perspective that "1 inch" is small regarded as small, despite the fact that the term severed/cut off/broken in two is not.

May I take a small sip of your drink?
How much can I drink before you feel it's not a small sip? 10%? 20% 50?
It's preposterous to me that people can't see the relevance there.

The authors chose to say that it can mend small breaks, and a break is an opening or a gap. A clean break is not a small break it's the max. So long as the dagger has HP's and it is still attached, it can be mended.

I would even be comfortable if the dagger broke because you rolled a critical 1, yet it still has 1 hp and could therefore be mended. Amending one rule, but not breaking the other rule regarding broken objects.

So rather than let the spell do what it says it does, you want to change the rules of how things are broken in the first place? Because daggers remain functional as long as they have any hit points, by the rules (and also "critical fumbles" is a house rule).

See at some point, you have to concede that, confusing or not, the spell is intended to do something, and your reading of the spell makes it do nothing without amending other rules of the game. And yet, saying that the spell does what it says it does is "a player reading into it"?

I mean, if you don't like the spell or how it's worded, that's fine, but arguing that it isn't intended to have a function at all by the rules is a bit much, don't you think?

 

[smuckenfart]

So rather than let the spell do what it says it does, you want to change the rules of how things are broken in the first place? Because daggers remain functional as long as they have any hit points, by the rules (and also "critical fumbles" is a house rule).

See at some point, you have to concede that, confusing or not, the spell is intended to do something, and your reading of the spell makes it do nothing without amending other rules of the game. And yet, saying that the spell does what it says it does is "a player reading into it"?

I mean, if you don't like the spell or how it's worded, that's fine, but arguing that it isn't intended to have a function at all by the rules is a bit much, don't you think?

So you're saying that a slender dagger couldn't be cracked? I'm saying it can have a crack or a fracture, I've seen them in weapons in real life.

The spell does exactly what it says it does, as defined by the limitations of the words used by the author, those words defined by the dictionary which are not guidelines. Then incorporating rules in the PHB regarding objects with hit points. There is an entire section devoted to that topic.

Those all work in conjunction with each other, a sundered broken dagger with zero hp is beyond the limitations of a level zero mending spell that can repair "gaps or openings", aka the definition of a break, in solid metal objects, such as said slender dagger. That's what "a break" is, hard core defined by the dictionary. 30 second google check will confirm. Is it not? Or does that not matter at all?

I like the spell, but I don't agree with the arguments people put forth because they aren't accurate, I've been teaching English for the last 8 years to university students in China, I know what words mean, and putting this all together makes sense. To you I'm changing the rules or function of the spell. To me I'm trying to help people understand how the spell actually is intended to function. 3.5e does not make clear what "broken" means, so I looked to see what the publications that are out there DO say about it. Found that it is defined out there. Maybe that's something to consider in the analysis. ? Regardless, it can only mend it if it is a break. One break. That is small. So use words that mean small. And make sure to know what it means, a break (n.). And then check, does that support the main idea, that it can mend small tears or breaks? And don't pretend that a slender dagger can't have a crack 50% across the width of the blade, while still having 1 hp.

There is interpretation, I don't expect to convince you, no more than I think you expect to convince me. That would require me accepting that the authors had little idea what the terms they use meant, or that they had shoddy assistance in editing, or that they didn't argue more than anyone about how the descriptions should be worded. I would have to not care how the dictionary defines words, and not give any consideration for the quantitative qualities of descriptive words. Severed off and broken in half are just as small as a cut and a fracture.
That is what is a bit much, to me. If words are to be taken seriously, then definitely definitely I am not wrong.

I think you just think that I just don't like it so I'm changing things as I see fit, but that's not true at all. I'm using evidence I find in the PHB, online publications, the dictionary as the basis of my argument. Then I use my own words to express similar examples of the everyday language we use to further illustrate a point. Showing how different words mean varying degrees, from small to large to absolute, because broken off/severed are not words used to describe a small amount of damage. No sir. Everywhere you look, online or in the books, an object that is reduced to zero hp's is ruined/destroyed, I could quote you where it says that would requires a make whole spell to repair. In what universe is "ruined/destroyed" considered a small amount of damage? A hairline fracture is small. A small rip in the cloak is small. A chip in the glass is small. A ruined dress or destroyed vase is not small.
It's not that I don't like it, there's just overwhelming evidence that the spell does not perform to the extent that some people say it does.

My friends say I should be a lawyer, because rules and accuracy are what's important to me. Not being right or feeling good about something, not important. Rationale, sensibility, logic, accuracy. These principles are important. I also enjoy debates, it's mental exercise.

 

[James Gasik]

So you're saying that a slender dagger couldn't be cracked? I'm saying it can have a crack or a fracture, I've seen them in weapons in real life.

The spell does exactly what it says it does, as defined by the limitations of the words used by the author, those words defined by the dictionary which are not guidelines. Then incorporating rules in the PHB regarding objects with hit points. There is an entire section devoted to that topic.

Those all work in conjunction with each other, a sundered broken dagger with zero hp is beyond the limitations of a level zero mending spell that can repair "gaps or openings", aka the definition of a break, in solid metal objects, such as said slender dagger. That's what "a break" is, hard core defined by the dictionary. 30 second google check will confirm. Is it not? Or does that not matter at all?

I like the spell, but I don't agree with the arguments people put forth because they aren't accurate, I've been teaching English for the last 8 years to university students in China, I know what words mean, and putting this all together makes sense. To you I'm changing the rules or function of the spell. To me I'm trying to help people understand how the spell actually is intended to function. 3.5e does not make clear what "broken" means, so I looked to see what the publications that are out there DO say about it. Found that it is defined out there. Maybe that's something to consider in the analysis. ? Regardless, it can only mend it if it is a break. One break. That is small. So use words that mean small. And make sure to know what it means, a break (n.). And then check, does that support the main idea, that it can mend small tears or breaks? And don't pretend that a slender dagger can't have a crack 50% across the width of the blade, while still having 1 hp.

There is interpretation, I don't expect to convince you, no more than I think you expect to convince me. That would require me accepting that the authors had little idea what the terms they use meant, or that they had shoddy assistance in editing, or that they didn't argue more than anyone about how the descriptions should be worded. I would have to not care how the dictionary defines words, and not give any consideration for the quantitative qualities of descriptive words. Severed off and broken in half are just as small as a cut and a fracture.
That is what is a bit much, to me. If words are to be taken seriously, then definitely definitely I am not wrong.

I think you just think that I just don't like it so I'm changing things as I see fit, but that's not true at all. I'm using evidence I find in the PHB, online publications, the dictionary as the basis of my argument. Then I use my own words to express similar examples of the everyday language we use to further illustrate a point. Showing how different words mean varying degrees, from small to large to absolute, because broken off/severed are not words used to describe a small amount of damage. No sir. Everywhere you look, online or in the books, an object that is reduced to zero hp's is ruined/destroyed, I could quote you where it says that would requires a make whole spell to repair. In what universe is "ruined/destroyed" considered a small amount of damage? A hairline fracture is small. A small rip in the cloak is small. A chip in the glass is small. A ruined dress or destroyed vase is not small.
It's not that I don't like it, there's just overwhelming evidence that the spell does not perform to the extent that some people say it does.

My friends say I should be a lawyer, because rules and accuracy are what's important to me. Not being right or feeling good about something, not important. Rationale, sensibility, logic, accuracy. These principles are important. I also enjoy debates, it's mental exercise.

Here's the thing though; while in real life, yes, weapons suffer degradation and need maintenance over time, the rules do not reflect that. There is no rule that causes a dagger to chip or crack due to normal use, even when stabbing people in plate armor (and in fact the rules state that an item remains fully functional until it's hit points are reduced to 0). You have to specifically attack it, and deal damage beyond it's hardness to cause any damage to the weapon.

If Mending has a purpose beyond flavor (making it a completely trap choice), then it must be allowed to do what it says it can do; repair minor damage to objects, which can, according to it's description, restore a broken dagger blade. The spell does not mention hit points (unlike the Pathfinder version), and only tell us what it can't do: undo damage caused by warp wood, repair more than one break, and not restore magical properties of items or affect broken rods, wands, and staves.

Because, as I pointed out, items remain fully functional until their hit points are reduced to 0, and a broken dagger would not be functional, it follows that Mending can repair objects that are destroyed. Note also that damaged (but not destroyed) items can be restored with the Craft skill; I feel this implies that the power of Mending is beyond that of mundane skills.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Read the 1e PHB and DMG sometime. Gygax is hard to understand, poorly organized and quite frankly contradictory in multiple areas. He repeatedly tells DMs that they can change whatever they want and should make the game theirs, and also that they shouldn't change anything and follow what is written.

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.

Living things have always been more difficult to affect/repair in D&D than inanimate objects.

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.

A 1 inch crack is a 1 inch crack is a 1 inch crack. Whether it's in a slender dagger, a short sword or a battle axe, you can still have identical 1 inch cracks. Mending should be able to repair all of those, but some some bizarre reason it can only affect the 1 inch crack in the dagger?

3.5 also makes a distinction between cracks and breaks. This is from the petrified condition.

"Petrified: A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character’s petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and the DM must assign some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation."

Flesh to Stone also makes a similar distinction.

If you throw a vial of acid or oil, it has to break before the contents are released. That doesn't mean cracks. Cracks aren't going to be effective at releasing the contents quickly. It has to shatter(break).

It's pretty clear that even in 3.5, break/broken can be both cracks or clean breaks and mending does not make a distinction. So long as the break(even clean breaks) is small, it can be mended.

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.

Mending would be to fix a single clean break, and then only if it was something small like a slender dagger, a rope or a stick. Make whole would repair a shattered arm. The inanimate equivalents anyway.

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.

All it says is that the object is ruined at 0 hit points. If I have a sewing needle and I break it in half, it's ruined. If I have a slender dagger and I break it in half, it's ruined. Ruined doesn't have to mean shattered into lots of pieces or beyond the ability of mending to fix.

Ruined and broken are not conditions. Hell, they aren't even mutually exclusive even if they were conditions. Things can be ruined and not broken, broken and not ruined, or both broken and ruined.

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.

Damaging Objects – d20PFSRD

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:

Conditions – d20PFSRD

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:

Broken (3.5e Condition) - Dungeons and Dragons Wiki

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.

Home brew has no weight in my eyes when talking about official rules. We all have ideas of what thing should mean or even could mean. Perhaps the person who wrote that simply wanted more granularity when it came to breaking things, rather than out of a belief that mending can't repair something at 0 hit points.

 

[Maxperson]

So you're saying that a slender dagger couldn't be cracked? I'm saying it can have a crack or a fracture, I've seen them in weapons in real life.

You are adding to 3.5 what doesn't exist. There is no damage system that allows for cracks and such prior to hitting 0. If you take a greatsword with 10 hit points and reduce it to 1 hit point, it's still 100% functional. There are no cracks, dents or anything else that would reduce it's functionality or risk it breaking if you swing it.

The spell does exactly what it says it does, as defined by the limitations of the words used by the author, those words defined by the dictionary which are not guidelines. Then incorporating rules in the PHB regarding objects with hit points. There is an entire section devoted to that topic.

The spell that WELDS metal objects. And there is a portion where ceramic and wooden objects can be REJOINED to be as strong as new. The spell does not say cracks, which it would if that were all that it could repair.

It's clear from how 3.5 uses "broken" and "breaks" that it includes both cracks and full separation.

 

[smuckenfart]

Here's the thing though; while in real life, yes, weapons suffer degradation and need maintenance over time, the rules do not reflect that. There is no rule that causes a dagger to chip or crack due to normal use, even when stabbing people in plate armor (and in fact the rules state that an item remains fully functional until it's hit points are reduced to 0). You have to specifically attack it, and deal damage beyond it's hardness to cause any damage to the weapon.

If Mending has a purpose beyond flavor (making it a completely trap choice), then it must be allowed to do what it says it can do; repair minor damage to objects, which can, according to it's description, restore a broken dagger blade. The spell does not mention hit points (unlike the Pathfinder version), and only tell us what it can't do: undo damage caused by warp wood, repair more than one break, and not restore magical properties of items or affect broken rods, wands, and staves.

Because, as I pointed out, items remain fully functional until their hit points are reduced to 0, and a broken dagger would not be functional, it follows that Mending can repair objects that are destroyed. Note also that damaged (but not destroyed) items can be restored with the Craft skill; I feel this implies that the power of Mending is beyond that of mundane skills.

Yes, we roll with critical hit and critical miss. I understand it's an option, and still an example of where a dagger could receive damage. It may also receive damage as means of good storytelling;

"as you roll and tumble with your opponent the ground beneath you suddenly ceases to support you, the cliffside flashing in and out of your vision as you spiral downward, the enemy let go of you and screams as it flails its hands around trying to orient itself. Below you and slightly to your right, you catch an outcropping tree that's grown out from the side of the cliffside. As you fast approach it, you reach out with your hands and...roll to hit the branches. Ok! You reach out with your hands and grasp onto the first few branches, but they slip through your fingers as the gravity and speed are too much, the leaves rake across your face and you close your eyes in reaction, still grasping outward you've managed to slow your fall enough to clench a firm grasp of some solid branches and you yank yourself to a stop! The shrill cry of your enemy continues to soar away from you as you watch him cast down to the rocks below. A glint of sunlight flashing off a small metal object ricocheting off the boulders and you realize that you released your dagger while grasping for your life. Looking around, the rocks on the cliff, you notice, are jagged enough to provide adequate footing, and you figure it's probably easier to get down than to get back up. You make your way down to the bottom, blood splatter becoming apparent as you draw closer to the floor. The body, you imagine a pulpous mess, lies behind a large rock to your right. To your left about 10 feet ahead of you, you see your dagger, the tip broken off like a icicle. You pick up the dagger and the broken shard, it looks like you could probably still use it as it is jagged."

The dagger didn't actually take any damage, but it definitely has character and a story behind it. The player can always go get it fixed, the dagger is functional so that if in the next fight it gets sundered, it can be proper naughty word.

I do agree that the spell should be able to do something. The fact is that a slender dagger cannot sustain much damage is due to its hardness, and HP's relative to its thickness. That's the problem with the dagger, not the spell or the breaking objects rules. A sword or larger weapon does not have that problem. You're also forgetting about every other material that the spell can repair, weapons and armor being the least probable to be used by the spell. Many items do not have hp's listed, what's small damage to a candle stick? The disguise kit? The amount of damage that can be repaired is relative to the size of the object, and most objects, from what I can tell, require a degree of sensibility to agree on what's considered a small tear or a small hole. Objects that definitely have HP's, such as listed on page 166 of the PHB, those follow the rules for breaking objects, like a door, a rope, weapon, armor, etc. Most campaigns that I have seen don't actually calculate the hp's of armor, even though they absorb a hit to prevent damage a player. The way I play it, you roll to hit, and if that hit doesn't overcome the player's dexterity AC first, then the player dodges the attack. If it is enough to overcome the dodge, but not the armor AC, then the armor blocks the damage. That damage is supposed to be absorbed by the armor, and if the damage is enough to overcome the hardness, it is supposed to do hp damage to the armor. I think it might be high time to include that in the campaign, the wear and tear of equipment. Give that craft skill a use, not just some cosmetic RP thing. The apparently uselessness of using the mending skill (for weapons and armor) is because weapon damage and armor damage are seldom enforced. That's not a game mechanic problem. You fall down a small cliff and take 36 points of damage, but your armor is fine. eh?

Consider this:

A slender dagger that incurs a 75% crack along the width of its 1 inch blade and 1 hp of damage, that's a significant portion relative to the size of the blade, and half its hit points. To you it might be small, but to that blade a 75% cut compromises its integrity significantly. Now take that same measurement, 3/4 of an inch and place it on a bastard sword. That 3/4 inch cleft on the sword's 4 inch wide blade is just 18% across, and it's hp's are reduced by just 20%. That small amount of damage to the sword still leaves it considerably more durable than the slender dagger, the size of the damage done is the same. Relativity matters. The point being that just because it's a small dagger doesn't mean that any damage done to it is considered small.

Consider for a moment that everything I am saying is true, and then let's see if there are any inconsistencies.

First, let's assume that the authors did in fact know what "a tear" is and "a break" is and that "small" refers to not only size, but word choice describing that small damage type.

1. A break is a gap or opening. A gap or opening, like a gash, is still connected to the whole and not separated into separate pieces.
2. A mending spell can repair broken metal objects, provided there is but one break. It can ONLY repair a break as described in 1.
3. The break is only used to describe hard objects. To make the break small, and still whole, use associated words that refer to small, ie. fracture, crack, cleft, chip, et, with the adjective "small". a small fracture. a small crack.
4. A clean break is a crack that has penetrated 100% across the width. That's not a small crack, it is separated and breaks #1. It can't be repaired because it breaks #2. It breaks #3 because it is not a small crack, it's cracked all the way through. A clean break is not a small break.

So, assuming that, the mending spell can repair any small breaks as using 1-3 as guidelines, and it cannot mend objects that have been broken in two such as a clean break in #4.
Pull up the breaking objects rules. You can sunder an object by reducing it to zero hp. The weapon or shield is destroyed, stated as such on page 158 under Step 3: Consequences:

"See Table 8–8: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield."

Again on page 165 under Hit Points:
"When an object’s hit points reach 0, it’s ruined."

And again under Damaged Objects:
"A damaged object remains fully functional until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed."

This of course you already know, and they're pretty adamant about it to repeat it in different locations, and across the board online. A weapon breaks when its hp's are reduced to zero. If it breaks in half, separated into pieces, it's also not just a gap or space.
Line it all up and see what checks out:

A weapon has been sundered, it's hp's brought to zero and breaks in two as the player parries yet another mighty blow.
A weapon that has been reduced to zero hit points is ruined/destroyed. Ruined/destroyed are not terms for small damage type. Check.
A weapon that is broken in two does not fit with the "gap or space" definition of "a break". Check.
The blade that has a clean break does not conform to the small category of damage (unlike that 33% crack, this is 100%). Check

Not allowing such a weapon to be mended does not contradict any of the requirements or limitations of the breaking objects ruling, nor the 1-4 ruling above.

A weapon that has sustained a small fissure along the blade. "fissure" is still one piece, check. Fits the "small" requirement, check. Fits the "gap or space" definition of "a break", check. Has HP. Check. Nothing about this breaks or bends any rules. If you assume what I'm saying is accurate, then it all checks out. This item could be mended.

Where it doesn't check out, is when you start saying that "a break" doesn't in fact mean that it's just "a gap or space", and separation into two independent pieces is possible. Because then, you conflict with the zero hp rule, since a weapon won't break on you unless it's sundered to zero. The definition of the author's word choice is ignored. The books describing the items as ruined/destroyed are trivialized. The relative size of the damage type to the weapon in question is ignored in favor of a general idea that an inch is just an inch.

 

[Gradine]

Step 1: Figure out what's fun for the players
Step 2: Do that