Since DMs vary from rule Nazi to anything goes, so I am curious
How crazy do you let your players get? Are they allowed to mend broken items into something new?
My one DM is fairly relaxed and allowed me to mend a broken down wagon with scrap wood and metal at the cost of 2 game hours to complete it. Also gathered glass to make bottles
One cast repairs one problem (crack, rip, ect). A broken bottle has multiple cracks, if your repairing it, it takes multiple actions. Since a round is 3 seconds, outside of combat the time is 3 sec * number of problems. So it doesn't make new things, however, they could end their mending at a point that the piece can be used for something else. I don't have mend able to fix any missing magic, and if the construction is complex you might not have the knowledge needed to repair the whole thing. But otherwise, anything goes.
So in my campaigns, Mend is a useful cantrip (I often have a situation once in a while we're it could benefit the group), but better for out-of-combat.
Mending fixes one break in one item; it doesn't create new items.
This spell repairs a single break or tear in an object you touch…
If you have a broken bottle and you have most of the pieces, mending will fix it. You can't use the pieces from 3 different broken bottles to create a brand new bottle.
I can't imagine any DM that cared about consistent rules letting mending make something new. That is not what the spell does, that is what tool proficiencies are for.
So in my campaigns, Mend is a useful cantrip (I often have a situation once in a while we're it could benefit the group), but better for out-of-combat.
Note that the casting time is 1 minute, so it's definitely not intended for combat use.
I agree that using Mending as OP described is kind of stepping on the toes of tool proficiency, but since it takes up a fairly valuable cantrip slot, it should probably be at least as useful as tools. Basically if there was a carpenter in the party, I'd say they repair the wagon. If there isn't and the party wants to repair a wagon - sure, use Mending. I'm a big proponent of letting the party do what they want with what they've got if it sounds plausible.
I saw a campaign where the DM let the Bard mend a shattered stone door one piece at a time. A loooooong time passed while he did it. Sadly, refitting the pieces in place without magic like a puzzle would have worked, too. The door was already magical and the "lock" was shattering and reassembling the door, Otherwise, only solid stone was behind the door before reassembling it. A lot of time wasted that the players never realized (even now they don't know).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
One cast repairs one problem (crack, rip, ect). A broken bottle has multiple cracks, if your repairing it, it takes multiple actions. Since a round is 3 seconds, outside of combat the time is 3 sec * number of problems. So it doesn't make new things, however, they could end their mending at a point that the piece can be used for something else. I don't have mend able to fix any missing magic, and if the construction is complex you might not have the knowledge needed to repair the whole thing. But otherwise, anything goes.
So in my campaigns, Mend is a useful cantrip (I often have a situation once in a while we're it could benefit the group), but better for out-of-combat.
A round is 6 seconds and Scatterbraind pointed out the casting time of 1 minute. That makes this a 10 round cast in combat. I checked the Artificer just to make sure there weren't any other changes to the spell besides letting it heal the Steel Defender and the Eldritch Cannons and there was no other changes. Everything else that was mentioned seemed on point or at least reasonable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Since DMs vary from rule Nazi to anything goes, so I am curious
How crazy do you let your players get? Are they allowed to mend broken items into something new?
My one DM is fairly relaxed and allowed me to mend a broken down wagon with scrap wood and metal at the cost of 2 game hours to complete it. Also gathered glass to make bottles
One cast repairs one problem (crack, rip, ect). A broken bottle has multiple cracks, if your repairing it, it takes multiple actions. Since a round is 3 seconds, outside of combat the time is 3 sec * number of problems. So it doesn't make new things, however, they could end their mending at a point that the piece can be used for something else. I don't have mend able to fix any missing magic, and if the construction is complex you might not have the knowledge needed to repair the whole thing. But otherwise, anything goes.
So in my campaigns, Mend is a useful cantrip (I often have a situation once in a while we're it could benefit the group), but better for out-of-combat.
Mending fixes one break in one item; it doesn't create new items.
If you have a broken bottle and you have most of the pieces, mending will fix it. You can't use the pieces from 3 different broken bottles to create a brand new bottle.
I can't imagine any DM that cared about consistent rules letting mending make something new. That is not what the spell does, that is what tool proficiencies are for.
Note that the casting time is 1 minute, so it's definitely not intended for combat use.
I agree that using Mending as OP described is kind of stepping on the toes of tool proficiency, but since it takes up a fairly valuable cantrip slot, it should probably be at least as useful as tools. Basically if there was a carpenter in the party, I'd say they repair the wagon. If there isn't and the party wants to repair a wagon - sure, use Mending. I'm a big proponent of letting the party do what they want with what they've got if it sounds plausible.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I saw a campaign where the DM let the Bard mend a shattered stone door one piece at a time. A loooooong time passed while he did it. Sadly, refitting the pieces in place without magic like a puzzle would have worked, too. The door was already magical and the "lock" was shattering and reassembling the door, Otherwise, only solid stone was behind the door before reassembling it. A lot of time wasted that the players never realized (even now they don't know).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
A round is 6 seconds and Scatterbraind pointed out the casting time of 1 minute. That makes this a 10 round cast in combat. I checked the Artificer just to make sure there weren't any other changes to the spell besides letting it heal the Steel Defender and the Eldritch Cannons and there was no other changes. Everything else that was mentioned seemed on point or at least reasonable.