PDA

View Full Version : sunder question



lyko555
2010-03-29, 07:14 PM
Are there any rules about the hardness of the itme being sundererd being less that the item doing the sundering?

AI this staterday my dm attempted to sunder one of the groups greatswords with a wooden spear. IT didnt go through caus the guy was a binky and couldnt do enough dmg, but still it led to the question how does a wood stick break a metal sword.

Curmudgeon
2010-03-29, 07:22 PM
Not in D&D 3.5 rules. Anything capable of doing enough damage to overcome the object's hardness can (eventually) sunder that object. Remember, hardness for objects works like DR for characters: you subtract it first before determining if the hit points get reduced.

HunterOfJello
2010-03-29, 07:23 PM
Large amounts of force and momentum can lead to a weak object destroying a much denser one.

In tornadoes a tree can be cut down by a blade of grass. And if you've ever gone outside when there's a hailstorm you'll have plenty of bruises to remind you of how an object with a low density like ice can hurt like a bitch when accelerated by gravity for a long enough period of time.

~~~~

That said, a wooden item is unlikely to be able to sunder a metal one just based on hardness and item density. A wooden spear hurled by the fist of an angry god will blow the metal sword into a million pieces, but a wooden spear thrown by a fighter with 18 strength isn't going to do anything but break and knock back the sword.

~~~~


For the rule you were looking for, check this out:

"Ineffective Weapons:

Certain weapons just canít effectively deal damage to certain objects. "

that's from the SRD which can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#tableCommonArmorWeaponAndShieldHar dnessAndHitPoints)

I would definitely qualify a wooden weapon as one that cannot effectively deal damage to a metal object.

~~~

ALSO, it is impossible for a wooden spear to sunder anything. Sundering can only be done with slashing and bludgeoning weapons. (Unless you use the spear as an improvised bludgeoning weapon, of course.)

Ormur
2010-03-29, 08:17 PM
It could be handwave it as metal fatigue but yes a wooden spear can't even sunder by RAW. But a quarterstaff could, unless the DM invokes the above quoted rule.

Edit: Besides aren't spears usually with metal tips. At least that's how I always imagined the short- and longspears in D&D.

lyko555
2010-03-30, 02:19 AM
on no it was basicly a sharpend stick >.<

Mystic Muse
2010-03-30, 02:36 AM
In tornadoes a tree can be cut down by a blade of grass

They disproved something very similar to this on Mythbusters. The tree in question would have to be rather small and of weak wood for this to work.

Kaiyanwang
2010-03-30, 03:18 AM
Just remember that in PH, under the rules that describe breaking objects, is stated that DM can

- State that particular objects can automatically overcome certain DR (pick on rock)

- State that particular object can never break others (sap on rope).

Apply this reasoning on wood vs adamantine and you are done (as HoJ said).

Cicciograna
2010-03-30, 03:31 AM
It's interesting to note, however, that in Arms & Equipment Guide (3rd Edition) in the rules concerning vehicles, and in particular those regarding ramming and crashing against another vehicle, it says that both vehicles sustain the same damage: only by using devices such as a ramming prow on ships or a better plating(i.e.: higher hardness) would one vehicle suffer less damage.

I can't remember if ramming from a particular direction lessened damage suffered by the rammer; however, I can see this completely reasonable. I would modify sunder in a way that also the weapon used to sunder suffered damage, albeit a lower quantity (maybe half).

Kaiyanwang
2010-03-30, 03:35 AM
I disagree. Vehicle vs vehicle involves structures with weak points involved as a whole.

If I sunder a sword with a sword, I don't aim at the same part I use to sunder.

Killer Angel
2010-03-30, 03:49 AM
A wooden spear hurled by the fist of an angry god will blow the metal sword into a million pieces, but a wooden spear thrown by a fighter with 18 strength isn't going to do anything but break and knock back the sword.


Unless, of course, the wooden stick isn't helded by a druid with the Ironwood spell. :smallbiggrin:
But we all know druids' subtlety... :smalltongue:

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-30, 07:58 AM
They disproved something very similar to this on Mythbusters. The tree in question would have to be rather small and of weak wood for this to work.

Mythbusters is a terrible source for information like this.


I've visited my uncle florida after hurricane andrew.

He had straws that where imbeded in his house and in a telephone pole on his property.
They where sticking out of the back end of the pole and we found the straws on the inside of the house(neer the wholes in the wall that where about the size of straws).

It was crazy.

Ernir
2010-03-30, 08:29 AM
I don't think a rule like this would be necessary. Some DM handwaving, maybe (the sundering of a rope with a sap has already been mentioned), but a rule, I don't think so.

At the risk of killing catgirls... hardness isn't the end-all measure of what can break what. The force, angle, and method of impact is very relevant too.
Lowering yourself into a bathtub feels kind of nice, the water gives away smoothly. But if you jump out of a plane and into the ocean, the impact of hitting that water is going to squash your bones.

A wooden weapon can absolutely break a metal one. It won't be easy, and the wooden weapon isn't ever going to scratch the much harder metal, but it can definitely bend/break/destroy it.

Tyger
2010-03-30, 08:35 AM
For the definitive answer to this question, may I refer you to this dramatization? (http://goblins.keenspot.com/d/20100316.html)

Mystic Muse
2010-03-30, 12:01 PM
Mythbusters is a terrible source for information like this.


I've visited my uncle florida after hurricane andrew.

He had straws that where imbeded in his house and in a telephone pole on his property.
They where sticking out of the back end of the pole and we found the straws on the inside of the house(neer the wholes in the wall that where about the size of straws).

It was crazy.

that was exactly what they tested. whether a straw could go through a tree. it didn't.

also, just because a straw can embed itself in a telephone pole or a house doesn't mean a blade of grass can cut down a tree. I'll believe that when I see it, Mythbusters proves it's possible, or somebody else proves its possible.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-30, 12:35 PM
that was exactly what they tested. whether a straw could go through a tree. it didn't.

also, just because a straw can embed itself in a telephone pole or a house doesn't mean a blade of grass can cut down a tree. I'll believe that when I see it, Mythbusters proves it's possible, or somebody else proves its possible.


Well thats fine and dandy but having lived threw andrew and physicaly saw it, they can go to hell as far as i'm concerned. Also they have been proven to be a non reliable source.

ericgrau
2010-03-30, 12:38 PM
Hardness does not decrease after a hit.

Weapon metals are partly brittle. A spear could break a greatsword with the point, creating a crack in the center. Even a quarterstaff could make the greatsword snap purely from blunt force against the flat of the blade. If the quarterstaff wielder strikes near the tip of the greatsword and if the quarterstaff wielder's hand was near the location where it hit, he could even do so without the quarterstaff breaking. Or if the quarterstaff is flexible enough. Short answer is leverage, long answer is euler bernoulli beam equations.

Mystic Muse
2010-03-30, 12:42 PM
Also they have been proven to be a non reliable source.

Link or it never happened.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-30, 02:45 PM
Link or it never happened.



Link to MIT Proving them wrong (http://www.homelyscientist.com/2007/01/mit-proves-mythbusters-wrong-archimedes-could-have-had-a-death-ray-afterall/)


tVSQUAD 2nd disproving (http://www.tvsquad.com/2005/10/17/mythbusters-mythbusters-revisited/)

Questionable (http://www.sephyroth.net/2008/01/could-the-mythbusters-be-wrong/)

Forum that talks about it (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171117)


If you scroll down you will see straw that went through trees, though not technicaly straws you drink out of but (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin4.html)


ask a scientist (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00325.htm)


I also don't initially believe the discovery channel with there information. Also though a lot of the myths are cool to watch and do make sense and can be replicated.

I know they are incorrect about the straw thing because i've physically seen it with my eyes.
Blade of grass no. but straws, plastic cutlery, pie tins, etc.

Mystic Muse
2010-03-30, 03:34 PM
I know they are incorrect about the straw thing because i've physically seen it with my eyes.
Blade of grass no. but straws, plastic cutlery, pie tins, etc.

I never denied that those could be embedded into a tree/telephone pole. I was arguing that a blade of grass can't cut down a tree. Mythbusters didn't say that straw can't be embedded into a tree, in fact, they proved it can. all they said is that it wouldn't go through the tree. Unless you have video proof that it can I'm going to believe Mythbusters.

Also, the links you provided me disproved maybe five myths they tested? big whoop. everybody is wrong once in a while. They're human, not perfect gods.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-30, 03:37 PM
I never denied that those could be embedded into a tree/telephone pole. I was arguing that a blade of grass can't cut down a tree. Mythbusters didn't say that straw can't be embedded into a tree, in fact, they proved it can. all they said is that it wouldn't go through the tree. Unless you have video proof that it can I'm going to believe Mythbusters.

Also, the links you provided me disproved maybe five myths they tested? big whoop. everybody is wrong once in a while.


Agreed. I just don't assume there right. I agree about the blade of grass though mainly due to its shape.

I was talking about straws and going through sides of houses/telephone poles. Which like i said i have seen.
As far as believing mythbusters go ahead. Some of there stuff is questionable some is good. Though i don't usually believe a tv channel that is on basic cable.

Mystic Muse
2010-03-30, 03:46 PM
Agreed. I just don't assume there right. I agree about the blade of grass though mainly due to its shape.

I was talking about straws and going through sides of houses/telephone poles. Which like i said i have seen.
As far as believing mythbusters go ahead. Some of there stuff is questionable some is good. Though i don't usually believe a tv channel that is on basic cable.

Some of the stuff I agree is questionable. some of it is just cool (didn't know about non-newtonian fluids before that show) and some of it is just insane. (Petroleum Jelly to soothe your tongue after eating hot pepper? even if that worked instantly I wouldn't do it)

ericgrau
2010-03-30, 04:10 PM
Link to MIT Proving them wrong (http://www.homelyscientist.com/2007/01/mit-proves-mythbusters-wrong-archimedes-could-have-had-a-death-ray-afterall/)


tVSQUAD 2nd disproving (http://www.tvsquad.com/2005/10/17/mythbusters-mythbusters-revisited/)

Questionable (http://www.sephyroth.net/2008/01/could-the-mythbusters-be-wrong/)

Forum that talks about it (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171117)


If you scroll down you will see straw that went through trees, though not technicaly straws you drink out of but (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin4.html)


ask a scientist (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00325.htm)


I also don't initially believe the discovery channel with there information. Also though a lot of the myths are cool to watch and do make sense and can be replicated.

I know they are incorrect about the straw thing because i've physically seen it with my eyes.
Blade of grass no. but straws, plastic cutlery, pie tins, etc.

Mythbusters got bullets to spark after multiple tries; this was "partially confirmed" not "busted". I didn't bother with the remaining links, as the very first link I checked being questionable should say something. Well, it should say far more than a few inevitable mistakes out of thousands of busted myths would say. Proving them to be an unreliable source would involve a high percentage of errors. Unless you seriously mean all I need to do is find 5 more mistakes that you made in your posts, ever, and then we can skip all this because you're an unreliable source (I don't actually believe such silliness). Try a link to a page with a nice long list of errors and better details of what they did on the show or references/links to such details.

EDIT: Checked the MIT and archimedes shields next. Human attempt failed. Then they propped up several carefully aimed mirrors instead, sans humans. After clouds foiled day 1, day 2 took them 20 minutes to barely start a fire on a still dry wood ship, proving the idea... barely maybe feasible. This is a weapon of war? 0/2, not gonna bother checking the rest.