Level Up (A5E) Can Mending Restore a Damaged Item?

[lichmaster]

I've checked with the designers in question, and no, mending does not restore a damaged weapon or armour. It will fix cosmetic damage though. It does grant an expertise die when making maintenance checks. Of course, you may do whatever you wish in your own game, but the intention isn't for a cantrip level spell to bypass those rules.

Wow, this basically changes the "rating" of this cantrip from pretty much mandatory to just situationally useful.
I'm not that surprised, though, given that the overall design of LU seems to go in the direction of creating additional challenges that cannot be solved with one spell (as for the foraging rules and spells that create supply, or the languages and comprehend languages spells).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wow, this basically changes the "rating" of this cantrip from pretty much mandatory to just situationally useful.
I'm not that surprised, though, given that the overall design of LU seems to go in the direction of creating additional challenges that cannot be solved with one spell (as for the foraging rules and spells that create supply, or the languages and comprehend languages spells).

That is my reasoning as well.

 

[noodohs]

I've checked with the designers in question, and no, mending does not restore a damaged weapon or armour. It will fix cosmetic damage though. It does grant an expertise die when making maintenance checks. Of course, you may do whatever you wish in your own game, but the intention isn't for a cantrip level spell to bypass those rules.

So this actually leaves me with a few extra questions. I get the reasoning behind doing it that way, i.e. not wanting us to cheat our way past a rule, and that's fine from a game mechanics standpoint, but it begs the question of what's so special about equipment vs other items? By that, I mean if I'm inhabiting my character's shoes and trying to stay immersed:

• I have just a random steel rod, let's say it's like 3 feet long and 4" in diameter. Somehow or another, it splits in half. Well, that split is only 4" long, so I can easily mend it back together.
• By contrast, I have a longsword. Same material, roughly the same dimensions, and let's say the blade snaps. Should I not also be able to mend that back together?

It feels like there shouldn't really be any distinction between the two. Having said that, it kinda feels like the intent is that sure, mending could physically put the sword back together, but you'd still have to do a maintenance check. But then that begs the question of whether it's still a check for a broken item or is it just damaged now? To answer that, is the mending done as part of the maintenance check and the split is only mended if I succeed? Or is it mended before I make the check and thus it is now one piece before I begin maintenance? If the former, why wouldn't it work that way on, say, the aforementioned steel rod? Perhaps a bit of a rewrite of the spell might be in order to clear some of that up. It could be as simple as just putting the last line first:

"You gain an expertise die on maintenance checks and are able to make the check even if you do not have the necessary tools. If the check is successful, you also..." insert rest of spell text here. That way, the primary effect of the spell is to make the maintenance check easier and only if you succeed on the check does it mend the thing. That sounds like a nerf, and it kind of is, but like... mending cloth is a DC 5, so if you're just trying to fix a shirt, you'd have to roll really, really poorly to fail. And the main benefit is that the rules are applied consistently to items instead of having an arbitrary distinction between adventuring gear and household items.

 

[Stalker0]

I've checked with the designers in question, and no, mending does not restore a damaged weapon or armour. It will fix cosmetic damage though. It does grant an expertise die when making maintenance checks. Of course, you may do whatever you wish in your own game, but the intention isn't for a cantrip level spell to bypass those rules.

Perfect, this was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

 

[Morrus]

So this actually leaves me with a few extra questions. I get the reasoning behind doing it that way, i.e. not wanting us to cheat our way past a rule, and that's fine from a game mechanics standpoint, but it begs the question of what's so special about equipment vs other items? By that, I mean if I'm inhabiting my character's shoes and trying to stay immersed:

• I have just a random steel rod, let's say it's like 3 feet long and 4" in diameter. Somehow or another, it splits in half. Well, that split is only 4" long, so I can easily mend it back together.
• By contrast, I have a longsword. Same material, roughly the same dimensions, and let's say the blade snaps. Should I not also be able to mend that back together?

It feels like there shouldn't really be any distinction between the two. Having said that, it kinda feels like the intent is that sure, mending could physically put the sword back together, but you'd still have to do a maintenance check. But then that begs the question of whether it's still a check for a broken item or is it just damaged now? To answer that, is the mending done as part of the maintenance check and the split is only mended if I succeed? Or is it mended before I make the check and thus it is now one piece before I begin maintenance? If the former, why wouldn't it work that way on, say, the aforementioned steel rod? Perhaps a bit of a rewrite of the spell might be in order to clear some of that up. It could be as simple as just putting the last line first:

"You gain an expertise die on maintenance checks and are able to make the check even if you do not have the necessary tools. If the check is successful, you also..." insert rest of spell text here. That way, the primary effect of the spell is to make the maintenance check easier and only if you succeed on the check does it mend the thing. That sounds like a nerf, and it kind of is, but like... mending cloth is a DC 5, so if you're just trying to fix a shirt, you'd have to roll really, really poorly to fail. And the main benefit is that the rules are applied consistently to items instead of having an arbitrary distinction between adventuring gear and household items.

What's your question?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So this actually leaves me with a few extra questions. I get the reasoning behind doing it that way, i.e. not wanting us to cheat our way past a rule, and that's fine from a game mechanics standpoint, but it begs the question of what's so special about equipment vs other items? By that, I mean if I'm inhabiting my character's shoes and trying to stay immersed:

• I have just a random steel rod, let's say it's like 3 feet long and 4" in diameter. Somehow or another, it splits in half. Well, that split is only 4" long, so I can easily mend it back together.
• By contrast, I have a longsword. Same material, roughly the same dimensions, and let's say the blade snaps. Should I not also be able to mend that back together?

It feels like there shouldn't really be any distinction between the two. Having said that, it kinda feels like the intent is that sure, mending could physically put the sword back together, but you'd still have to do a maintenance check. But then that begs the question of whether it's still a check for a broken item or is it just damaged now? To answer that, is the mending done as part of the maintenance check and the split is only mended if I succeed? Or is it mended before I make the check and thus it is now one piece before I begin maintenance? If the former, why wouldn't it work that way on, say, the aforementioned steel rod? Perhaps a bit of a rewrite of the spell might be in order to clear some of that up. It could be as simple as just putting the last line first:

"You gain an expertise die on maintenance checks and are able to make the check even if you do not have the necessary tools. If the check is successful, you also..." insert rest of spell text here. That way, the primary effect of the spell is to make the maintenance check easier and only if you succeed on the check does it mend the thing. That sounds like a nerf, and it kind of is, but like... mending cloth is a DC 5, so if you're just trying to fix a shirt, you'd have to roll really, really poorly to fail. And the main benefit is that the rules are applied consistently to items instead of having an arbitrary distinction between adventuring gear and household items.

This is why I use the rule that mending restores any item from destroyed to damaged, but no further. It works if you apply it to everything.

 

[noodohs]

What's your question?

I did actually ask several... But to be extra clear:

• Is the intent that adventuring gear should arbitrarily follow different rules for repair than other items, as would be the case in the example I provided?
• As Micah suggested, if that's not the case, should mending be able to move an item from broken to damaged?
• If mending can physically repair broken equipment to that extent, would the mending happen before, after, or during the maintenance process?
• If mending can add an expertise die to maintenance checks, is that only if the item is actually broken to begin with since it specifies that you have to be able to cast the spell on it to get the die? This would imply that mending can repair broken items. But if that's not the case, does that mean that mending can be used to help maintain, say, rusted or acid-damaged gear (which would normally not fall under the purview of the spell)?

There are a few things that are implied by the spell description, but not really explicitly stated outright, so I think it would be nice to have it be a bit more explicit about the intentions. And yes, I realize that you can rule anything however you want in your own games, but I have grown so tired of arguing with people over how things are intended to work and having to Google random tweets mid-game just to figure out what contradictory ruling they actually meant when they wrote the thing. Referring to O5e, I mean, not you guys.

 

[Morrus]

• Is the intent that adventuring gear should arbitrarily follow different rules for repair than other items, as would be the case in the example I provided?
• As Micah suggested, if that's not the case, should mending be able to move an item from broken to damaged?
• If mending can physically repair broken equipment to that extent, would the mending happen before, after, or during the maintenance process?
• If mending can add an expertise die to maintenance checks, is that only if the item is actually broken to begin with since it specifies that you have to be able to cast the spell on it to get the die? This would imply that mending can repair broken items. But if that's not the case, does that mean that mending can be used to help maintain, say, rusted or acid-damaged gear (which would normally not fall under the purview of the spell)?

I'm not really sure I understand the question(s), then? As I said above, mending does not restore a damaged weapon or armour. It can fix cosmetic damage, however.

It doesn't fix broken either, if that was the second question? It just does what it says.

 

[noodohs]

I'm not really sure I understand the question(s), then? As I said above, mending does not restore a damaged weapon or armour. It can fix cosmetic damage, however.

It doesn't fix broken either, if that was the second question? It just does what it says.

I am not sure how much more clear I can be... Why is there an arbitrary distinction between things that are not adventuring gear (tables, clothes, etc) and things that are (weapons, armor, shields)? As you say, what it says is: "You repair a single rip or break in the target object (for example, a cracked goblet, torn page, or ripped robe). The break must be smaller than 1 foot in all dimensions." If a sword is broken in half, per the spell description, that is a single break less than 1 foot in all dimensions and should be mendable. Yet you say it is not, that it does not fix broken things despite that being well within the limits of the spell. Why? Similarly, if someone pokes a hole in my armor, I can't mend it, but if they poke a hole in my wall, I can. Again, why? This is why I say it is not very clear and feels incredibly arbitrary.

Further, if the distinction is that "it can be used as a weapon," what about improvised weapons? If I can hit someone with a chair and it counts as a weapon, is it suddenly no longer mendable if it breaks? When does a rod become a quarterstaff or a stick become a wand or a mundane necklace become a spell focus and thus all cease to be mendable? Again, I understand that the intent is to not allow people to bypass a rule with a cantrip, but there's really no in-world logic for this.

 

[Morrus]

I am not sure how much more clear I can be... Why is there an arbitrary distinction between things that are not adventuring gear (tables, clothes, etc) and things that are (weapons, armor, shields)? As you say, what it says is: "You repair a single rip or break in the target object (for example, a cracked goblet, torn page, or ripped robe). The break must be smaller than 1 foot in all dimensions." If a sword is broken in half, per the spell description, that is a single break less than 1 foot in all dimensions and should be mendable. Yet you say it is not, that it does not fix broken things despite that being well within the limits of the spell. Why? Similarly, if someone pokes a hole in my armor, I can't mend it, but if they poke a hole in my wall, I can. Again, why? This is why I say it is not very clear and feels incredibly arbitrary.

I feel it is clear? You seem to understand it just fine!

I get that you don’t like it, and that’s your prerogative, and if a designer wants to pop in to debate with you why they made particular design decisions, they’re welcome to, but that’s not something I can really do.

Sorry. I’m not trying to be unhelpful, I promise, but I’m only able to pass specific rules questions to the designers. I can’t really be passing messages back and forth in an essay debate.