Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8943318" data-attributes="member: 23751">I see what you are saying, but I think you are overthinking this. Perhaps because you are an English teacher where those who wrote it are not.&nbsp; The original language can be traced back to 1e and Gygax was absolutely NOT an English teacher.&nbsp; I'm also positive that over the years I've seen modules where a small item was broken in two or more pieces and Mending was mentioned as a way to fix it.2e changed the wording a bit and added this, &quot;One turn after the spell is cast, the magic of the joining fades, and the effect cannot be magically dispelled.&quot;.4e says, &quot;This spell repairs a single break or tear in an object you touch, such as a broken chain link, two halves of a broken key, a torn cloak, or a leaking wineskin. As long as the break or tear is no larger than 1 foot in any dimension, you mend it, leaving no trace of the former damage.&quot;I think that it's pretty clear from the official sources over the various editions that it was intended from the get go to allow the rejoining of breaks in small objects.&nbsp; There's really no reason in the 5e description to mention a slender dagger if what's being mended is just a small gash in it and not a clean break.&nbsp; The gash will be the same size regardless of the size of the weapon that has the gash in it.As for &quot;ruin&quot; and &quot;destroyed,&quot; I just don't see it as catastrophic as you do. It just needs to be unusable for its original function.&nbsp; A dagger reduced to 0 hit points and snapped in half has taken relatively little physical damage and is ruined/destroyed(reduced to 0 hit points), even though it's really just snapped in two.&nbsp; Hit point being abstract don't mean a whole lot. It only really matter what 0 means, unless you are playing an edition with bloodied where things trigger at other amounts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8943318, member: 23751"] I see what you are saying, but I think you are overthinking this. Perhaps because you are an English teacher where those who wrote it are not. The original language can be traced back to 1e and Gygax was absolutely NOT an English teacher. I'm also positive that over the years I've seen modules where a small item was broken in two or more pieces and Mending was mentioned as a way to fix it. 2e changed the wording a bit and added this, "One turn after the spell is cast, the magic of the [B]joining[/B] fades, and the effect cannot be magically dispelled.". 4e says, "This spell repairs a single break or tear in an object you touch, such as a broken chain link, [B]two halves of a broken key[/B], a torn cloak, or a leaking wineskin. As long as the break or tear is no larger than 1 foot in any dimension, you mend it, leaving no trace of the former damage." I think that it's pretty clear from the official sources over the various editions that it was intended from the get go to allow the rejoining of breaks in small objects. There's really no reason in the 5e description to mention a [B]slender [/B]dagger if what's being mended is just a small gash in it and not a clean break. The gash will be the same size regardless of the size of the weapon that has the gash in it. As for "ruin" and "destroyed," I just don't see it as catastrophic as you do. It just needs to be unusable for its original function. A dagger reduced to 0 hit points and snapped in half has taken relatively little physical damage and is ruined/destroyed(reduced to 0 hit points), even though it's really just snapped in two. Hit point being abstract don't mean a whole lot. It only really matter what 0 means, unless you are playing an edition with bloodied where things trigger at other amounts. [/QUOTE]

Verification