Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

[James Gasik]

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.

I'm going to point out that there is more than one way to render a weapon useless than hit point damage in 3.5 Rusting grasp and warp wood, for example. I know those are both conditions Mending cannot repair, but I think it's good to keep this in mind- just because you can destroy a weapon by dealing hit point damage to it doesn't mean that's the only way. This means that it's perfectly fine for a spell to not interact with object hit points and still repair it.

In fact, consider the Craft rules for repairing an item. "Generally, you can repair an item by making checks against the same DC that it took to make the item in the first place. The cost of repairing an item is one-fifth of the item’s price."

You'll note that the amount of hit points the item has isn't referenced at all; these rules don't care if your weapon is missing one hit point or all but one; pay 1/5 the item's price, it's fixed.

Crafting of course, can't repair a destroyed item. But magic can. The text of Make Whole, for example:

"This spell functions like mending, except that make whole completely repairs an object made of any substance, even one with multiple breaks, to be as strong as new. The spell does not restore the magical abilities of a broken magic item made whole, and it cannot mend broken magic rods, staffs, or wands. The spell does not repair items that have been warped, burned, disintegrated, ground to powder, melted, or vaporized, nor does it affect creatures (including constructs)."

Thus the question isn't whether mending can restore a ruined item; that's it's function. The question is deciding what mending can fix and what it can't, since there are no rules for deciding how many breaks a broken dagger has in it's blade.

It's much like the regenerate spell in this respect; precious little in 3.5 can sever body parts. Yet we have a spell for reattaching them anyways. Though regenerate has the decency to heal hit point damage as well.

Anyways, that's my take. Scrutinizing mending too closely results in it being a largely pointless cantrip.

 

[smuckenfart]

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.

Agreed. Within reason, which was the whole start of my addition to this thread.

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

Your missing the point. A thing separated, torn off, cut into two is not considered small, either as an inanimate object or as a living thing. To mend that finger, to reattach itself, requires a higher level spell. Same goes with objects. So here I sayeth!

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?

A crack is a small break, a clean break is not. The former is still connected to the whole, the latter is not. Absolutely I said that a small crack can be mended. A crack 100% all the way through such that it completely breaks off? Not so much.

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."

Great, for that spell. "Cracks" and "breaks" are verbs there. Different meaning. Look it up. "To break" can separate into pieces, and those pieces can be rejoined with the body. The mending spell does not use "break" as a verb, not once, it uses it as a noun. If the verb "to break" here is important as part of your argument, then you see why it must also be important in the mending spell description in my argument. Mending does not mention pieces in singular or plural, but it does refer to "a break (n.)" so long as it is small. It can weld metal objects, PROVIDED but one BREAK exists. Without this condition, it cannot weld those objects. It's countable here, so it's also a noun. What's the definition of "a break"? Google it, scroll down to Noun. #3. A gap or an opening. The synonyms that follow in that description do not infer pieces that "break off". They're all words for breaks that are still connected.
A "broken" metal ring with one "break", is still one piece, and does not violate the definition of a break! It's a gap in one whole piece.
A "broken" chain link, is just a tiny ring with one break, still one piece! It's not sewn together. It's welded of course. That's the term used to mend metal objects, so that's what they used. The stipulations must still be met. A gap or opening that is small. A break that is small.

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).

Good. So that makes it clear that a crack doesn't necessarily render a container non-functional. Again here, "to shatter" is a verb. To break is a verb. A vial that has cracks is evidently a small break, even the liquid cannot be released, and therefore it can be mended.

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.

When you ignore the definition of "a break" and assume "to break" is in there somewhere (maybe you can point it out for me), then yes, I agree, mending does not make a distinction.

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.

Where does it ever say "clean break"? Players say that, not the book. And a clean break is a crack that has broken its way 100% through the body of the object suffice that it separates from the whole. Like decapitation, or a bone that's broken all the way through. Did you know that the language you use to describe a broken bone is the precise language you use for a broken dagger? Of course you did. A hairline fracture being the smallest break, and a clean break being the largest possible? It snapped right off! A crack can't run 150% through a blade, eh? Nope, 100%, that's the max. And the maximum, is the most, not the least, it's largest, and not small, defying the first stipulation in the spell description.

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.

Gygax wasn't an English teacher, so I hear, so he probably didn't know or think that the topic sentence is the main idea for the paragraph and the body provides examples and ideas that support the main idea. What he did think about though, is that this spell mends only small breaks or tears. He said that! A ruined object is not a small break or tear. It's done. Kaput. An object reduced to zero hp's is ruined/destroyed, a weapon shield is destroyed. pg. 166, pg 158. Check it out. Gygax also said that! So long as an object has hp's, it can be mended, provided it's "a break" or "a tear" and "small". Unfortunately, you're wrong, an object that has been reduced to zero hit points is destroyed, and Gygax once again said there on page 166, "Damaged Objects: A damaged object remains fully functional until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed," and "Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill (see page 70)." I guess he probably didn't mention there that it can be mended with the mending spell, because you can look at the spell itself for that.

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.

So...why did the authors go to such great lengths to mention it three times in just the one book, and everywhere you look online...if ruined and destroyed weren't significant? A cloak that sustains enough damage isn't destroyed, but it is ruined. A rope that's cut in half, that length of rope is ruined, the two halves that remain aren't destroyed? A candle that's burned down, that's destroyed. In this game, ruined and damaged objects lose it's function, and can be repaired using the level 2 spell, Make Whole (not the candle though).

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.

I only use 3.5 rules, and if I quote something that I've found online I will say so, and only use it if there is no sufficient data to be found in the official books, but that were added in subsequent publishing. I don't take them to heart, like anything from 5e, I haven't read any of the books on it, but I will use them sometimes as a point of reference to what is out there and the mindset of those qualified to add to content that's withstood the public ire. That's something that we in our campaign factor in when deciding what's a good way to approach a subject in 3.5e. We don't say, Oh that's 5e so absolutely everything derived from there is irrelevant. We're all in our 30's and 40's and mature enough, and all experienced enough to know that 3.5 is the best.

Great post man, I like the challenge.

 

[smuckenfart]

I'm going to point out that there is more than one way to render a weapon useless than hit point damage in 3.5 Rusting grasp and warp wood, for example. I know those are both conditions Mending cannot repair, but I think it's good to keep this in mind- just because you can destroy a weapon by dealing hit point damage to it doesn't mean that's the only way. This means that it's perfectly fine for a spell to not interact with object hit points and still repair it.

In fact, consider the Craft rules for repairing an item. "Generally, you can repair an item by making checks against the same DC that it took to make the item in the first place. The cost of repairing an item is one-fifth of the item’s price."

You'll note that the amount of hit points the item has isn't referenced at all; these rules don't care if your weapon is missing one hit point or all but one; pay 1/5 the item's price, it's fixed.

Crafting of course, can't repair a destroyed item. But magic can. The text of Make Whole, for example:

"This spell functions like mending, except that make whole completely repairs an object made of any substance, even one with multiple breaks, to be as strong as new. The spell does not restore the magical abilities of a broken magic item made whole, and it cannot mend broken magic rods, staffs, or wands. The spell does not repair items that have been warped, burned, disintegrated, ground to powder, melted, or vaporized, nor does it affect creatures (including constructs)."

Thus the question isn't whether mending can restore a ruined item; that's it's function. The question is deciding what mending can fix and what it can't, since there are no rules for deciding how many breaks a broken dagger has in it's blade.

It's much like the regenerate spell in this respect; precious little in 3.5 can sever body parts. Yet we have a spell for reattaching them anyways. Though regenerate has the decency to heal hit point damage as well.

Anyways, that's my take. Scrutinizing mending too closely results in it being a largely pointless cantrip.

I agree with all of that. Damaging objects is a spice in the game that brings realism about. True, repairing the object doesn't necessarily refer to hit points, but the rules do care if an objects hit points are reduced to zero, it's pretty clear that it's destroyed. That's why I say that an object has to have hp's remaining. As far as I know, breaking a weapon in two requires reducing it's hp to zero, unless breaking it in two doesn't lose functionality, ie. still has hit points and can do the full damage. But then, isn't a long sword cut in half just a short sword? The size of the weapon is the biggest factor for determining damage, the same weapon one size category smaller does less damage.

Common sense should easily decide how many breaks a dagger has. If it's in a different place, it's a different break. More than one place is multiple breaks. A break that splits into a Y is still one break. A rule for everything isn't necessary, some things have to be left to the imagination and flexibility. But, if something is mentioned, it's probably because it deserves clarification for balance or some reason we can't ever fully know.

Enter Make Whole.
The whole point of making the level 2 spell, is to do what mending can do, but better, right? Look at all the level zero spells... none of them inspire awe. So the level zero spell mending spell should be as useful, but in fact it's still just awesome even if its as I described earlier. My sorceress spent her first gold haul enchanting her dress with prestidigitation to constantly clean it so it can never be dirty. She mends it every time an attack pierces or slashes through, when one of the ropes is frayed on that bridge they're about to cross, when the canoe has a small leak and is taking on water, or when she discovers a tiny hole drilled in the wall of her room at the inn. It's her favorite level zero spell, that and message.

Regenerate. You've clearly not had your character kidnapped by githyanki pirates, strapped down and had your finger chopped off. Just because there's no rule that dictates how it can happen doesn't mean that it doesn't. haha
That didn't happen to me, but I imagine that it could have. Probably happens more often in an evil campaign.

Cheers

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I think part of the difference is that when imagining a "broken weapon" some see a cleanly snapped-off blade and others think of the shards of Narsil from Lord of the Rings, where the blade has been shattered.

The Mending spell can only fix one of these.

 

[Maxperson]

Your missing the point. A thing separated, torn off, cut into two is not considered small, either as an inanimate object or as a living thing. To mend that finger, to reattach itself, requires a higher level spell. Same goes with objects. So here I sayeth!

A few things.

First, mending only affects objects and not living tissue, so comparing mending to physical damage doesn't really work. And I would also argue that losing the tip of my finger, say not even to the bone, is far bigger than biting the eraser off of a pencil. One is major and one is trivial.

Second, if we are going to compare the two, let's compare them properly. Cure minor wounds fixes 1 hit point of damage and brings an unconscious PC from 0 to 1. Mending if used on a dagger that is snapped in half brings that dagger from 0 to 2. This is right on par. Healing the living in 3.5 is smaller numerically at the same level as things that do damage to objects or fix them.

Great, for that spell. "Cracks" and "breaks" are verbs there. Different meaning. Look it up. "To break" can separate into pieces, and those pieces can be rejoined with the body. The mending spell does not use "break" as a verb, not once, it uses it as a noun. If the verb "to break" here is important as part of your argument, then you see why it must also be important in the mending spell description in my argument. Mending does not mention pieces in singular or plural, but it does refer to "a break (n.)" so long as it is small. It can weld metal objects, PROVIDED but one BREAK exists. Without this condition, it cannot weld those objects. It's countable here, so it's also a noun. What's the definition of "a break"? Google it, scroll down to Noun. #3. A gap or an opening. The synonyms that follow in that description do not infer pieces that "break off". They're all words for breaks that are still connected.
A "broken" metal ring with one "break", is still one piece, and does not violate the definition of a break! It's a gap in one whole piece.
A "broken" chain link, is just a tiny ring with one break, still one piece! It's not sewn together. It's welded of course. That's the term used to mend metal objects, so that's what they used. The stipulations must still be met. A gap or opening that is small. A break that is small.

Even as a noun it still fits. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as a space or opening between two or more things. A dagger cut in twain is broken, ruined and has a break between the hilt and the blade, which are now two things.

Where does it ever say "clean break"? Players say that, not the book. And a clean break is a crack that has broken its way 100% through the body of the object suffice that it separates from the whole. Like decapitation, or a bone that's broken all the way through. Did you know that the language you use to describe a broken bone is the precise language you use for a broken dagger? Of course you did. A hairline fracture being the smallest break, and a clean break being the largest possible? It snapped right off! A crack can't run 150% through a blade, eh? Nope, 100%, that's the max. And the maximum, is the most, not the least, it's largest, and not small, defying the first stipulation in the spell description.

The spell isn't talking about percentage of the object when it talks about small. It's talking about actual size. That's why it talks about small things. Chain links, medallions, slender daggers, etc. It doesn't matter to the spell whether the break is 100% of the way through the slender dagger and splits it in two. To the spell that's a small in size break. It could not repair a break that runs 50% of the way through a longsword, because it's too big.

Gygax wasn't an English teacher, so I hear, so he probably didn't know or think that the topic sentence is the main idea for the paragraph and the body provides examples and ideas that support the main idea. What he did think about though, is that this spell mends only small breaks or tears. He said that! A ruined object is not a small break or tear. It's done. Kaput. An object reduced to zero hp's is ruined/destroyed, a weapon shield is destroyed. pg. 166, pg 158. Check it out. Gygax also said that! So long as an object has hp's, it can be mended, provided it's "a break" or "a tear" and "small". Unfortunately, you're wrong, an object that has been reduced to zero hit points is destroyed, and Gygax once again said there on page 166, "Damaged Objects: A damaged object remains fully functional until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed," and "Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill (see page 70)." I guess he probably didn't mention there that it can be mended with the mending spell, because you can look at the spell itself for that.

I'm not wrong about destroyed. Destroyed in 3.5 only means unusable for it's intended function. Not obliterated or reduced to many shards. You just need magic to make repairs in destroyed objects. And quite frankly, I'd house rule that anyway. A destroyed sword can be repaired given enough skill and the right tools.

So...why did the authors go to such great lengths to mention it three times in just the one book, and everywhere you look online...if ruined and destroyed weren't significant? A cloak that sustains enough damage isn't destroyed, but it is ruined. A rope that's cut in half, that length of rope is ruined, the two halves that remain aren't destroyed? A candle that's burned down, that's destroyed. In this game, ruined and damaged objects lose it's function, and can be repaired using the level 2 spell, Make Whole (not the candle though).

Ruined and destroyed are different because you can ruin something without damage. If I pour two cups of salt into your soup, it's ruined! No damage has been done to it, though.

I only use 3.5 rules, and if I quote something that I've found online I will say so, and only use it if there is no sufficient data to be found in the official books, but that were added in subsequent publishing. I don't take them to heart, like anything from 5e, I haven't read any of the books on it, but I will use them sometimes as a point of reference to what is out there and the mindset of those qualified to add to content that's withstood the public ire. That's something that we in our campaign factor in when deciding what's a good way to approach a subject in 3.5e. We don't say, Oh that's 5e so absolutely everything derived from there is irrelevant. We're all in our 30's and 40's and mature enough, and all experienced enough to know that 3.5 is the best.

I know you only use 3.5 rules, but I did find this from Dragon Magazine #49. It introduced an NPC class or PC class and gave it some abilities. Among them was a lesser version of Mending. It shows the intent behind the spell and that intent was carried over through all editions.

"Mending will only work on pottery and glass; otherwise it is identical to the magic-user spell. A piece broken into a number of pieces (not fragmented to shards or dust) can be put back together."

Great post man, I like the challenge.

Me too! I love a calm debate.

 

[Maxperson]

Enter Make Whole.
The whole point of making the level 2 spell, is to do what mending can do, but better, right? Look at all the level zero spells... none of them inspire awe. So the level zero spell mending spell should be as useful, but in fact it's still just awesome even if its as I described earlier. My sorceress spent her first gold haul enchanting her dress with prestidigitation to constantly clean it so it can never be dirty. She mends it every time an attack pierces or slashes through, when one of the ropes is frayed on that bridge they're about to cross, when the canoe has a small leak and is taking on water, or when she discovers a tiny hole drilled in the wall of her room at the inn. It's her favorite level zero spell, that and message.

Make Whole is to Mending what Cure Moderate Wounds is to Cure Minor Wounds. It's just a higher level version of the same thing that can do more.

 

[smuckenfart]

Make Whole is to Mending what Cure Moderate Wounds is to Cure Minor Wounds. It's just a higher level version of the s

I think part of the difference is that when imagining a "broken weapon" some see a cleanly snapped-off blade and others think of the shards of Narsil from Lord of the Rings, where the blade has been shattered.

The Mending spell can only fix one of these.

I think this is where much of the confusion comes from, is partially what "comes to mind. "Actually "broken" as the past participle of "break" can't only mean "broken into pieces" or "broken off". It certainly can mean that. But your broken car didn't fall into pieces. It means damaged and no longer functioning, which could be just a crack in your radiator.

The blade in LOtR is clearly shattered, and it is broken, but that does not conform to the clause in the second part of the sentence:
"It will weld broken metallic objects such as a ring, a chain link, a medallion, or a slender dagger, providing but one break exists."

It will not weld any broken object, only that which fits into the definition of one single break (n.). So, a cracked radiator conforms to that condition and could be mended by the spell. A blade that has broken off completely does not conform to that definition.

 

[smuckenfart]

A few things.

First, mending only affects objects and not living tissue, so comparing mending to physical damage doesn't really work. And I would also argue that losing the tip of my finger, say not even to the bone, is far bigger than biting the eraser off of a pencil. One is major and one is trivial.

Second, if we are going to compare the two, let's compare them properly. Cure minor wounds fixes 1 hit point of damage and brings an unconscious PC from 0 to 1. Mending if used on a dagger that is snapped in half brings that dagger from 0 to 2. This is right on par. Healing the living in 3.5 is smaller numerically at the same level as things that do damage to objects or fix them.

Even as a noun it still fits. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as a space or opening between two or more things. A dagger cut in twain is broken, ruined and has a break between the hilt and the blade, which are now two things.

The spell isn't talking about percentage of the object when it talks about small. It's talking about actual size. That's why it talks about small things. Chain links, medallions, slender daggers, etc. It doesn't matter to the spell whether the break is 100% of the way through the slender dagger and splits it in two. To the spell that's a small in size break. It could not repair a break that runs 50% of the way through a longsword, because it's too big.

I'm not wrong about destroyed. Destroyed in 3.5 only means unusable for it's intended function. Not obliterated or reduced to many shards. You just need magic to make repairs in destroyed objects. And quite frankly, I'd house rule that anyway. A destroyed sword can be repaired given enough skill and the right tools.

Ruined and destroyed are different because you can ruin something without damage. If I pour two cups of salt into your soup, it's ruined! No damage has been done to it, though.

I know you only use 3.5 rules, but I did find this from Dragon Magazine #49. It introduced an NPC class or PC class and gave it some abilities. Among them was a lesser version of Mending. It shows the intent behind the spell and that intent was carried over through all editions.

"Mending will only work on pottery and glass; otherwise it is identical to the magic-user spell. A piece broken into a number of pieces (not fragmented to shards or dust) can be put back together."

Me too! I love a calm debate.

1. opening/space​

2. [countable] break (in something) a space or an opening between two or more things

Find the various definitions from multiple sources, American English, English English, and list them together for the common denominators:
A gap OR a space OR an opening, and then apply it to the object in question for the best suited operative word. Completely removed is not a space, it's a broken off piece separated from the original. A crack or a fissure is a space. It's called a break. You think holding the pieces close together constitutes a space? The synonyms for a break, none of them imply separated in two. Why is that? Because the space or gap or opening are not intended for objects to mean completely separated from its whole. A space between the words, makes sense. An opening in traffic makes sense. Separate that traffic enough and there is no longer an opening, it ceases to be traffic as the cars behind and the cars in front are no longer close enough together. Separate that dagger enough, and that gap becomes a separation, no longer connected.

You proposed that one inch is one inch is one inch, because size is the base foundation for people's argument for the slender dagger, and I was demonstrating that you're only saying that because it's "just a dagger", change the topic and "just one inch" changes its tune if you were to cut your finger right off. So, it's not about the size, it's because to your minds, it's just a dagger and it's just one inch. How about that small rod in your piston when you're cruising down the road doing 85 on your motorcycle? I bet if that snapped in two you're be mighty concerned, and that's less than one inch.

A tear, is the language used to describe damage to a soft object, like clothing. A break, is the language used to describe damage to a hard object, like a shield. A wound, is the language used to describe damage to a living being. See my point? In each category there are words used to describe damage to varying degrees. A rip works with cloth, a cut works with flesh, and a crack works with a shield. You can add "small" to each of those descriptors, and no one will question if it is a small amount of damage. Word choice matters. Put the slender dagger and the finger beside each other with their respective damage description words. They are both the same size thickness. A dagger is much harder, duh, so it can withstand much more damage before it's "damaged". Now apply pressure to both, the finger will crack first, the dagger at a much higher threshold. The first crack, in both bone and metal, is a hairline fracture. That's small. Keep applying pressure, that fracture snaps larger and becomes a fissure. All the way across! but still attached at some point, one side of the bone, or perhaps the back side of the blade. You can bend it, wiggle it, but it's still attached. That's not so small anymore, it's medium. Break it right off, that's the maximum damage you can do to that part of the bone/dagger. It's completely separated. 100%. This was my point.

And let's do connect them properly. A severed finger's damage can be healed by a spell. But it can only me re-attached to the finger by a regeneration spell. An object isn't as valuable as flesh, so that's why the make whole spell is only level 2 and not on par with regeneration. Mending can repair damage to an object, but a severed object is beyond it's function. If the object was severed without reducing it's hp to zero, for RP/flavor, I'm absolutely cool with mending repairing that, because that doesn't break any other rules, and evokes the Rule of Cool home rule. If it is broken because of a successful sunder and it's hp's are reduced to zero. No.

Destroyed object's can't be repaired. That includes mending. Mending repairs. Pg. 166
"Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill (see page 70)."
If it's destroyed, you can melt it down and make a new one. The weapon itself is ruined beyond repair.

Dragon magazine, I've never read it. So is that there that you quoted for a mending skill? or the spell? What does the spell there say? It may be that the description there is only referring to the skill with regards to pottery and glass, the spell still operates strictly as the spell describes.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this is where much of the confusion comes from, is partially what "comes to mind. "Actually "broken" as the past participle of "break" can't only mean "broken into pieces" or "broken off". It certainly can mean that. But your broken car didn't fall into pieces. It means damaged and no longer functioning, which could be just a crack in your radiator.

Tell that to every car that's lost a muffler or a wheel. And have you seen the scene of a serious accident?

The blade in LOtR is clearly shattered, and it is broken, but that does not conform to the clause in the second part of the sentence:
"It will weld broken metallic objects such as a ring, a chain link, a medallion, or a slender dagger, providing but one break exists."

A sword or dagger in two pieces also fit the bolded portions. Yes, you can find broken weapons in more than two, but that doesn't exclude two.

It will not weld any broken object, only that which fits into the definition of one single break (n.). So, a cracked radiator conforms to that condition and could be mended by the spell. A blade that has broken off completely does not conform to that definition.

So does a dagger broken in two. As I pointed out previously, the noun version of break also includes gaps between two things, like a dagger broken in two. The Mending spell will weld that slender broken dagger and make it whole.

 

[Lanefan]

Tell that to every car that's lost a muffler or a wheel. And have you seen the scene of a serious accident?

A sword or dagger in two pieces also fit the bolded portions. Yes, you can find broken weapons in more than two, but that doesn't exclude two.

So does a dagger broken in two. As I pointed out previously, the noun version of break also includes gaps between two things, like a dagger broken in two. The Mending spell will weld that slender broken dagger and make it whole.

The problem is one of terminology (I seem to be saying this a lot tonight).

Broken, shattered, destroyed, ruined - in game parlance, do any of these have specific meanings?

For me, shattered-destroyed-ruined all mean the same thing: it's both non-functional and beyond repair by means available in the field*. Broken or damaged mean it's non-functional but can maybe be relatively easily repaired, even while still in the field.

* - unless your party is capable of hard-casting Wish, I suppose.....