Magically repairing objects

[Jeff the Green]

My party just defeated That Damn Crab with some templates (at level 6) and apparently the shell would be worth a considerable sum if we hadn't hacked it apart. Unfortunately we also burned it somewhat, so make whole won't help us. Are there other spells to repair damage to an object?

[Yuki Akuma]

I would honestly question just how much fire damage you threw at that thing to make its shell burned enough for Make Whole to care. I think that clause mostly covers things that have been burned to ashes.

Considering other such clauses involve "disintegrated", "vaporised" and "ground to powder"...

[Jeff the Green]

I would honestly question just how much fire damage you threw at that thing to make its shell burned enough for Make Whole to care. I think that clause mostly covers things that have been burned to ashes.

Considering other such clauses involve "disintegrated", "vaporised" and "ground to powder"...

According to the DM, enough.

[Yuki Akuma]

In that case I'm not sure he wants you to be able to repair it.

But otherwise... Polymorph Any Object could be used to polymorph a broken object into itself-but-repaired.

Alternatively, you could try to talk your DM into letting you use Minor Creation to craft a new shell out of the broken pieces of the old one. Doesn't technically work, but it's a lower spell level than PAO at least.

True Creation would probably work, but it's 8th level like PAO is...

Edit: Alternatively, resurrect the crab and kill it with ingested poisons. :smallwink:

[TheFallenOne]

In that case I'm not sure he wants you to be able to repair it.

I'd appreciate it if you don't spout such allegations based on no evidence whatsoever :smallannoyed:

[Psyren]

I'd appreciate it if you don't spout such allegations based on no evidence whatsoever :smallannoyed:

Are you the DM?

Yuki made a legitimate observation - looking at the context, "burned" there doesn't appear to have been intended as "took fire damage at some point." Seizing on that technicality does seem like a justification to deny the spell (without claims of invoking fiat.)

[TheFallenOne]

Yuki made a legitimate observation

He did not. "This spell functions like mending, except that make whole completely repairs an object made of any substance, even one with multiple breaks, to be as strong as new." It can fix breaks, cracks, tears, small holes, that's it. And to highlight 'vaporized' and 'disintegrated' while completely glossing over the much more tame 'warped' is dishonest. The spell fixes the weapon damage for sure, but by no legitimate reading damage caused by fire damage.

[Yuki Akuma]

'Warped' is so hopelessly vague that it could conceivably be applied to any object that has been broken or taken any damage.

[TheFallenOne]

In other words, it doesn't fit your intended reading that it requires complete destruction to prevent Make Whole from working. So you flat out ignore it.

Then you twist a second somewhat vague term into of course meaning 'burned to ashes'. And you don't see anything wrong with that? :smallconfused:

Also
'could conceivably be applied to any object that has been broken' Make Whole explicitly covers broken items.
'or taken any damage' Show me the thesaurus where 'warped' is a synonym for 'damaged' please.

[forsaken1111]

The DM has the final call but based on my reading 'warped' is referring to something like a wooden door which has been warped by exposure to water. It isn't damaged, all of the wooden door is whole and attached, its just in another shape.

IMO 'burned' is a bit too vague in the description. Are you saying that any object with even slight thermal damage is no longer eligible for a Make Whole? To prevent someone from using Make Whole all I have to do is strike a match on it? Or do a single point of fire damage? What is the limit?

Its my opinion that 'burned' here is referring to an object that has been almost entirely burned up, as a log in a fire or a note put to the flame to keep someone from reading it. A slight scorch shouldn't entirely invalidate the effects.

Again, just my opinion/reading.

[Larkas]

Whoa, chill down, dude. Yuki merely made a remark. He never painted the DM as the devil or anything. The DM might very well have a quest hook in line for the players.

[Psyren]

Before we go all twelve rounds on this, our opinion is moot. The DM's interpretation is the one that matters, and he already made a ruling. So unless he's actually involved in this discussion we're all just tiliting at windmills here.

[Lafaellar]

You could try fabricate and use the Remains as the component to reforge the shell. Use some skill buffs to convince the DM you can actually do it.

[Fax Celestis]

Before we go all twelve rounds on this, our opinion is moot. The DM's interpretation is the one that matters, and he already made a ruling. So unless he's actually involved in this discussion we're all just tiliting at windmills here.

And tbpfh, I wouldn't let make whole do it either.

I would, however, let someone use fabricate to fashion the remnants into something--if only because once a creature is dead, it stops being a creature and starts being an object, per the rules.

[TheFallenOne]

IMO 'burned' is a bit too vague in the description. Are you saying that any object with even slight thermal damage is no longer eligible for a Make Whole? To prevent someone from using Make Whole all I have to do is strike a match on it? Or do a single point of fire damage? What is the limit?

If you look a couple posts up you will see I said the spell fixes the weapon damage but not the fire damage. The crab received wounds from arrows, greatsword and two sources of fire. Make Whole will fix the weapon damage but not repair the fire damage. At no point was implied or even suggested that any tiny amount of fire damage means that Make Whole stops working altogether.

[forsaken1111]

If you look a couple posts up you will see I said the spell fixes the weapon damage but not the fire damage. The crab received wounds from arrows, greatsword and two sources of fire. Make Whole will fix the weapon damage but not repair the fire damage. At no point was implied or even suggested that any tiny amount of fire damage means that Make Whole stops working altogether.

Eh, alright? Are you the DM here then? You didn't answer that above. If you're the DM and have decided it won't work then it won't work. Doesn't really matter what we say.

RAW 'burned' could be interpreted many ways so its up to the DM really. How much fire damage did this crab take that its shell is so burned?

[Psyren]

If you look a couple posts up you will see I said the spell fixes the weapon damage but not the fire damage. The crab received wounds from arrows, greatsword and two sources of fire. Make Whole will fix the weapon damage but not repair the fire damage. At no point was implied or even suggested that any tiny amount of fire damage means that Make Whole stops working altogether.

That may have been what you meant, but that doesn't seem to fit with the OP's statement. He said the fire damage they inflicted was preventing the entire spell from working, not that it would fix the shell but leave the burns intact.

[Yuki Akuma]

You could try fabricate and use the Remains as the component to reforge the shell. Use some skill buffs to convince the DM you can actually do it.

Fabricate! That's the name of that spell! Darnit I forgot what it was called when I tried to answer the question earlier.

Fabricate might also work, yes.

[Sith_Happens]

The DM has the final call but based on my reading 'warped' is referring to something like a wooden door which has been warped by exposure to water. It isn't damaged, all of the wooden door is whole and attached, its just in another shape.

Mending (which Make Whole inherits text from) gives the result of a Warp Wood spell as an example of what it means by "warped," if that actually clarifies or narrows it down at all.

Anyways, I'm with Yuki on this. This sounds like a pretty clear case of DM-teasing. "You could have sold the crab for a bunch of money if you hadn't banged it up so badly, you silly reckless murder hobos.:smalltongue:"

[forsaken1111]

Mending (which Make Whole inherits text from) gives the result of a Warp Wood spell as an example of what it means by "warped," if that actually clarifies or narrows it down at all.

Ahh good catch, and that does make sense because Warp Wood doesn't actually damage the wood. I imagine using Stone Shape to add some artistic touches to a statue or somesuch wouldn't qualify for a Make Whole either.


Anyways, I'm with Yuki on this. This sounds like a pretty clear case of DM-teasing. "You could have sold the crab for a bunch of money if you hadn't banged it up so badly, you silly reckless murder hobos.:smalltongue:"

Agreed, seems likely.

[Yuki Akuma]

Whoa, chill down, dude. Yuki merely made a remark. He never painted the DM as the devil or anything. The DM might very well have a quest hook in line for the players.

Yes. 'The DM doesn't want you to do it this way' doesn't necessarily mean 'the DM is the devil and just wants to screw you'.

This could be a plot hook! You never know. Plot hooks are great. Or he could be trying to make the players think outside the box and surprise him, rather than just saying 'we use the spell specifically designed for fixing things to fix this thing'.

This thread is moving faster than I thought. I keep missing posts. :smallfrown:

[forsaken1111]

Was anyone else confused by the sudden hostility from TheFallenOne?

[Yuki Akuma]

Was anyone else confused by the sudden hostility from TheFallenOne?

I'm fairly sure he's the DM, considering he mentioned the weapons the players use while Jeff the Green didn't.

[Psyren]

Was anyone else confused by the sudden hostility from TheFallenOne?

It was odd but neither here nor there ultimately. This forum is for discussing the game, not other posters' attitudes.

[forsaken1111]

Fair enough

[TheFallenOne]

Well yes, I am the DM in question.

Reading over the OP I have to agree Psyren, one can get the wrong impression from it. I was clear that the weapon damage will still be fixed, just not the fire damage.


Was anyone else confused by the sudden hostility from TheFallenOne?

Well, excuse me for being not amused when someone accuses me of DM Fiat without knowing anything about the situation.

But let's start with something everyone could know. After all That Damn Crab (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a) is a quite famous monster. Nowhere does it suggest that you can make good money from its shell or any other parts. At that point one might start to wonder how 'the shell would be worth a considerable sum' became an issue in the first place. THAT would have been a good question to ask before jumping to conclusions on whether or not I want them to repair the shell.

As it turns out, I freely volunteered the information about the shell's worth. It's good for decoration or making unusual armor(think Ankheg plate in Baldur's Gate). This wasn't preceded by anyone asking about the potential value of the shell or any other parts. I also mentioned that even with the fire damage they can still get up to 800 GP for the shell if they find the right buyer, who just happens to be a notable NPC I couldn't introduce yet because the player with the best connection to him vanished from the forum.


Anyways, I'm with Yuki on this. This sounds like a pretty clear case of DM-teasing. "You could have sold the crab for a bunch of money if you hadn't banged it up so badly, you silly reckless murder hobos.:smalltongue:"

On the contrary, I've been teasing them for doing Murder-Hoboing wrong. They've spent more time interrogating a derro than fighting him. A decision they rather regretted as derro are real nutters. He asked the barbarian to vault over one of their horses and do a little acrobatics show in exchange for telling them stuff.

[forsaken1111]

Nobody accused you of anything. In fact your identity and role in this wasn't even known when the comment you took offense to was made.

Either way, this seems like something you should work out internally.

I do take personal exception to your suggestion that someone could play the game 'wrong' but that's just a personal pet peeve. Since your decision is made I see nothing further to discuss here.

[Yuki Akuma]

I do take personal exception to your suggestion that someone could play the game 'wrong' but that's just a personal pet peeve. Since your decision is made I see nothing further to discuss here.

"There is no wrong way to play." - S. John Ross, Risus: The Excessively Deluxe Edition

This actually used to be in my sig until I decided to make a point about said bookisms. >.>

[Evolved Shrimp]

Well, excuse me for being not amused when someone accuses me of DM Fiat without knowing anything about the situation.

To me, something like this sounds like an accusation of DM fiat:

Obviously, the DM doesn’t want you to be able to fix the shell and will disallow any attempt.

The below sound to me not at all like an accusation or other statement of fact, but simply like mentioning an aspect that might be worth further consideration:

In that case I'm not sure he wants you to be able to repair it.

Hence I, too, was surprised by the hostile tone.

[Chronos]

Crazy idea here, but could you use Animate Object to temporarily turn it into a construct, and then use the Repair Damage spells?

[forsaken1111]

TBH I would have allowed the party to 'make whole' the crab and go through the process of lugging the stinking carcass back to town only to have them be laughed at for trying to sell a crab.

But I'm mean. :smallsmile:

[Yuki Akuma]

TBH I would have allowed the party to 'make whole' the crab and go through the process of lugging the stinking carcass back to town only to have them be laughed at for trying to sell a crab.

But I'm mean. :smallsmile:

Telling them the shell is worth lots of money and then having NPCs laugh at them when they try to sell it isn't just mean, it's justification for a PC walkout.

Don't be a horrible DM.

[eggynack]

"There is no wrong way to play." - S. John Ross, Risus: The Excessively Deluxe Edition

This actually used to be in my sig until I decided to make a point about said bookisms. >.>
Said bookisms are probably more important anyways. It is a cause worth fighting for. I do object to the idea that the word "ejaculated" as a dialogue tag is a tool of skilled writers. I mean, if you can use it, and make it work, that shows some serious skill. However, if I'm editing something and see someone use "ejaculated" as a dialogue tag, it's getting a strike through and a little note beseeching them to change it.

Edit: Maybe something like, "Oh god, why would you put this here? You should change it to said, but basically anything that's not this would be better. Hell, you can say that he defenestrated the words if you want to, even though that makes no sense."

[forsaken1111]

Telling them the shell is worth lots of money and then having NPCs laugh at them when they try to sell it isn't just mean, it's justification for a PC walkout.

Don't be a horrible DM.

You misunderstand. From what he said:


But let's start with something everyone could know. After all That Damn Crab (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a) is a quite famous monster. Nowhere does it suggest that you can make good money from its shell or any other parts. At that point one might start to wonder how 'the shell would be worth a considerable sum' became an issue in the first place. THAT would have been a good question to ask before jumping to conclusions on whether or not I want them to repair the shell.

The PC's assumed that the shell would have a high value. With a proper appraise check I would reveal the value. With a flubbed check they might be told its rather higher than it really is.

[TheFallenOne]

Nobody accused you of anything. In fact your identity and role in this wasn't even known when the comment you took offense to was made.

It was a comment about me and my DMing, based on flimsy understanding of the situation. Whether it was known I am the DM or not, it's still a comment about me. Surely if someone comments negatively on something you did you would feel like you are the accused, even if the person in question has no idea it was you?


To me, something like this sounds like an accusation of DM fiat:

Obviously, the DM doesn’t want you to be able to fix the shell and will disallow any attempt.

The below sound to me not at all like an accusation or other statement of fact, but simply like mentioning an aspect that might be worth further consideration:

In that case I'm not sure he wants you to be able to repair it.

Hence I, too, was surprised by the hostile tone.

"Evolved Shrimp, I'm not sure whether or not you are [insert derogatory word of choice]"

If I said that - and I am not, hence the quotation marks - would you not feel insulted? Insult proportionate to the strength of the word I chose to maybe-maybe-not call you? Maybe just saying that the possibility is worthy of consideration is a negative and unjustified comment about you?

[forsaken1111]

Since you're asking me specifically, no I wouldn't really care about someone's casual comment on my DMing style.

There is nothing wrong with DM Fiat. You seem to think it is the anathema, and a terrible insult. DM's have to make decisions all the time that the rules don't cover.

If you don't want a crab shell repaired, it won't be repaired. You can justify it with a rule or just mysteriously say that the ritual/spell failed and allow the PC's to research why later on.

What you shouldn't do is charge into a forum thread and make a scene because someone made an offhand comment on how maybe the DM doesn't want someone to do something.

Again, this is just my opinion. I'm sure you're a fine DM but you came across today as a very hostile and confrontational person. Now lets end this in a civil manner please?

[Fax Celestis]

Since you're asking me specifically, no I wouldn't really care about someone's casual comment on my DMing style.

There is nothing wrong with DM Fiat. You seem to think it is the anathema, and a terrible insult. DM's have to make decisions all the time that the rules don't cover.

If you don't want a crab shell repaired, it won't be repaired. You can justify it with a rule or just mysteriously say that the ritual/spell failed and allow the PC's to research why later on.

What you shouldn't do is charge into a forum thread and make a scene because someone made an offhand comment on how maybe the DM doesn't want someone to do something.

Again, this is just my opinion. I'm sure you're a fine DM but you came across today as a very hostile and confrontational person. Now lets end this in a civil manner please?

Someone give this man a medal that says Champion of Tact on it.

[eggynack]

"Evolved Shrimp, I'm not sure whether or not you are [insert derogatory word of choice]"
Since when is you not wanting them to repair something a derogatory word of choice? It's just, y'know, a value neutral thing. Like, "I'm not sure he's setting the game in Eberron." You should really try to take a step back from this one for a bit, and evaluate these things from a more objective standpoint. Generally, we can only evaluate things based on what we know. Yuki did so, and didn't seem to do so in any sort of insulting manner, even if it turns out that he was wrong. You're perfectly allowed to tell us information that we didn't know about the situation, backed up by your role as the DM, but you were being rather arbitrarily hostile, and you should try to not do that.

[forsaken1111]

Someone give this man a medal that says Champion of Tact on it.

Hah, thank you but really I just want this to end. The whole thing spiralled out from an initial miscommunication. TheFallenOne felt slighted and nobody should feel like he is being insulted here.

I really don't think anyone here meant offense.

[Psyren]

Since you're asking me specifically, no I wouldn't really care about someone's casual comment on my DMing style.

There is nothing wrong with DM Fiat. You seem to think it is the anathema, and a terrible insult. DM's have to make decisions all the time that the rules don't cover.

If you don't want a crab shell repaired, it won't be repaired. You can justify it with a rule or just mysteriously say that the ritual/spell failed and allow the PC's to research why later on.

What you shouldn't do is charge into a forum thread and make a scene because someone made an offhand comment on how maybe the DM doesn't want someone to do something.

Again, this is just my opinion. I'm sure you're a fine DM but you came across today as a very hostile and confrontational person. Now lets end this in a civil manner please?


Someone give this man a medal that says Champion of Tact on it.

Motion seconded. Call to vote?

EDIT: He's so tactful he out-tacted my award for his tact!

[TheFallenOne]

you came across today as a very hostile and confrontational person.




you were being rather arbitrarily hostile

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif

Use this if you think I was arbitrarily hostile and confrontational. Go ahead.

Perhaps you think to see some mean insults between the lines. But that's what you choose to see, not what I wrote. Perhaps you think using the :smallannoyed: smilie means I'm really really angry at someone. I'm sure you have some rationale for saying that, but what I certainly don't see is someone making negative comments about another person. Except you calling me arbitrarily hostile and confrontational(oopsie!). Ironically, the only ones stirring the pot are the Knights of Tact. The worst I said was calling an argument dishonest. That's... really really bad I guess?

What I did say is that I'd appreciate it if people bother to properly assess the situation before judging my decisions as DM. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I followed it up with a question that SHOULD have been asked but wasn't, as well as an elaboration on what happened in the game.

Yuki and I are certainly not at each other's throat; I provided the complete picture that was lacking in the beginning of the thread, add a simple "Alright, I see it was no DM Fiat" and we're all cool with no hard feelings. I certainly don't fault him for what he concluded from what he knew at that point, but I'm saying he should try to get a fuller picture especially if the data doesn't add up(why is the shell worth money in the first place?) because hey, that DM you're talking about is another person who is trying to have a fun game with his players. And suspicions of DM Fiat don't help with that.

[forsaken1111]

Alright, I see it was no DM Fiat. Have a good day sir.

[Psyren]

My final word on the subject:


The worst I said was calling an argument dishonest. That's... really really bad I guess?


I'm genuinely not sure now if you knew this, but referring to someone else's statement as "spouting" is generally seen as derogatory. And I don't see how the smilie you used can be interpreted in any other way but anger.

In short, your tone was what started this whole kerfluffle - now what you wrote, but how you wrote it. Evolved Shrimp's post is a good example, if you're looking for one.

Anyway, I don't feel there's anything productive left to add to this discussion, so I'll be taking my leave.

[TheFallenOne]

And I don't see how the smilie you used can be interpreted in any other way but anger.

Really? That's a curious statement. I would ask you to take a closer look at the forum smilies, in particular their names.

:smallannoyed: annoyed
:smallmad: mad
:smallfurious: furious

The very forum we're using tells you outright this smilie doesn't express anger. There's certainly room for debate which of the other two is appropriate for that(the furious one seems to show particularly strong anger) but there's no question that of the three forum smilies expressing displeasure the one I used happens to be the mildest.