Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="smuckenfart" data-source="post: 8944180" data-attributes="member: 7040256">Agreed.&nbsp; Within reason, which was the whole start of my addition to this thread.Your missing the point.&nbsp; A thing separated, torn off, cut into two is not considered small, either as an inanimate object or as a living thing.&nbsp; To mend that finger, to reattach itself, requires a higher level spell.&nbsp; Same goes with objects.&nbsp; So here I sayeth!A crack is a small break, a clean break is not.&nbsp; The former is still connected to the whole, the latter is not.&nbsp; Absolutely I said that a small crack can be mended.&nbsp; A crack 100% all the way through such that it completely breaks off?&nbsp; Not so much.Great, for that spell.&nbsp; &quot;Cracks&quot; and &quot;breaks&quot; are verbs there.&nbsp; Different meaning.&nbsp; Look it up.&nbsp; &quot;To break&quot; can separate into pieces, and those pieces can be rejoined with the body.&nbsp; The mending spell does not use &quot;break&quot; as a verb, not once, it uses it as a noun.&nbsp; If the verb &quot;to break&quot; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mending does not mention pieces in singular or plural, but it does refer to &quot;a break (n.)&quot; so long as it is small.&nbsp; It can weld metal objects, PROVIDED but one BREAK exists.&nbsp; Without this condition, it cannot weld those objects.&nbsp; It's countable here, so it's also a noun.&nbsp; What's the definition of &quot;a break&quot;?&nbsp; Google it, scroll down to Noun.&nbsp; #3.&nbsp; A gap or an opening.&nbsp; The synonyms that follow in that description do not infer pieces that &quot;break off&quot;.&nbsp; They're all words for breaks that are still connected.A &quot;broken&quot; metal ring with one &quot;break&quot;, is still one piece, and does not violate the definition of a break!&nbsp; It's a gap in one whole piece.A &quot;broken&quot; chain link, is just a tiny ring with one break, still one piece!&nbsp; It's not sewn together.&nbsp; It's welded of course.&nbsp; That's the term used to mend metal objects, so that's what they used.&nbsp; The stipulations must still be met.&nbsp; A gap or opening that is small.&nbsp; A break that is small.Good.&nbsp; So that makes it clear that a crack doesn't necessarily render a container non-functional.&nbsp; Again here, &quot;to shatter&quot; is a verb.&nbsp; To break is a verb.&nbsp; A vial that has cracks is evidently a small break, even the liquid cannot be released, and therefore it can be mended.When you ignore the definition of &quot;a break&quot; and assume &quot;to break&quot; is in there somewhere (maybe you can point it out for me), then yes, I agree, mending does not make a distinction.Where does it ever say &quot;clean break&quot;?&nbsp; Players say that, not the book.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Like decapitation, or a bone that's broken all the way through.&nbsp; Did you know that the language you use to describe a broken bone is the precise language you use for a broken dagger?&nbsp; Of course you did.&nbsp; A hairline fracture being the smallest break, and a clean break being the largest possible?&nbsp; It snapped right off!&nbsp; A crack can't run 150% through a blade, eh?&nbsp; Nope, 100%, that's the max.&nbsp; And the maximum, is the most, not the least, it's largest, and not small, defying the first stipulation in the spell description.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.&nbsp; What he did think about though, is that this spell mends only small breaks or tears.&nbsp; He said that!&nbsp; A ruined object is not a small break or tear.&nbsp; It's done.&nbsp; Kaput.&nbsp; An object reduced to zero hp's is ruined/destroyed, a weapon shield is destroyed.&nbsp; pg. 166, pg 158.&nbsp; Check it out.&nbsp; Gygax also said that!&nbsp; So long as an object has hp's, it can be mended, provided it's &quot;a break&quot; or &quot;a tear&quot; and &quot;small&quot;.&nbsp; 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, &quot;Damaged Objects: A damaged object remains fully functional until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed,&quot; and &quot;Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill (see page 70).&quot;&nbsp; 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.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?&nbsp; A cloak that sustains enough damage isn't destroyed, but it is ruined.&nbsp; A rope that's cut in half, that length of rope is ruined, the two halves that remain aren't destroyed?&nbsp; A candle that's burned down, that's destroyed.&nbsp; 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).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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That's something that we in our campaign factor in when deciding what's a good way to approach a subject in 3.5e.&nbsp; We don't say, Oh that's 5e so absolutely everything derived from there is irrelevant.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Great post man, I like the challenge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="smuckenfart, post: 8944180, member: 7040256"] Agreed. Within reason, which was the whole start of my addition to this thread. 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 [I]mend[/I] that finger, to reattach itself, requires a higher level spell. Same goes with objects. So here I sayeth! 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. 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 [I]your[/I] argument, then you see why it must also be important in the mending spell description in [I]my[/I] 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 [I]a break[/I]! 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. Good. So that makes it clear that [I]a crack[/I] doesn't necessarily render a container non-functional. Again here, "[I]to shatter[/I]" is a [U]verb[/U]. [I]To break[/I] is a [U]verb[/U]. A vial that has cracks is evidently a small break, even the liquid cannot be released, and therefore it can be mended. When you ignore the definition of "[I]a break[/I]" and assume "[I]to break[/I]" is in there somewhere (maybe you can point it out for me), then yes, I agree, mending does not make a distinction. Where does it ever say "clean break"? Players say that, not the book. And a [I]clean break[/I] 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 [I]hairline fracture[/I] being the smallest break, and a [I]clean break [/I]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. 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, [I]"Damaged Objects: [/I]A damaged object remains fully functional until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed," and "Damaged ([U][B]but not destroyed[/B][/U]) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill (see page 70).[B]" [/B]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. 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). 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. :D Great post man, I like the challenge. [/QUOTE]

Verification