Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8945195" data-attributes="member: 23751">Yes when you separate them enough they are two objects with no separation.  That's irrelevant to whether or not when the two pieces of the dagger are close enough they are two pieces of the same object WITH a gap or separation. Nor is it relevant to the spell whether or not someone places those pieces close together. Manipulation is not forbidden by the spell, nor does it even make sense to forbid it.The spell by intent and by language allows for Mending to repair objects that are completely broken, providing those objects and/or breaks are small.  You are conflating complete with large, rather than looking at the size alone. The break is complete once that crack widens enough to become a separation, but it isn't large for the purposes and intent of the spell.How are you not doing the exact same thing in ignoring the definitions that refute you?  There are in fact definitions that do apply to objects as I posted.There can be a gap between two pieces of an object.  A single object when broken in two has a discontinuation/discontinuity.  There is an interval between the two pieces.  I hadn't known what lacuna meant, but it fits as well.  those qualify as a disruption to the uniformity or continuity of the object. Then going to synonyms for gap or opening. A broken object can have space between the break that is total.  The same for a gap.  And you can split something in two.  I mean, the last one is a classic example of a synonym that is often used for objects.  "I split a log in two with my axe to make firewood."Man, if it's a definition then it CAN apply to Mending. You just argued that if there are more definitions that don't apply objects, then none of the definitions that do apply to objects can ever apply to an object. Language doesn't work that way.  All definitions are valid and on the table to be used. I'm not the one cherry picking here. You are. You are deliberately excluding valid definitions for both break as a noun and it's synonyms that can(you'll see I say can, not do when I talk about this) apply to objects and therefore Mending.  Nothing in the wording of Mending excludes any of those definitions, but it does confine itself to objects, so definitions of break that don't apply to objects are out, and ones that do are in.  That means that the ones you are cherry picking and mean cracks are in AND the ones that you are deliberately excluding that mean a complete break of the object are also in.  I am including all of them which is the opposite of cherry picking.Again, English doesn't work that way.  You don't get to unilaterally declare for the world that the definitions of break that apply to objects having complete separation are no longer valid just because there more definitions that don't involve total separation.Are you telling me that you haven't in your life ever heard people describe an object that is in pieces as "broken?"  I have, and by an uncountable number of people. When I dropped a plastic cup a few weeks ago a piece of it broke off, I told my wife that I broke a cup. I didn't tell that I had cleanly broken a cup, because that would have been silly.  Using the word "clean" when talking about breaks only applies to certain types of things and only at certain times. A bone would be one of those times and is not even used to describe all complete breaks of a bone. It is used to describe a complete break of a bone that causes no malalignment. The bolded sentence is incorrect.  Nobody is telling you that break doesn't mean a crack or fracture in an object.  We are just not cherry picking only those definitions and excluding the ones that include complete breaks.Nothing in the spell says a small amount of damage. Literally nothing. Only that the measurable size of the break be small, which a complete break of a slender dagger is. You keep talking about language used, but ignore the deliberately used language of "slender."  There's a reason why they say slender dagger and not dagger. It's because a small break size is purely measurable in length/depth and has nothing to do with whether it is partial or complete.  There is a reason that the objects described in their language are all very small.You have also brought up Make Whole as evidence that Mending doesn't fix complete breaks. That is not logically sound.  Yes it's a level 2 spell which makes it more powerful, but it describes in what way it is more powerful than mending. Mending only affects an object that weighs 1 pound or less(again, must be small) and only fixes a single break(partial or complete).  Make Whole on the other hand affects an object that is up to 10 cubic feet per level of the spellcaster, so a 10th level caster could affect a single object that is 100 cubic feet in size and has no limit to the weight at all.  Further it fixes multiple breaks in that object.  So while I could mend a broken statuette with a single break with the Mending spell, with Make Whole I could repair a completely shattered Michelangelo's David if I were 20th level.Destroyed and ruined in D&D terms simply mean unusable for it's function.  That's it.  It doesn't mean annihilated. It doesn't mean shattered into 100 pieces. Those words just mean unusable for it's purpose, which a slender dagger broken into two pieces is.These are the guys who made the spell.  And it literally says that the only difference is the materials it can be used on(i.e. no metal).  You keep arguing that words mean things and here you are ignoring the meanings of the words used."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."The logical conclusion is that the magic user spell allows pieces to be welded back together.And I agree with that in principal.  Except for the part where we would need to homebrew it working on the dagger <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I have used house rules for every edition of the game except 4th since I did not play that edition.  So long as the group is having fun, nothing else really matters, including not allowing Mending to work on complete breaks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification