That's a Loadstone.

Lodestones are naturally occurring chunks of magnetic iron. Completely mundane, not cursed at all.

If you have a spellcasting focus you dont need the components

It fixes one tear so you could 'un-cut' hair but it would take like 2 months haha

Mending can be broken if it took an action, since you could repair damage to wooden doors as they happen, but since its a minute, its near useless outside of combat, and hinders creativity.

How would fellow DMs rule on the following scenario, from Frozen Sick?: One of my players casts mending on the cracked vial, being careful to touch the vial not at the crack. The text of the spell says that it "repairs a single break or tear in an object you touch," but not necessarily that the caster must touch the broken/cracked part—only that the object must be touched. I feel like the text of the rule allows what my player did (and I allowed on the spot), but in hindsight, the spirit of the spell would require actually touching the broken/cracked part.

You don't need material components with a magical/arcane focus

Can you repair food with this?

I would say no, since Mending is about fixing something broken or teared. Spoiled food, because that's what I'm assuming you want to "fix", is a totally different process and reversing this is not as simple as rejoining two items with eatch other to one. The food could be decompoused but not broken.

I am making a healer of sorts and am wondering peoples thoughts on whether MENDING can fix things like lacerations or broken bones?

Quote from retsilf >>

I am making a healer of sorts and am wondering peoples thoughts on whether MENDING can fix things like lacerations or broken bones?

For a living person? No. They are a creature and not an object. "Mending" a living creature is called healing, and that has it's own spells and abilities associated with it. Now for a corpse.... my players tried pulling this one on a magical creature they flubbed harvesting, as technically a corpse is an object.

When players cast a spell for a reason other than it's intended purpose I tend to lean towards has an effect but not completely successful, as they spent a resource. However, spells are balanced around specificity of effect and allowing spells to do things other than what they say is a very slippery balance slope.

Now a cantrip has no cost, so I ruled in the moment they needed to make a medicine check, and on a success the only things they could accomplish were attaching the largest most obvious structures like skin, chunks of meat, or bone. They would come to understand after some time fiddling with it that there are just too many delicate and complex structures that have been damaged and they lack the knowledge and ability to make all but the most crude and haphazard repairs.

If you were to rip paper out of a book binding, could you use mending to basically recreate a book? Like, use mending on the binder to recreate the paper. This is not a magical book, this is just a regular book. I understand it wouldn't restore magic.

It says "no larger than 1 foot in any dimension", does that mean you could repair a break that is 11 inches by 11 inches by 11 inches, because that is far better than I had initially thought?

One thing that people overlook about Mending is its casting time. Because of the spellcasting rules (per the PHB) you would lose any concentration you have active when you cast it (because it takes longer than an action to cast).

Longer Casting Times

Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Quote from Frossty88 >>

How would fellow DMs rule on the following scenario, from Frozen Sick?: One of my players casts mending on the cracked vial, being careful to touch the vial not at the crack. The text of the spell says that it "repairs a single break or tear in an object you touch," but not necessarily that the caster must touch the broken/cracked part—only that the object must be touched. I feel like the text of the rule allows what my player did (and I allowed on the spot), but in hindsight, the spirit of the spell would require actually touching the broken/cracked part.

 Especially if the character is an Artificer (in which Mending is cast through the use of artisan's tools with some magical augments), it'd be reasonable to say that you don't touch the crack. Think of it this way: Before or during welding, do you need to touch the exact area that your blowtorch will be blowing? No, not at all.

Weird question, I know, can I cast mending on an onion, given that the onion is out of the ground (AKA no longer alive.). The onion is chopped and I would like to uchop it. For plot reasons. Playing CoS currently and need an answer ASAP. Thanks. <3

Let’s see you glue a rope back into one piece.

What happens when the space between two objects mended back together is already occupied? Is it pierced/crushed? E.g. you break a stick in two and put them on opposite sides of a lock you want to get rid of (or take a stone cracked in two if the DM says it's too soft)

It doesn't specify the cost on the description, so arcane focus covers it, my dear duck

Quote from penwar1978 >>

Could mending repair the damage done by a rust monster?

 I would say no. You need to have both parts of object.

If mending is used on a crack larger than 1 foot, would it do nothing or only repair 1 foot of it?