Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="smuckenfart" data-source="post: 8943813" data-attributes="member: 7040256">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.</blockquote>

Verification