Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If not, can Greater Make Whole?
No.
Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item. A rust monster never provokes attacks of opportunity by attempting to strike a weapon with its antennae. Against creatures made of metal, a rust monster’s antennae deal 3d6+5 points of damage. An attended object, any magic object, or a metal creature can attempt a DC 15 Reflex save to negate this effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Make Whole
...
This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way.
Mending
...
This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs). This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted, but it can still repair damage done to such items.
The Rust attack "causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode" isn't fluff, it is what it does to the object.
Make whole inherit all the limitations of Mending and Mending doesn't repair an item that has been transmuted. Turning metal into an oxide is a form of transmutation (it doesn't say magically transmuted, only transmuted).TxSam88 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Rust attack "causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode" isn't fluff, it is what it does to the object.
I disagree, that text is purely fluff, there are no pathfinder mechanics for rusting and corroding. The only mechanical effect listed in the rust monsters attack are "Damage" and "destroy", both of which are mechanics in pathfinder, both of which can be restored by Make Whole.
Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why Pathfinder should have special rules for something that happens in RL and doesn't need an explanation?
How do you determine what is "fluff text"? Different formatting? A special section of the text?
rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode.
As it is fluff text I suppose that "rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack" is fluff text too? Or does it change halfway through the phrase?
Just to continue "any metal object" is fluff? The touch affect any object the antenna touch?
That piece of text is clearly part of how the Rust ability works, you can't excise a piece of the phrase because you don't like it.
Ryze Kuja |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This should be posted in the Rules forum, but anywho...
Pathfinder Mechanic ----v
Fluff Text -----v
Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item. A rust monster never provokes attacks of opportunity by attempting to strike a weapon with its antennae. Against creatures made of metal, a rust monster’s antennae deal 3d6+5 points of damage. An attended object, any magic object, or a metal creature can attempt a DC 15 Reflex save to negate this effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.
There is no such thing as the Rusted Condition, nor the Corroded Condition. If a Rust Monster touches your metal object, the object immediately takes half of its total HP as Damage and gains the Broken Condition. If a Rust Monster touches your metal object again, the object gains the Destroyed condition.
Casting Make Whole on an object that has been touched once by a Rust Monster will restore 1d6 damage per level and possibly remove the Broken Condition (if the object's HP was restored above half its total HP, the Broken Condition is removed). Casting Make Whole on an object that has been touched twice by a Rust Monster will restore 1d6 damage per level and will remove the Destroyed Condition, and could possibly remove the Broken Condition (if the object's HP was restored above half its total HP).
^---- This starts to get a little hairy if the object had already been damaged/sundered in a previous fight, but not below half its HP, and then gets touched by a Rust Monster. So, depending on how much HP is actually missing and how bad your 1d6/level roll for Make Whole is, there is a chance that Make Whole won't remove the Broken Condition. For example, if your weapon has 20 HP total and it got sundered last fight for 9 damage, it currently has 11HP left. You get into a fight with a Rust Monster and it touches your weapon with its antennae, which causes a flat 10 damage, so your weapon now has 1 HP left and gains the Broken Condition. You successfully kill the Rust Monster without your weapon getting touched again, and now you decide to cast Make Whole. Even though you're level 7, the gods did not smile upon your die roll and you roll 7d6 and get seven 1's. The weapon now has 8 HP, but it still retains the Broken Condition.
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The words "rust and corrode" have no mechanical meaning in the game. Acid damage is the same as cold damage is the same as fire damage is the same as electric. It is "fluff" because it is describing what is happening to the item, with no mechanical difference to anything else.
Regardless when you look at this type of stuff you have to look at the effects, tags, and any GM ruling. 1) Rust monsters deal hit point damage which is represented as "the item rusts away", mechanically the item is destroyed by damage not transmuted. 2) Rust monster's attack are not a transmutation effect, unlike the Rusting Grasp spell.
Having said that, Make Whole can fix an item that has been broken due to rust, even if the GM rules that the item would still remain rusty. Similarly, a GM could argue that an item destroyed by a rust monster does not "crumble" until disturbed: Meaning that you could use make whole, but the item would remain rusty. Another GM might allow make whole to work if you have X percentage of the item. Here is an old thread with similar stances on the subject of make whole and turning things to dust Mending Items
Also, think about the consequenses of that type of ruling. You have spells that can quite literally fabricate items from raw materials to nanometer accuracy, repair missing body parts, and even recreate entire bodies from scratch but they can't fix a bit of rust? Are you going to tell me that its easier to fix death and total destruction of the body than a piece of random iron? If you do make that type of ruling I hope you at least give your players something that fixes that type of damage, less it become the only type of damage that cannot be repaired. You are saying that IRL non-magical blacksmiths are more capable than a person performing magic that "makes an item whole"?
Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repairing a magic item requires material components equal to half the cost to create the item, and requires half the time.
The make whole spell can also repair a damaged (or even a destroyed) magic item—if the caster is high enough level.
A way to repair magic items without the use of spells is already in the CRB.
The problem with the "he words "rust and corrode" have no mechanical meaning in the game." is that plenty of things haven't specific rules and have no game mechanics that define them.
Make whole refer Mending, and Mending has several of those:
"All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function." Where are the rules to know if you have recovered all the pieces of a broken or destroyed object?
"This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted," There isn't a transmuted condition, nor a warped one.
Warp Wood says: "You cause wood to bend and warp, permanently destroying its straightness, form, and strength.", but there is no rule about what that warping does.
There is a Transmutation school of magic, a item affected by that school is transmuted and that is the only way?
Ryze Kuja |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repairing Magic Items wrote:
Repairing a magic item requires material components equal to half the cost to create the item, and requires half the time.
The make whole spell can also repair a damaged (or even a destroyed) magic item—if the caster is high enough level.A way to repair magic items without the use of spells is already in the CRB.
The problem with the "he words "rust and corrode" have no mechanical meaning in the game." is that plenty of things haven't specific rules and have no game mechanics that define them.
Make whole refer Mending, and Mending has several of those:
"All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function." Where are the rules to know if you have recovered all the pieces of a broken or destroyed object?
"This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted," There isn't a transmuted condition, nor a warped one.
Warp Wood says: "You cause wood to bend and warp, permanently destroying its straightness, form, and strength.", but there is no rule about what that warping does.
There is a Transmutation school of magic, a item affected by that school is transmuted and that is the only way?
Sounds like more of Diego's Homebrewed nonsense. We're going to use the actual rules of the game, you do w/e you want, just stop confusing people k
Temperans |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warp Wood says the item is bent. Mending says that the spell does recover HP but it does not fix the fact that the item is bent. Make Whole has the same limitation, it recovers hit point damage (which is what the rust monster does) but it does not recover the bent shape.
If Make Whole can't fix simple rusting than its a useless spell because 90% of the damage that items receive is elemental which flavor wise would "warp it". Heck even physical damage flavor wise "warps" it, or how do you think those damage types work?
So either accept that the spell works on this type of stuff, or the spell is actually useless.
Hugo Rune |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The purist in me agrees with Diego. The sword has been transmuted into a rusty sword. If it was subsequently snapped, make whole would return it to a single rusty sword.
However, the pragmatist in me says we do not need a Remove Rust spell when there is already the Mending, Make Whole and Greater Make Whole chain of spells that do similar things and have broader terms.
In my view the RAI is that the spell would repair the damage from a rust monster.
Pizza Lord |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This should be posted in the Rules forum, but anywho...
Pathfinder Mechanic ----v
Fluff Text -----v
Quote:Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item. A rust monster never provokes attacks of opportunity by attempting to strike a weapon with its antennae. Against creatures made of metal, a rust monster’s antennae deal 3d6+5 points of damage. An attended object, any magic object, or a metal creature can attempt a DC 15 Reflex save to negate this effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Unfortunately, Ryze Kuja, this is not the case. The part you call out as fluff text is not fluff text. It is an actual description and quality of the power/attack being described.
Just because a description mentions an adjective or quality that isn't specifically ruled on does not make it fluff. For instance, in a creature's description it could say that it had feathered wings and is red. There is no specific condition or statement for being either feathered or red or what having those qualities means. This is because they are self-evident.
You can have spells that trigger based off such qualities and those can't be ignored as being unimportant and interchangeable. A spell that triggers when a red creature attempts to pass or a spell that plucks or denudes feathers will have an effect on such a creature, whether the Devs felt they needed to make 1,000,000 possible listing of every adjective so a player knows that being 'red' means you have a color hue that falls in the red spectrum and how that relates to the violet range or the green range or the yellow range.
Actual fluff text would be text that has no bearing on a property, quality, or effect of the creature or power being described. For instance, 'This power is why rust monsters are feared by fighters,' or 'Of all the terrifying beasts an explorer might encounter underground, only the rust monster targets that which the average adventurer values most: his treasure.' Those are fluff texts, how do we know adventurers value their treasure most or that rust monsters are the only creature that targets treasure? What about ethereal filchers, destrachan, blue dragons, or thieves of any race?
There is no such thing as the Rusted Condition, nor the Corroded Condition. If a Rust Monster touches your metal object, the object immediately takes half of its total HP as Damage and gains the Broken Condition. If a Rust Monster touches your metal object again, the object gains the Destroyed condition.
The reason it is important is not because there is a 'corroded', 'rusted', or 'oxidized' state or condition specifically listed. The reason it is important is because there are things in the game that do apply to rust and damage from rusting attacks.
For instance, a gauntlet of rust prevents rust damage, including the attacks of rust monsters. Thankfully they specified rust monsters for you, otherwise if we excised and ignored what you claim is only fluff, then we'd have no chance of knowing it was rust damage, other than the name of the power, which is not always linked with what it does (for instance, a gargoyle's called 'freeze' may not be the same as a glacial ooze's freeze ability or other creature that might actually freeze a target rather than itself) or the fact that the creature is called a 'rust monster' which is also not helpful, because otherwise a fire beetle might be assumed to have some relation to fire, such as resistance, subtype, or an attack... none of which is the case.
Without your 'fluff text' we also wouldn't know what it rusts by strictly reading the ability (thankfully they were smart enough to add it into the creature's actual description too). You've also excluded that it applies to metal objects and what kind (any). I know what you're thinking, 'While obviously it applies to metal objects! Whoever heard of wood or paper rusting?!" Which only proves the point, that there are things that don't need to be defined when they're obvious. What they did have to expound on was the 'not-normal-in-reality properties, such as rust monsters being able to rust even non-ferrous metals like mithril and adamantine (non-ferrous metals, like aluminum do not rust, though technically only iron's oxidization is called 'rust', we'd still understand what it means when we say a metal rusts, even if it wasn't iron specifically).
The fact that it is a 'rust' attack is important, not because of any associated condition, just like there are 'aging' attacks that are prevented by immunity to magical aging. Yes, there are Age categories, but almost there are far more 'aging' attacks that have absolutely no bearing or affect on actual Age or Age categories. For instance, Touch of Ruin is an aging attack that has deals hit point and ability damage that are in no way linked to the damage from changing Age Categories. A ghost's Corrupting Touch is an aging attack that deals damage from rapid aging but no matter how much damage it deals it doesn't actually age the target a single day (nor does healing the damage taken make the target younger).
Senko |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My ruling would be that it does fix it not because I'm ignoring the flavour text but because that flavour text say's its not applicable. There are two specific conditions where mending does not work warping and transmutation. So what are they?
Warp
I've not been able to find a warped condition in my books but there is the warp wood spell that starts off . . .
"You cause wood to bend and warp, permanently destroying its straightness, form, and strength."
Now yes rusting does destroy form and strength but so does pretty much anything that gives the destroyed condition so it seems the intent is a twisting and distorting of the original object. As for the dictionary . . .
"become or cause to become bent or twisted out of shape, typically as a result of the effects of heat or dampness."
So for the purposes of the game I think we can say "warp" means to twist and distort an objects shape i.e. bending a sword. A rusty sword retains its shape till it crumbles to dust so I feel safe saying "rusting" does not count for "Warp" so lets look at the second effect.
Transmuted
Again there's no transmuted condition but there is a transmutation school which say's . . .
"Transmutation, sometimes called transfiguration, or transformation, is one of the eight schools of magic recognized on Golarion. As its name suggests, it deals with the transmutation or transformation of objects and people, or the changing of one of their attributes"
So is the rust monster transforming the sword or changing one of its attributes? In a broad sense, yes but if your going to apply that sense any spell that applies the "destroyed" condition would render the destroyed object invalid for mending as its "transmuting" it. In a more practical sense what is rusting? It is the combustion of iron and steel as it slowly burns away. If the rust monster touches the sword it rusts away, if I leave the sword in an ocean for 100 years it rusts away, if I leave the sword on a mountain exposed to the elements for a hundred years it rusts away. Its not a transmutation effect but an accelerated natural combustion effect. The rust monster is not transforming the sword into something else or changing its properties its simply causing it to experience a natural process at a greatly accelerated rate.
Is it a specific effect certain things like the gauntlet above can work with yes but its not an effect that meets the requirements for transmuting or warping the weapon/armour and thus mending can work to restore its damage. Its the same if you "destroy" a weapon with acid damage mending will work on it even though in real life prolonged exposure to acid can "warp" steel. However that kind of realism is outside the scope of pathfinder rules just like there aren't rules for attacking with a dagger vs attacking with a claymore (anymore) or rules for realistic lighting because its trying to simulate a world not replicate it and thus a lot of things get simplified.
Pizza Lord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Make Whole can't fix simple rusting than its a useless spell because 90% of the damage that items receive is elemental which flavor wise would "warp it". Heck even physical damage flavor wise "warps" it, or how do you think those damage types work?
If the physical damage itself was administered in such a way that the object was warped, then yes, make whole would not fix the warped or otherwise transmutated property or condition of the item (though it still might repair other damage). You can argue about ambiguous or infinite ways that damage might or might not warp an object or any effect that might or might not warp an object whether it actually deals hit point damage or not.
Energy damage isn't any different. I depends on what it is and what it did to the object. A [sonic] spell could blast apart a glass bottle or window. Mending or make whole can fix that. A [cold] spell that damages an item, or even destroys it likely hasn't significantly warped or transmuted the object (if it did, then it wouldn't be fixed with make whole). Even fire damage to a door that doesn't significantly burn it away could be repaired. But if your GM says the door is burnt down, then you aren't repairing the burnt wood, just like you can't cast make whole on the embers of your campfire and regain the log you used during the night. If a piece of paper is burnt away, then you can't restore the missing part or the writing on it. If it were just slashed or cut or torn into little pieces, then you probably could.
Yes, fire or acid damage is much more likely to warp, dissolve, or otherwise transmute or change an object than other energy types. That's just how they work.
It depends on the object and what happens to it. A candle that is burned away can't be made whole again, even if you had all the melted wax, it would just be a waxen lump with no wick. But if it were cut in half, frozen, or shattered, it could be.
It is unfeasible (and unreasonable) to expect or demand of the Devs or a GM to prophesize or foresee and write out the possible effects of every type, implementation, or amount of damage on every possible type, variant, or composition of every item or object that might exist in a game world. Especially ones where there are items and materials that don't exist in real life. It is a GM's call. You can agree or disagree.
Another problem is that there are terms like 'broken' or 'destroyed' which are not conveyed well by items that are broken or destroyed. For instance, if I say you see a 'broken stick', you likely picture a stick that's broken at some point, either with a section missing, or maybe just snapped in two. But the actual 'broken condition' just means it's taken half its hit points or so in damage and would mean that the stick is still a stick, still in pretty much one piece, and is still usable, albeit at attack or damage penalties for using it. The same if I say you see 'a broken bottle'. You probably picture an improvised weapon that might be found in a bar-fight, when it could just be a bottle at less than 50% hit points which is completely as functional as any other bottle barring cosmetic damage or cracks.
Whereas other objects, like a clock, window crank, or elevator might be 'broken' but not have any actual damage done. The clock might just need winding, might be missing a battery, might be in a realm with no time. A window crank or door might just be stuck. An elevator might have no power or its cables might be disconnected. 'Repairing' them with make whole will do nothing, even if they do have some hit point damage.
So either accept that the spell works on this type of stuff, or the spell is actually useless.
This is a small-minded approach. The spell works fine, but you've decided to take the specific part of it that it doesn't work on, which is spelled out, and claim that the limitation makes the spell 'useless'. Not 'less useful', or 'not as over-powered as unrestricted use might be' or even 'not exactly as some people view it', but utterly 'worthless'.
That's akin to saying raise dead is actually worthless because it doesn't work on those killed by death effects or old age. It does things almost no other spell does and does it well. The fact that it has limitations is not something that makes it worthless. It just mitigates, balances, or otherwise restricts its use.
Pizza Lord |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My ruling would be that it does fix it not because I'm ignoring the flavour text but because that flavour text say's its not applicable.
...
So is the rust monster transforming the sword or changing one of its attributes? In a broad sense, yes but if your going to apply that sense any spell that applies the "destroyed" condition would render the destroyed object invalid for mending as its "transmuting" it. In a more practical sense what is rusting? It is the combustion of iron and steel as it slowly burns away. If the rust monster touches the sword it rusts away, if I leave the sword in an ocean for 100 years it rusts away, if I leave the sword on a mountain exposed to the elements for a hundred years it rusts away. Its not a transmutation effect but an accelerated natural combustion effect. The rust monster is not transforming the sword into something else or changing its properties its simply causing it to experience a natural process at a greatly accelerated rate.
Your ruling is your ruling and you've given your reasons why and that's fine. However, the reasons you give aren't necessarily solid. By your logic, casting make whole on cheese would turn it back into dairy because that's a natural process from being acidified, that's right, acidic enzymes (though likely not acidic enough to really hurt a creature). Casting make whole would also turn wine back into grapes (or raisins, and turn those into grapes) because that's a natural process (which can be accelerated in breweries and casks or even with some magic spells), reversing the damage of time or transmutation and fermentation. Also casting make whole would restore petrified wood to unpetrified wood because that's just a natural process that occurs (and can be caused by other effects more rapidly).
It doesn't do that. It won't even unskunkify or restore beer or wine that is subjected to heat or temperatures above it's proper storage threshold. Even a minor and short term exposure will alter wine (the degree to which it is noticeable might vary depending on the amount and the palate of the imbiber).
Even in your example, warping is typically caused by heat. Now, just being warped doesn't mean an object is destroyed. Even a warped door is still a door and is still just as strong as any door, even and in spite of the wording of the warp wood spell that says the objects strength is permanently destroyed. If you warp wood a door to be stuck, it's just as hard to break open or hack down (or burn, corrode, freeze, or sonic, or knock) as any other equal door that is stuck closed for any reason besides being warped. If you hack it awhile and cast make whole, you'll repair the damage, but it won't unstuck the door or repair the warp, nor would it return the door to being wood if the reason it was stuck is that enough time passed that the wood petrified (or it was magically petrified in an instant). Not would make whole restore it from a rotted door if instead of becoming petrified it had rotted. It would just be repaired to a rotted door with more hit points than it may have had. It won't reverse the effects of time (though it might repair hit point damage that it had accrued over time).
If you make a door out of petrified wood and it gets damaged, make whole will only fic the damage. If you make a door with rusty metal, rusty nails, rusty hinges, or even just a rusty door knob or knocker, casting make whole will not change that, nor will it change that if they become such (unless the effect that did it says that it does if the damage is repaired).
I'd also like to add that destroying or breaking a sword by hitting it really hard with an axe is more likely to warp it than rusting it.
That's a fair ruling if you want to do that in your game. I don't think most people would do that. But if that's what you rule happens, then the warp would not be repaired even if the weapon was fully restored to its max hit points. It would then be up to you, as the GM (it's your ruling) to determine the effects that using a warped or bent sword has on attacks or damage (–2 to attack is probably fair, but it's your call and depends on the severity of the warp that you've arbitrarily given it).
However, it makes no difference whether the blade was 'broken' or destroyed. It's entirely possible that there could be, or could become, a feat or ability that lets an attacker hit a weapon and cause it to 'warp' (hopefully it would specify the effect that such a warp would have) even if it dealt no damage or didn't deal enough to reduce an item to broken or destroyed condition. In fact, warp metal is the perfect example of that (–4 to melee attacks with one apparently). Doesn't do any damage, doesn't give any conditions. So you actually have a baseline for warping (rusted is still open to interpretation).
You would have to unwarp the blade, either with warp metal to unwarp, or by repairing or reforging it (usually at a small cost for new materials that were lost to rust or lost their temper and had to be replaced. I believe only 1/5th the item's cost), about 3 gp for a longsword.
Ryze Kuja |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
a lot of fluffy stuff
Unless it's a sentence or a phrase within a sentence that has an actual mechanic, it's fluff text. Don't get me wrong, I love my fluff text. Because it helps me visualize what's happening.
'This power is why rust monsters are feared by fighters,' or 'Of all the terrifying beasts an explorer might encounter underground, only the rust monster targets that which the average adventurer values most: his treasure.' is fluff text just as much as 'that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode' is also fluff text.
It describes how awful rust monsters truly are, but what game mechanics does a Rust Monster really do? It immediately reduces metal objects HP by half and gives metal objects the Broken and Destroyed Conditions.
Temperans |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warping is not at issue here we have warp wood and warp metal, in both cases it is just a physical deformity that does not destroy the item. Aka there is nothing for mending or make whole to fix.
The issue here is that rusting is mechanically identical to acid damage, nothing about mending or make whole says acid damage cannot be restored.
Also, no I do not consider rusting itself to be transmutation. Rusted iron is still just iron, the act of being "rusted" is by itself no different than rotted wood or a rotten corpse. The restore corpse spell can give flesh to a skeleton such that it looks like it originally did in life but rotted and that is a level 1 spell; Make whole and make whole greater should be able to do the same without the corpse looking rotted as level 2 and 4 spells respectively.
Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since Rust Monsters and their effects are sorta this D&D legacy thing, how did the previous [or even future] versions of D&D handle their effects?
I am going from memory of a system I haven't touched in 20 years, so there can be some imprecision, but:
The rust monster destroyed the metal object if it failed a save with a DC of 12, applying only the magical bonus of the object, without any other modifier.
Mending didn't exist in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, nor in D&D BECM, so barring a Wish and Limited Wish (they worked very differently at the time and were way rarer) there was no way to recover the destroyed item.
It was a very different playstyle, where losing magic items was way more common than today. To make an example, after failing a save against a lighting bolt spell you had to roll a save for every item you had on your body against a difficulty determined by the material of the item. Metallic items had a base of 12 against lightning.
On the other hand, failing a save was less common as soon as you had a few levels, as you could stack several items and the difficulty of the save was determined by your class, level, and the kind of attack. The stats of the attacker made no difference.
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was a very different playstyle, where losing magic items was way more common than today. To make an example, after failing a save against a lighting bolt spell you had to roll a save for every item you had on your body against a difficulty determined by the material of the item. Metallic items had a base of 12 against lightning.On the other hand, failing a save was less common as soon as you had a few levels, as you could stack several items and the difficulty of the save was determined by your class, level, and the kind of attack. The stats of the attacker made no difference.
Technically people still jave to do it. But nobody that I know does as its too borthersome. The save is also generally easy so, yeah people usually don't bother.
Diego Rossi |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diego Rossi wrote:Technically people still jave to do it. But nobody that I know does as its too borthersome. The save is also generally easy so, yeah people usually don't bother.
It was a very different playstyle, where losing magic items was way more common than today. To make an example, after failing a save against a lighting bolt spell you had to roll a save for every item you had on your body against a difficulty determined by the material of the item. Metallic items had a base of 12 against lightning.On the other hand, failing a save was less common as soon as you had a few levels, as you could stack several items and the difficulty of the save was determined by your class, level, and the kind of attack. The stats of the attacker made no difference.
In Pathfinder it is very different.
1) You need to check the item only if you roll a natural 1.
2) You create a table of the 10 most exposed items and determine what item is potentially damaged. Only 1 item is potentially damaged, not all of them.
3) If the item fails the save it suffer an appropriate number of hit point of damage, so weapon, armors, and shields rarely are destroyed outright.
All summer up the difference is that in 3.X/Pathfinder you have a damaged item that can be repaired, in AD&D and D&D BECM you generally did lose at least a couple of items every time you failed a save.
GEnerally minor items, but still a loss.
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Temperans wrote:You are saying that IRL non-magical blacksmiths are more capable than a person performing magic that "makes an item whole"?A blacksmith can't unrust a rusty item. They can simply remove the rusted metal, but that reduces the total metal present.
... Restoring rust is not that aggressive, literally just removing the outside layer. Even when the rust is deep there is such a thing as adding metal to fill in the gaps. Regardless make whole doesn't care about how much is missing it just says that you repair objects.
Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Loren Pechtel wrote:... Restoring rust is not that aggressive, literally just removing the outside layer. Even when the rust is deep there is such a thing as adding metal to fill in the gaps. Regardless make whole doesn't care about how much is missing it just says that you repair objects.Temperans wrote:You are saying that IRL non-magical blacksmiths are more capable than a person performing magic that "makes an item whole"?A blacksmith can't unrust a rusty item. They can simply remove the rusted metal, but that reduces the total metal present.
Mending, and so Make whole, requires all the pieces of the item, so it cares very much about "how much is missing".
All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function.
Pizza Lord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Restoring rust is not that aggressive, literally just removing the outside layer. Even when the rust is deep there is such a thing as adding metal to fill in the gaps.
That's not necessarily untrue in most cases where you leave a blade exposed or untended, but there are different levels of rust, just like there are different levels and depths of flaws in gems, and just like there can be differing levels of effect for how badly warped an object is (warp metal makes a ranged weapon useless and melee weapons have –4 to attack, whereas you could probably bend and warp a metal spoon and it still might be usable with some difficulty). If you leave your blade unsheathed and it rains, then the rust is probably negligible surface rust, like you said. A rust monster's attack is not negligible. It literally damages and eats away the item. While there are such things as welding or forging on new material to a weapon (like a new handle on an axe), that's not something that mending or make whole do. That falls under Crafting skill or possibly fabricate. You'd still need to supply the material at about 1/5th cost of whatever a GM deems fair.
Regardless make whole doesn't care about how much is missing it just says that you repair objects.
Both make whole and mending absolutely do care about missing pieces. It will not restore a missing part or piece. If you smashed a mirror and took a thumb-sized shard, mend or make whole will not even function on the item. You would have to return the missing piece within close proximity or touching for it to work. The same is true if you drop a spear into an ooze that dissolves wood. The metal head might survive, but if the shaft is literally gone (ie. dissolved away), then mending or make whole will not grow a whole new wooden shaft, complete with leather hand-wrapping and the notches you cut into it for each goblin you killed.
In fact, make whole has no additional effects on objects over and above mending it works exactly the same. The only difference is that make whole can effect constructs and it can restore the magical powers of a destroyed item. For instance, both mending and make whole can return a destroyed +1 shortsword to full hit points, but it will just be a shortsword if done with mending or a make whole from a caster with less than double the magic item's CL.
Comparing mending and make whole
------------------------------------------------------
This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit points to the object. If the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points. All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function. Magic items can be repaired by this spell, but you must have a caster level equal to or higher than that of the object. Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities. This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs). This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted, but it can still repair damage done to such items.
We see than mending can repair magic items (with a suitable CL) and even repair destroyed magic items (without their properties). We also clearly see that missing pieces are not allowed nor are they restored. The spell 'All the pieces must be present for the spell to function.'
Now we look at make whole:
This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).
It clearly says it functions as mending 'except'... that it repairs 1d6 hit points per level when cast 'on a construct creature'. It doesn't even repair any extra damage over mending on a normal sword or even a magical sword. It makes no mention of any difference between the damage repaired by the two and, in fact, says it functions the same. The difference is that it also works on constructs.
...
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance.
Here we see another difference, it can restore destroyed magic items (which mending can do), but also restores their properties (if sufficient CL).
---------------------------------------------------------------At no point does it say it ignores missing pieces, restores or replaces missing pieces, or doesn't need missing pieces. It functions as mending which does not function if pieces are missing.
Note that this topic is not just about rust or a rusty blade. It is about items '... that have been rusted away ...'. This means the metal axe head was rusted away and either crumbled to rust or was consumed by the rust monster and when you get back to camp you try and mend the handle (which is unharmed).
This is using the Archives of Nethys spell wording. Make whole actually is different in the D20PFSRD.
This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on an object or construct creature (maximum 5d6).
Note that it did once specify it repaired 1d6 per level when cast on objects or constructs, but that wording is no longer present.
This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).
If a piece (not just a gouge, or a dent, or a ding, or a tear) is missing, mending won't even function (it won't even repair any damage) and make whole which functions the same follows that rule because it is not called out otherwise.
If a piece of your weapon, such as the head of an axe, is rusted away (the specific topic), dissolved away, unscrewed from the handle and stolen, neither spell will work or do anything. If you are ruling that it's just a light coating of rust and nothing is technically missing, that's a fair ruling, but I think it's a bit far-fetched and reaching to assume that a rust monster's attack, which breaks or destroys an object in seconds is comparable to a light speckling of patina (though you can certainly rule it as such in your game). It actually transforms the metal into rust, which is specifically iron oxide. This may not seem important if you're talking about iron weapons, but by the wording, it also turns adamantine or mithril or gold into rust, which is iron oxide. Rust is specifically that. If you want to houserule that it makes adamantine 'rust' that's your call.
------------------------------------------------------------
Temperans |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps you all misunderstood what I was saying.
When you break an item it is never a clean cut. There are shards that go flying off, micro particles that don't stay, etc. Neither Make Whole nor Mending care about those tiny pieces being missing.
Also the spell says it works on items that have been destroyed (have 0 HP). So why wouldn't it work on a spear destroyed by acid damage when nowhere does it say that it can't repair that damage? It also never says it can't restore fire damage which burns away material. So yeah all of those interpretations are just trying to make the spell worse for no reason.
Also, the whole axe example is non-sensical. If you don't have the item or its remains how can you restore it? The whole argument is that "if you have the pieces, can you use make whole" and the answer to that is yes regardless of the state as long as they have not: Been transmuted or warped. You have an iron axe that was bent? Just straighten it. You have an iron axe that was turned to wood? Find a caster to turn it back into metal. You have an iron axe that was rusted? Mend it.
*************************
At this point you are effectively saying that mending and make whole are useless spells since they cannot restore: fire, acid, bludgeoning, electric, slashing, water, weather, or chewing damage. Oh wait, piercing also can't be fixed because a hole is a "warp". Congrats you made the only 3 item restoration spells useless. But sure a 1st level necromancy spell can completely restore a skeleton to a full and recognizeable corpse.
Do ignore the fact that make whole can quite literally fix a sinking ship as per the rules of the sinking condition. Or that it can "repair destroyed items".
Pizza Lord |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you break an item it is never a clean cut. There are shards that go flying off, micro particles that don't stay, etc.
You are being very disingenuous in this topic. At no point, ANYWHERE, does any reasonable, common sense interpretation or reading of a 'piece' of something equate to 'micro particles'. Do you also have spells impact on 'air molecules'? No one is implying that except you. If a piece of a mirror is missing, meaning enough that if you said the phrase "A piece of the mirror is missing" imply that your player has noticed some micro particles missing in any conversation. NO REASONABLE PLAYER WOULD BELIEVE THAT. If you did do that, I am not going to say that you're GMing wrong... but I will say that there's a definite 'more correct' way to do it.
Even if a character had the ability to note the absence of micro particles, you still would just say, "Some micro particles are missing," and that would be so improbably far-fetched and unbelievable for any GM to determine that some random character has taken a tally and accounting of every micro particle.
When you break an item it is never a clean cut. There are shards that go flying off, micro particles that don't stay, etc. Neither Make Whole nor Mending care about those tiny pieces being missing.
They do. They absolutely do care about missing pieces.
... All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function. ...
If you're ruling is that there isn't a piece missing... then they will work. But trying to say that they work in an obvious instance where they say they don't... because you can rule that the object isn't in a state where the spell wouldn't work... is disingenuous.
I don't think any player or other GM would agree with you on considering a 'micro particle' to be what constitutes a 'missing piece' in the context of the spell. Even if it was, you (as the GM) are the one who determines what and how far these 'micro particles' travel. Do they enter slipstream and fly off into space? Are they hovering around the area like dust particles? WE DON"T KNOW! THIS IS ALL YOUR CALL. The actual ruling of the spell means that as long as the pieces are present, meaning in the vicinity or close enough for a fair GM ruling, then the spell will function. So even if you ascribe to the 'micro particle' theory of magical spells in a fantasy game that has never, ever, ever made mention of them.... you can say it works, as long as they're all present.
Also the spell says it works on items that have been destroyed (have 0 HP).
No one is saying it doesn't. In fact, every single person in this topic knows and agrees that it does this.
So why wouldn't it work on a spear destroyed by acid damage when nowhere does it say that it can't repair that damage? It also never says it can't restore fire damage which burns away material.
Because expecting Devs to write out every single type of damage, amount of damage, intensity of damage for every single possible item and every single possible material is UNREASONABLE! No one says it doesn't fix acid, fire, water, heat, turtle bites. BUT IT SPECIFICALLY will not work if the attack that dealt that damage causes a piece to be missing ( and no longer present). It does not matter if the attack dealt any damage at all, whether 1, 2, 50, or 1 million (though at that point the object should objectively be obliterated, but again, that depends on the object, attack, and GM ruling). If you tell a player that their mithril axe took 6 acid damage and became warped or turned into a rusty iron shoehorn, mending will do NOTHING other than repair some damage (since all the parts are present). If you tell a player that their opponent hit their weapon for 6 damage and the spearhead disappeared (specifically was teleported away by some custom spell you made to remove micro particles from an object, then it will not work until they retrieve the missing part and have it present.
So yeah all of those interpretations are just trying to make the spell worse for no reason.
Look, this is the Rules forum. There are interpretations and House Rules and judgement calls. Everything I've stated has involved quoted rules and citing situation. I get it. You don't FEEL that it's right. I'm not going to convince you and you can change the spell or how it works to your heart's content. But you should at least be able to read and understand how it's written (whether right or wrong or whether you agree with it). Then you at least know how it should work. For instance, I didn't know they'd changed make whole to not repair any extra damage on objects. But I took the time to read and research as much as I could to offer an opposing point of view (or an enlightened reading, depending on what your opinion on the matter is).
Also, the whole axe example is non-sensical. If you don't have the item or its remains how can you restore it?
You can't. I think you're actually getting it. You can't. If you don't have the object present, OR IF A PIECE IS NOT PRESENT, then the spell does not function.
At this point you are effectively saying that mending and make whole are useless spells since they cannot restore: fire, acid, bludgeoning, electric, slashing, water, weather, or chewing damage.
I haven't seen anyone state anything of the kind. Only that if the attack causes a piece to be missing or effectively warped or transmuted into something else, and implying that I have is inappropriate.
The situation will always depend on the specific situation and the GM. If a piece of ice is melted into water and then steam, it will not freeze back into an ice cube because you cast mending, even if every water molecule is present.Oh wait, piercing also can't be fixed because a hole is a "warp".
If that's your interpretation. I don't think anyone else will necessary agree with that. There are plenty of items that have holes in them and mending will fix it if the pieces are present (like a hole punch with the little paper circle there). If you're trying to claim that an object was 'warped', then the spell will still repair any damage (all the pieces are present, just maybe smooshed), but will not fix the warp. So that means if you stick your finger in a tub of butter and create a hole mending won't 'repair' anything.
You don't dig a six-foot deep grave for your fallen friend, drop their corpse in, then cast make whole and suddenly the hole is filled in, even if you've got all the dirt there. A hole isn't necessarily damage nor is the ground 'broken' despite the use of the phrase 'breaking ground' for construction projects.You don't get to eat a meal, poop it out and then mend it back into a loaf of bread because all the pieces are there, no matter how many sesame seeds are still visible and unharmed.
But sure a 1st level necromancy spell can completely restore a skeleton to a full and recognizeable corpse.
Irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're trying to imply that it works on a corpse that is destroyed or not present in a manner that is decomposed or skeletonized. You can't use it on cremated remains even if there are a few bone fragments or an arm from a corpse with no other parts available. Otherwise, you're just naming a spell and saying what it does and claiming that has some relevance to another spell that doesn't do that. I could just as easily say, "But there's a 1st-level spell that shoots magical orbs of glowing force and damages creatures! Why doesn't it damage objects! Why doesn't it do a thing to a corpse... but as soon as it becomes a zombie it does!?" The answer is... because that's how it works. I didn't write it. All I could do is quote it for you.
Do ignore the fact that make whole can quite literally fix a sinking ship as per the rules of the sinking condition. Or that it can "repair destroyed items".
Again, irrelevant. A ship is not damaged or treated the same as an object in this case. An object becomes broken or destroyed at 0 hit points. A ship does not. It can go –10 or –100 or –[whatever]. It just gains the sinking condition. Technically, even if it completely sank it isn't destroyed and you could repair it with make whole if you could reach where it 'sank'. Does that mean that a GM would make it suddenly not be 'sank' just because it loses the sinking condition (does it even lose the sinking condition while 'sunk'). Does it mean that casting make whole magically pushes all the water out of the ship that's been swamped in before it was repaired? Most GMs will say no, it will still have some water in it, and it is their call on whether to apply any mechanics or modifiers to steering the ship based on that, even if the ship isn't 'sinking'. We can't hypothesize how badly a ship is 'sinking' or how far from your example... and it's pointless, since a damaged ship is treated differently in terms of being 'destroyed' (which is what you're claiming, since you again keep repeating that line).
------------------------------------------------------------------The specific question and topic of this thread, is 'Rusted Away' It's the whole topic. There are no mitigators, no examples, no scenarios given by the poster (whether they agree with any of this or not). The whole question is specifically, 'Rusted away', which doesn't mean 'a little bit rusted', 'a light coating of rust', 'just a bit brown-colored'. There's no mention of damage, there's no mention of the term 'broken' or 'destroyed'. Whether that was the intention of the poster or not, we can't determine. They've had plenty of time to clarify their stance. We can only go by the question and the actual wording.
Senko |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Temperans wrote:When you break an item it is never a clean cut. There are shards that go flying off, micro particles that don't stay, etc.You are being very disingenuous in this topic. At no point, ANYWHERE, does any reasonable, common sense interpretation or reading of a 'piece' of something equate to 'micro particles'. Do you also have spells impact on 'air molecules'? No one is implying that except you. If a piece of a mirror is missing, meaning enough that if you said the phrase "A piece of the mirror is missing" imply that your player has noticed some micro particles missing in any conversation. NO REASONABLE PLAYER WOULD BELIEVE THAT. If you did do that, I am not going to say that you're GMing wrong... but I will say that there's a definite 'more correct' way to do it.
Even if a character had the ability to note the absence of micro particles, you still would just say, "Some micro particles are missing," and that would be so improbably far-fetched and unbelievable for any GM to determine that some random character has taken a tally and accounting of every micro particle.
Temperans wrote:When you break an item it is never a clean cut. There are shards that go flying off, micro particles that don't stay, etc. Neither Make Whole nor Mending care about those tiny pieces being missing.They do. They absolutely do care about missing pieces.
Mending (which Make Whole functions as) wrote:... All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function. ...If you're ruling is that there isn't a piece missing... then they will work. But trying to say that they work in an obvious instance where they say they don't... because you can rule that the object isn't in a state where the spell wouldn't work... is disingenuous.
** spoiler omitted **...
The specific intent is rusted by rust monsters we've moved on a bit but that was the OP's question. Not rusted by rain or time but specifically a weapon/armour subjected to a rust monster attack. It does make a difference as we're talking about this specific ability . . .
Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item. A rust monster never provokes attacks of opportunity by attempting to strike a weapon with its antennae. Against creatures made of metal, a rust monster’s antennae deal 3d6+5 points of damage. An attended object, any magic object, or a metal creature can attempt a DC 15 Reflex save to negate this effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.
So we know one hit = 1/2 damage and 2 = destroyed. That it does damage to metal creatures and that magic items, attended objects and metal creatures are resistant (saving throw). That is the only condition it applied broken and it doesn't even use the word warp or similar in its text. There is not even a destroyed condition which is where our debate comes in. However the broken condition has this . . .
If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item’s. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item’s total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined).
So we know with 100% certainty per the rules mending/make whole WILL work on the item after the first hit. The rust monsters rusting ability applies the "broken" condition nothing else. Mending will restore an item with the broken condition as per the broken conditions rules.
Which brings us to the spell restoring something from the molecules which is where we differ. I don't think the second hit does take an item to that stat given you can use it in broken condition so while a metal item is destroyed by the rust monsters second hit its not taken to a point where mending wont work on it as there is no destroyed condition we can refer to only interpret from the existing rules . . .
1) The rust monster applies broken/destroyed.
2) A broken item can be used at lesser efficiency and repaired with mending.
Therefore a destroyed item can also be repaired by mending.
I would however also agree it couldn't be used on something burnt to ash or a mirror with missing shards. It can ignore minor missing bits e.g. the shards flaking off from where the mirror cracked but not a whole piece.
Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the spell says it works on items that have been destroyed (have 0 HP). So why wouldn't it work on a spear destroyed by acid damage when nowhere does it say that it can't repair that damage? It also never says it can't restore fire damage which burns away material. So yeah all of those interpretations are just trying to make the spell worse for no reason.
Your opinion is that Make whole turn ash and carbon dioxide into logs and iron salt created by acid into steel?
Then it will work the whole way. It will turn the in the original tree and the iron ore. Why stop halfway.Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Temperans wrote:When you break an item it is never a clean cut. There are shards that go flying off, micro particles that don't stay, etc.You are being very disingenuous in this topic. At no point, ANYWHERE, does any reasonable, common sense interpretation or reading of a 'piece' of something equate to 'micro particles'. Do you also have spells impact on 'air molecules'? No one is implying that except you. If a piece of a mirror is missing, meaning enough that if you said the phrase "A piece of the mirror is missing" imply that your player has noticed some micro particles missing in any conversation. NO REASONABLE PLAYER WOULD BELIEVE THAT. If you did do that, I am not going to say that you're GMing wrong... but I will say that there's a definite 'more correct' way to do it.
Even if a character had the ability to note the absence of micro particles, you still would just say, "Some micro particles are missing," and that would be so improbably far-fetched and unbelievable for any GM to determine that some random character has taken a tally and accounting of every micro particle.
Temperans wrote:When you break an item it is never a clean cut. There are shards that go flying off, micro particles that don't stay, etc. Neither Make Whole nor Mending care about those tiny pieces being missing.They do. They absolutely do care about missing pieces.
Mending (which Make Whole functions as) wrote:... All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function. ...If you're ruling is that there isn't a piece missing... then they will work. But trying to say that they work in an obvious instance where they say they don't... because you can rule that the object isn't in a state where the spell wouldn't work... is disingenuous.
** spoiler omitted **...
I was not the one who brought in "missing a piece" as an argument to try and stop people from using make whole. In fact I have been pretty much opposed to that whole rhetoric from the start. The fact that you cannot see how my post is a complaint about how ridiculous the "missing a piece" standard is honestly outstanding. Even more so when you start to attack me directly over the fact that I called out a bad argument for what it is.
You keep saying "the spell doesn't care if it's missing a "non-significant piece" but immediately follow up with "the spell cares if the piece is missing because of rust". You cannot have it both ways, either the spell cares about small pieces so it cannot restore anything with less than cosmetic damage or it doesn't care about anything, but the significant pieces and the spell works as normal but fill in the gaps. You cannot have both.
Similar you say "oh I didn't say that those damage types make it useless" but guess what? Your argument against using the spell to fix rust is the same argument that stops all those damage types. Fire and Acid damage both eat away at the material, so you won't have "all the pieces", and if they didn't do that then you didn't really "deal" fire damage. Water damage straight up deforms and removes material, as well as causing its own rust, so again mending can't fix that. Bludgeoning, and by extension Piercing deform the material and break away pieces in the process so once again mending can't fix it. Cutting creates cracks which by nature results in pieces being broken off. So, your argument "rust attack causes you to be missing pieces" is the same for literally every single damage type, that is before you even take into account that nothing in the rust monster's attack says that pieces go missing only that the item is destroyed.
You talk about me being disingenuous, only for you to state Exactly what I was arguing for as if it wasn't already my stance. But then you back it up with the most ridiculous examples that clearly would never work with the mending spell. Seriously, mending a hole in the ground or fecal matter are your examples?
It's ironic that you are asking why a 1st level spell being able to restore a nearly complete corpse from just the skeleton is relevant to the 2nd level make whole and the 4th level make whole greater. It's almost as if you didn't read anything of what I actually wrote. Because then you would know that a 4th level spell should be able to do more than a 1st level spell.
Wait what a ship is not an object you say? Did you even read ship stat blocks? They are all objects with hit points and can get the broken condition and are destroyed when their HP reach 0. The sinking condition tells you what happens if the ship is in the water aka "sinking", with the condition specifically saying that "you can use make whole to repair a sinking ship". Guess why it is that ships sink? Rhetorical, it's because they are missing some part of the hull. By your and Diego Rossi's interpretation that rule is useless because Make Whole would never work.
**************************
The specific question and topic of this thread, is 'Rusted Away' It's the whole topic. There are no mitigators, no examples, no scenarios given by the poster (whether they agree with any of this or not). The whole question is specifically, 'Rusted away', which doesn't mean 'a little bit rusted', 'a light coating of rust', 'just a bit brown-colored'. There's no mention of damage, there's no mention of the term 'broken' or 'destroyed'. Whether that was the intention of the poster or not, we can't determine. They've had plenty of time to clarify their stance. We can only go by the question and the actual wording.
What? Are you actually serious? We were asked about Make Whole vs Rust monster's rust attack. That has specific rules that says 1st hit == broken, 2nd hit == destroyed. Did you even read what the argument was about when you started to say that Ryze Kuja or any of us saying that yes Make Whole works was wrong?
Also, if you are going to use definitions:
When a metal object rusts away, it is gradually weakened and destroyed by rust.
To destroy something means to cause so much damage to it that it is completely ruined or does not exist any more.
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item.
Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities.
The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item.
Where does it say that rust prevents mending much less make whole?
Pizza Lord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You keep saying "the spell doesn't care if it's missing a "non-significant piece" but immediately follow up with "the spell cares if the piece is missing because of rust". You cannot have it both ways, either the spell cares about small pieces so it cannot restore anything with less than cosmetic damage or it doesn't care about anything, but the significant pieces and the spell works as normal but fill in the gaps. You cannot have both.
No THIS! This is what it means to be disingenuous. You keep saying "You keep saying!" and even put quotes in your replies that claim someone said something. You even put quotation marks around them, when NO ONE has said that. The term 'non-significant piece' isn't even used in the entire topic until you stated it, just now, nor is the other sentence you 'quoted'.
It sounds like you're backtracking because you got called out on the obvious absurdity of your 'micro-particle' argument and trying to make it sound like saying a jig-saw puzzle that's missing 3 pieces is the same as one that's had 3 micro-particles rubbed off onto your finger just from picking one piece up.
You keep quoting the same line from make whole that has no bearing on this topic. It doesn't matter if the item is broken, destroyed, or even has a single hit point of damage. 'All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function.' That means if a rust monster goes up to a clock, and 'rusts away' the metal cog, but leaves the wooden case, the glass front, the plastic cuckoo bird, and every other piece. Casting make whole wont restore the clock. If the head of your spear is 'rusted away' and no longer there, it doesn't matter that you have the wooden handle and that it's still technically called a 'spear', mending won't function, because a piece is missing, not because it's damaged, not because it's 'broken' and not because it's 'destroyed'.
If a part of the object is 'rusted away', 'dissolved away', 'burnt away', 'boiled away' or even, to get all Dr. Suess, 'teleported away, thrown away, or just blown away!' the spell will not function. Not in a house, with a mouse. Not in a box, with a fox. The topic is NOT 'Does mending repair 'broken' or 'destroyed' items.' Yes, a rust monster's attack can give the broken and destroyed conditions to items. The wording, whether it was Yqatuba's intention or not, is 'rusted away'.
You seem to be under some impression that part of an object that's 'rusted away' by a rust monster is just sitting on the end of a wooden handle like a big rusty clump of cotton candy. Just like you have a wooden handle and the rusted away metal is just in a hammerhead shape on the end of it.
Any metal touched by the rust monster’s delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes and falls to dust within seconds
If you want to allow your players to scoop up all the iron oxide rust from the pile of 50 gold coins that they threw away earlier to distract the monster, and somehow claim that mending turns it all back into gold pieces... that's fine in your game, but it is not intended.
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait what? I gave a list, you focused on nano particles. Non-significant is a general term for everything between nano particles to tiny little pieces, so why wouldn't I use it? It is definitely not my fault you started the whole needs every part argument.
The only possible meaning for "rusted away by rust monster" is "destroyed by rust monster attack". If you are going to use definitions and not game rules the spell works because the item is "rendered useless and destroyed", no part of the item whent missing. If you are going to use game rules the spell works because the attack destroyed the item and the spell can repair destroyed items.
The only time the spell doesn't work is when part of it are missing, but you are stating that mearly destroying the item (like in the case of rust monster) is enough. So by extension any item that gets destroyed is useless because its almost guaranteed that no one will get every tiny piece that broke off: The spell mentions no size (implied GM variance), and you only mention size when trying to argue that your interpretation isn't crazy (mending works, but you need all the pieces, but it doesn't work if all the pieces are too arbitrarily small).
Never once did I mention you could reconstruct an item that had been turned to dust or been entirely consumed (such that no parts are left). That has been you and Diego trying to discredit my argument that items that are destroyed can be repaired. You know as stated by the spell, but you seem to want to ignore the text of spells saying that they can repair destroyed items.
* P.S. Did you just say all the Iron oxide from 50 gold coins? You are aware that gold is not iron right? Also the fact that gold itself does not rust (most gold items are gilded and might rust under it but not the gold).
Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
* P.S. Did you just say all the Iron oxide from 50 gold coins? You are aware that gold is not iron right? Also the fact that gold itself does not rust (most gold items are gilded and might rust under it but not the gold).
Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode.
Magic (SU ability) that turns gold (and any other metal) into rust.
You know, a trasmutation effect.Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Temperans wrote:* P.S. Did you just say all the Iron oxide from 50 gold coins? You are aware that gold is not iron right? Also the fact that gold itself does not rust (most gold items are gilded and might rust under it but not the gold).Quote:Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode.Magic (SU ability) that turns gold (and any other metal) into rust.
You know, a trasmutation effect.
General vs specific. Rust attack says it affects metals, but plenty of metals say that they are not affected by rust (Ex: Silver). There are also plenty of metals that the devs didn't put in rules for but still have their actual properties. The property of gold being "gold does not react with oxigen besides getting tarnished". Good luck trying to corrode gold cause it aint happening.
Also that is not a transmutation effect unless it has the proper tag. Which rust attack does not have.
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You got the order wrong there. The defensive properties of something is more specific than an ability that says it targets it, unless that ability specifically says to ignore said defenses. It is why resistance, DR, hardness, and immunity all work. An ability that deals fire damage to all wood objects cannot deal damage to a wood object that is immune to fire, but an ability that deals fire damage and bypasses fire immunity can.
Nothing about the rust attack ability says it bypasses immunity to rust, so it doesn't.
Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You got the order wrong there. The defensive properties of something is more specific than an ability that says it targets it, unless that ability specifically says to ignore said defenses. It is why resistance, DR, hardness, and immunity all work. An ability that deals fire damage to all wood objects cannot deal damage to a wood object that is immune to fire, but an ability that deals fire damage and bypasses fire immunity can.
Nothing about the rust attack ability says it bypasses immunity to rust, so it doesn't.
It doesn't work that way.
The generic rule is "gold doesn't rust because it doesn't rust in RL".
The specific rule is: "Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode."
The specific rule is specific to that kind of attack and works only for that kind of attack. Gold doesn't rust isn't even a game rule, it is an RL rule.
Diego Rossi |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Defenses are always more specific then offense. Really no idea where you got that idea it was the other way around because its never been the case. Seriously go and try to argue that Fireball deals damage to fire elementals because their "immunity to fire is more general" and see how it goes.
It is not "defense is more specific". It is "a specific rule is more specific than the general rule".
"Fireball deal fire damage" generic.
"Fire elementals have Immunity: Fire" specific to fire elementals.
"DR/alignment reduces all physical damage that hasn't that alignment" generic.
"+5 weapons overcome DR/alignment and deal full damage" specific to +5 and better weapons.
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Temperans wrote:Defenses are always more specific then offense. Really no idea where you got that idea it was the other way around because its never been the case. Seriously go and try to argue that Fireball deals damage to fire elementals because their "immunity to fire is more general" and see how it goes.It is not "defense is more specific". It is "a specific rule is more specific than the general rule".
"Fireball deal fire damage" generic.
"Fire elementals have Immunity: Fire" specific to fire elementals."DR/alignment reduces all physical damage that hasn't that alignment" generic.
"+5 weapons overcome DR/alignment and deal full damage" specific to +5 and better weapons.
You literally just said exactly what I said. Bypassing defenses requires the attack specifies it bypasses that defense.
"Rust attack destroys metals" is generic.
"X metal has immunity: Rust" is specific to that metal.
Glad you agree with me, even if you refuse to see it in wanting to stop rust from being repaired.
Pizza Lord |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
* P.S. Did you just say all the Iron oxide from 50 gold coins? You are aware that gold is not iron right? Also the fact that gold itself does not rust (most gold items are gilded and might rust under it but not the gold).
Rust monsters consume metal objects, preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with equal ease. Any metal touched by the rust monster’s delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes and falls to dust within seconds,
They rust any metal touched. If you consider gold a metal, it rusts. This also means if you throw a handful of iron spikes and a handful of gold coins, the rust monster is more likely to go after the spikes, since it prefers iron and other ferrous metals to non-ferrous ones, but the fact that they prefer one metal (like you might prefer chocolate to vanilla), does not mean they don't rust or corrode other metals or will not consume them.
"Rust attack destroys metals" is generic.
"X metal has immunity: Rust" is specific to that metal.
"X metal has immunity: Rust" is specific if that metal actually says that.
Typically only used for ceremonial weapons and armor, metal equipment made from gold is fragile, heavy, and expensive. Often golden armor is gold-plated rather than constructed entirely from gold.
The rules shown are for the rare item constructed entirely of gold rather than being gold-plated. Gold-plated items triple the base cost of weapons and armor and have the same properties as the item the gold is plating. Items constructed purely of gold cost 10 times the normal cost for items of their type. Gold items weigh 50% more than typical weapons or armor of their type.
Weapons Gold is often too soft to hold a decent edge, but light weapons that do piercing or slashing damage can be constructed of gold or some nearly gold alloy. They take a –2 penalty on damage rolls (minimum 1 damage). Gold weapons have a hardness of half their base weapons’ and also have the fragile quality.
Armor Gold can be fashioned into light or medium metal armor. The softness and the weight of the metal decrease the armor/shield bonus by 2, and increase the armor check penalty by 2. Gold armor has a hardness 5 and the fragile quality.
----------------------------------------------
Exactly... they generally aren't, but then rust monster's specific ability comes along and specifically says, 'Any metal...'
Take that in contrast to rusting grasp:
Any iron or iron alloy item you touch crumbles into rust.
That specifies that it applies to iron and iron alloys, like steel and such, but means that it wouldn't effect gold or copper or wood (obviously) or any metal other than iron derivatives.
A specific defense against rusting from a rust monster would be worded along the lines of Stainless Steel (3PP)
Stainless steel is both rust resistant and splendidly shiny. Steel objects electroplated with chromium are immune to rusting effects, such as the rusting grasp spell or from a rust monster’s touch. To determine the price of a stainless steel item, use the original weight but add 10 gp per pound to the price of that item. Stainless steel has the same statistics as normal steel.
or the rusting property:
A rusting weapon is immune to mundane or magical rust, including the attack of a rust monster.
In the case of a rust monster, the terms 'rust' and 'corrode' are used and corrode does not always mean rust, but in the case of 'rust' attacks (which are a thing), the term 'corrode' is synonymous with 'rust'. This is evidenced by the defenses against rust attacks, such as a gauntlet of rust, which protect against them, whether they are 'corroding' or 'rusting', such as rusting grasp ('crumbles to rust') or a rust monster (corrodes).
Whereas such a defense provides no protection against any other non-rusting attack, even if it also somehow corrodes an item, such as through rapid aging, or molecular destabilization, or acidic corrosion such as from an ooze.
In the case of a rust monster, it is rusting (not that you've claimed it isn't), but in case someone else wants to point out that it might just be corroding, but in the context of the rust ability, 'corroding' is used interchangeable, probably so they don't have the word 'rust' used over and over.
----------------------------------------
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do know that section of the rules is not for describing the physical properties outside of "this is the cost, this is the items you can make, and this are any special rules we added for the game". Or what do you expect paizo to list the entire periodic table and include every single physical and chemical property of those items? Nah that's too much wasted space.
Also are you really going to use a 3rd party entry as evidence that Paizo wanted gold, bronze, copper, chromium, etc. to all be as easy to corrode as iron? You do know what that type of argument is implying right? Do you really want to argue that because the devs didn't write a rule for every little thing than you can ignore it and any physical interaction? Because that is how you get the commoner gun and you do not want the commoner gun as your argument that rust monster can rust everything including things that can never rust.
For someone that keeps talking about descriptions being important you sure like to ignore the physical description and properties of IRL objects.
Pizza Lord |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also are you really going to use a 3rd party entry as evidence that Paizo wanted gold, bronze, copper, chromium, etc. to all be as easy to corrode as iron?
Nope, that was an example of how protection against it would be written. If I was trying to hide it, I wouldn't have clearly pointed out that it was 3PP. It was showing that it was written in a very clear and easy to understand manner as it would be in an actual Paizo source, which was quoted immediately below it, but which you seem oblivious of.
For someone that keeps talking about descriptions being important you sure like to ignore the physical description and properties of IRL objects.
Yes.... IRL objects... like mithral... and adamantine... and rust monsters...
Look. If a rust monster's attack said, 'Any wood that it comes into contact with rusts and corrodes away into dust', then the rust monster's attack would rust wood. Period! That's what it would do!How much wood would a rust monster rust if a rust monster could rust wood? Doesn't matter, it would rust it, better hope you have a +1 rusting quarterstaff or a gauntlet of rust when you hit it.
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are indeed using 3pp material as evidence that Paizo should have added the full list of physical and chemical properties of every element in case an ability targetted that specific material and people needed to know the immunities...
Okay, let's suppose your argument that, if Paizo didn't write it then it doesn't exist and it is therefore meaningless to the game, is true. Using only Paizo books, what is the hardness of titanium? Which is harder low-carbon or high-carbon steel? Which of the following explodes when in contact with water: lithium, cesium, or sodium? What are the stats of an aluminium version of a weapon? Does the spark cantrip make gold catch fire (nothing about it not being flameable? How about spark on iron wool?