Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="smuckenfart" data-source="post: 8945017" data-attributes="member: 7040256">Good, so you agree that the space exists only so long as you create that space by holding the two pieces close together.Use your logic to fill in the rest.  A space in a dagger caused by a crack or fracture is always a space without any conditions, in fact you have to break it further in order to separate them into two, and breaking it further increases the size of the damage from small to medium to the largest that is total separation.  That space between broken off pieces then only exists relative to a position that an outside force positions them.I have a pen beside me.  I remove the lid and place it beside the pen.  There's a space because I placed it there.  My girlfriend comes in and takes the pen into the kitchen to write something on the grocery list, but leaves the lid in my office.  The space is not regarded as a space, or a gap, it's totally separated.  It was actually always totally separated, but YOU created that space.  You want to get technical by saying "any amount of distance between two objects is a space".  Then it's a LARGE space, and does not conform to the qualification of "small" by the spell definition, and it is not a space independent of an outside force.  A space is a gap is an opening, it must still be small without some arbitrary manipulation.  ie. I'm holding them close together.  To insist that it is, that's just refusing to acknowledge the truth of a valid point, which is belligerence and the pursuit of being right, not the pursuit of truth, which is the end of a healthy debate.Correct, when you add meanings not intended for objects.  There is a definition intended specifically for objects, so that is the only relevant one.  Those synonyms are close in meaning, and English as a precise language has plenty of those,  yet none of those synonyms for objects suggest broken off.  Those are the words closest to the meaning of the root word and can be used to describe it.  The author didn't choose those words because its not as succinct in meaning as "a break", because "a break" is a more broad term that could mean any one of those words, as we are about to see.When looking at a dictionary/thesaurus, you choose the definition that best suits the context you wish to use it with.  In this case objects:gap, opening, space, hole, breach, chink, crack, fissure, cleft, rift, chasm, tear, split, slit, rent, ruptureCopied directly from the dictionary's list of synonyms for "break (n.)".  What do they all have in common?  Even if you delved into each one and found one instance that it could also mean broken off in some context, that would be cherry picking while ignoring all other evidence that contradicts that, which is not honest debate but gross manipulation.  The clear-cut evidence is that a break is a gap/opening/space/hole/breach/chink/crack/fissure/cleft/rift/chasm/tear/split/slit/rent/rupture, and not an object broken further than that.  And even then, it must be small.  a small gap, a small opening, a small space, a small hole, you get the drift.  Nobody seems to get that.  Partially severed is the only way to make severed small, and partially severed is not completely separated, it's still attached.Something is true until proven otherwise.  You want to find that one synonym that includes an instance where a piece can be broken off, and that is proof enough to override the other 99.98% of evidence that says otherwise? I would wager that in that 0.02% shred of proof "broken off" is just one of the contexts, and the part where it says "broken into pieces, OR cracked, OR fractured" would intentionally not quoted because that would provide a means to dismantle the point by selecting the context that best suits the other examples and definition of the root word in question.  I would like to think that my fellow dnders are fairly smart and above such tactics though.But, the author didn't use that synonym he used another word, and the total accumulation of the definition of that word and all those synonyms, they all mean that there is no total separation.  Common sense and an honest reflection would admit that if there were one instance in one of those synonyms that suggested it broken in pieces, that probably isn't what the authors intended, or they would have used that word specifically.A clean break is an idiom with its own meaning, it is not an adjective like small, although people keep referencing it as though that proves that "a break" means a total separation.  An idiom is a phrase with its own meaning, independent of its individual words.  A clean break is a complete separation, and complete is not small, it's the largest separation you can get.  You can argue against that, but I'm sorry you are wrong, this is my field, and I know this without a doubt.Again, I'll repeat.  I don't come back to fingers, that's not what's important.  I'm coming back to the language we use to describe damage.  My whole contest derives from the fact that I know what these words mean, and that people are saying that it does not mean that.  Then they make points that, to me, either don't add up, can be refuted, or are missing the point, such as here, when you think I'm talking about fingers so the credibility to my argument is nil.  I'm not talking about fingers.  I'm talking about Language.  The whole debate is over the language used.The words we use have meaning, and they have equivalents.  The object in question changes the language used to describe the damage, but the meaning "a small amount of damage" has equivalents regardless of the object, or its size.  What is the equivalent of "a small tear" in a cloth for a shield?  The equivalent damage would be a "small split".  You wouldn't use the same language, it's a different material.  Flesh is a material.  What's the equivalent language of a "small split" for a wound?  "Severed off!"  EH?  Sorry, actually a "small cut".The language used to describe a break in a bone is exactly the same as the language used for a weapon.  And in both, absolutely there are varying degrees evident by the word choice to describe that break.  a small fracture, is used for bone and blade, and a large fracture can happen in a small bone or a small dagger.  People trivialize the dagger because its intrinsic value isn't the same.  I could refer to any material and the language would still have varying degrees of what constitutes small/medium/large.  Severed/decapitated/cut off/broken in two, these are not small things.  If measurement or length is the only factor to determine whether a break is small or not, as it often seems with regards to the slender dagger, then a severed finger is also a small break, but no one anywhere would say that.  I cut my finger.  That sucks.  I cut my finger off.  OMG!  The length of the break relative to the size of the object matters, and a small object can have a small/medium/large damage.  It's basic common sense.  What can the mending spell mend?  Put small in front of the descriptor and make sure it is defined as "a break".  Not what you think a break is, what a break actually is.Destroyed/ruined are the operatives words to describe those objects, and Mending the spell says it can only repair small breaks or tears.  Those operatives words in no uncertain terms do not mean that that object has received a small tear or break.  It is large enough damage to ruin it/destroy it, and mending such a thing contradicts this imperative.I think you're wrong, it does not mean it's exactly like the spell and there is no difference except that which is mentioned in the first part of the paragraph.It says that it is like the spell, excluding any material save ceramic and glass.  It then carries on to describe what the skill can do that is different than the aforementioned spell.  If it were exactly like the spell, it would not provide any further context.  This is evident in spells that have similar functions:  Make Whole, Greater Invisibility, Invisibility Sphere.I believe that I have provided ample evidence using samples from the books, the rules, relevant definitions, and demonstrated (in a previous post) where adhering to my thesis does not contradict anything in the rules, the dictionary, or the wording of the spell itself .  The contradictions only begin when you change the definition of "a break" to mean that it can be separated into pieces.But to get us back on track, this thread isn't about the Mending spell, this was used as one example where we made a reasonable amendment to a rule.  I propose that if a group wants to mend a slender dagger broken in two because to them it's "just an inch", homerule it.  The result is the same, except that you'd have to take the RAW meaning of Mending as being defined as I have described, which doesn't matter if you're going to change the rules anyways.  Or don't.</blockquote>

Verification