Carrying Things part 3: Say what? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Carrying Things part 3: Say what? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Slyde Shadowdart
11-01-05, 10:01 PM Extradimensional spaces are notorious for creating spectacular and dangerous effects when placed inside each other; however, the dangers can be somewhat overrated. One bag of holding can be placed safely inside another (of course, the first bag's weight counts against what the second bag can hold). Likewise, one portable hole can be placed safely inside another.

Hmmm. Nope. I think mine will continue to explode/open rifts/open portals/implode/etc. thanks.

What's funny, is this is written from the perspective of "well, it doesn't say I can't."

From the bag of holding description on page 248 of the Dungeon Master's Guide: If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole (page 264), a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: Bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process.

Note that a careful reading of that will indeed show you, if you're searching for it, a lack of ill effects when placing one bag of holding into another. However, if you refer back to earlier editions (i.e. established precedence), you'll find that doing such causes things that are...not good...to happen. But, nonetheless, if you read a passage in the book and it doesn't explicitly forbid something, that must mean that no amount of common sense can make it wrong.

It's bad enough that 90% of the players I meet have this attitude toward the rules, but now WotC is publishing articles promoting this way of approaching the game? Bah. Makes me glad I don't base my games entirely on "it's in the book".

Mini-rant concluded. Post your thoughts.
Seeker95
11-01-05, 10:12 PM Slyde, you're not reading the rules closely enough.

The portable hole is an extra-dimensional space.
The bag of holding is a non-dimensional space.
You can't mix the two.
But you can match the two.

Bag in Hole = Bad.
Hole in Bag = Bad.
Bag in Bag = Good.
Hole in Hole = Good.
residieu
11-01-05, 10:17 PM Why is this post sticking way out here in the middle of nowhere without a thread?
Nagol
11-01-05, 10:26 PM Actually, if you check out the Main 3 FAQ, the Sage (who was Skip at the time...go figure) ruled the opposite -- any permanent extra or non - dimensional space had deleterious effects on any other.
Slyde Shadowdart
11-01-05, 10:31 PM Slyde, you're not reading the rules closely enough.

The portable hole is an extra-dimensional space.
The bag of holding is a non-dimensional space.
You can't mix the two.
But you can match the two.

Bag in Hole = Bad.
Hole in Bag = Bad.
Bag in Bag = Good.
Hole in Hole = Good.

Meh. It's still lame. I refuse to bow to the new world order. Muhahaha. :schemes:

Actually, if you check out the Main 3 FAQ, the Sage (who was Skip at the time...go figure) ruled the opposite -- any permanent extra or non - dimensional space had deleterious effects on any other.

As it well should.
Wharin
11-01-05, 11:04 PM Slyde, you're not reading the rules closely enough.

The portable hole is an extra-dimensional space.
The bag of holding is a non-dimensional space.
You can't mix the two.
But you can match the two.

Bag in Hole = Bad.
Hole in Bag = Bad.
Bag in Bag = Good.
Hole in Hole = Good.

So its dont cross the seams?

:rimshot:
Tyler Do'Urden
11-01-05, 11:09 PM So if you've got like five portable holes, could you unroll one, unroll a second at the bottom of the first, and so on, and make a 50ft deep portable pit, fly out, then cast some minor illusion over the top of it to look like the surrounding surface?

Would you have to fill it with cheese or would that just happen?
Seeker95
11-02-05, 10:06 AM Would you have to fill it with cheese or would that just happen?You'd have to fill it with cheese. Here's why:

Unless you want every piece of equipment you put into the portable hole to have to take 1d6 falling damage, we must assume that objects placed into the hole are not falling when they enter. If objects are not falling, there is no "bottom" -- it is just extra space. The rules for a [i]portable hole[/]i make no mention of objects contained therein being damaged. Not even if *you* fall 120 feet! The objects are not falling. A body placed therein will not fall either.
Zherog
11-02-05, 11:17 AM However, if you refer back to earlier editions (i.e. established precedence), you'll find that doing such causes things that are...not good...to happen. But, nonetheless, if you read a passage in the book and it doesn't explicitly forbid something, that must mean that no amount of common sense can make it wrong.

And, really, there's your problems. What rules are printed in previous editions mean exactly nothing in the current edition.

In previous editions, you could take a page from a spellbook and cast it like a scroll. Nothing in the current rules says otherwise; are we therefore to assume it's OK?
q'afuu
11-02-05, 11:31 AM (i.e. established precedence) Precedence is not the same as precedent. ;) That aside, lots of previous edition precedents have been thrown out the window (often with good cause): race/class combo limitations, level caps, the use of (arbitrary) tables instead of fixed formulas, and so on.
porygandrew
11-02-05, 11:50 AM A body placed therein will not fall either.

Which raises a scenario:

Let's assume that it takes 6 seconds (one full round action) to jump inside of a bag of holding.

With Terminal Velocity, speed of gravity, and all of those formulas I'm sure a math wiz reading this knows, what is the minimum height needed to safely jump into a bag of holding and not take falling damage?
Giant Turtle
11-02-05, 02:42 PM Guys, this is totally DM's call. Me? I'm going with the old school rules, you put a bag of holding or portable hole (or anything similar) into any other similar container then enjoy your 10x10x10 gate that takes everything in the area to the astral plane. For the falling into a bag of holding/portable hole, what does it matter? if you get someone to fall in your bag of holding/portable hole, they're screwed anyways. Oh, and I am still gonna use the rule where you can make a bag of holding but creating a bag made out of Phase Spider silk, FTW.
Slyde Shadowdart
11-02-05, 10:56 PM Precedence is not the same as precedent. ;) That aside, lots of previous edition precedents have been thrown out the window (often with good cause): race/class combo limitations, level caps, the use of (arbitrary) tables instead of fixed formulas, and so on.

Thanks for the save on my legalese. :D

Yes, some things that weren't all that great were left out for the better.

IMO, this is neither a change for the better, nor can it even be said to actually exist without reading the rules passage through munchkin-tinged lenses. Twee diddly froom, two bags of holding go boom.
Zherog
11-03-05, 11:45 AM ...nor can it even be said to actually exist without reading the rules passage through munchkin-tinged lenses. Twee diddly froom, two bags of holding go boom.

Alrighty, then. Using only 3rd edition sources, demonstrate to me where the rules say bag of holding + bag of holding = kaboom, or where portable hole + portable hole = big bang theory. ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland
11-03-05, 03:51 PM Meh. The protable hole > Bag of holding thing is just a 'BAHAHAHA! I get to screw the players' thing anyway.
Seeker95
11-03-05, 05:01 PM Meh. The portable hole > Bag of holding thing is just a 'BAHAHAHA! I get to screw the players' thing anyway.Not in the least. There is no subjective application of the rule if you follow the rules. Placing a hole into a bag of holding or the reverse is clearly defined. Either the player does this and the outcome happens, or the player does not and the outcome does not happen.

The only time there is any "I get to screw the players" involved is when the application of a rule is subjective in its outcome (like wish fulfillment or teleport errors) or occurrence (random encounters and NPC reactions).
Nagol
11-03-05, 05:09 PM Alrighty, then. Using only 3rd edition sources, demonstrate to me where the rules say bag of holding + bag of holding = kaboom, or where portable hole + portable hole = big bang theory. ;)

simple enough.

Right here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MainFAQv06272003.zip) on page 33.
Seeker95
11-03-05, 10:47 PM Zherog, he's got you there. It's in the FAQ. However...

When two non-core sources give differing interpretations or versions of the same mechanic, the more recent is considered official. The FAQ in question contains material older than the article in question, both penned by the same authority (albeit the Sage alias is different).

So, officially:
bag + bag is okay
hole + hole = okay
bag + hole = boom

In your game:
Do what you want, but stay consistent.
Nagol
11-04-05, 06:47 AM Zherog, he's got you there. It's in the FAQ. However...

When two non-core sources give differing interpretations or versions of the same mechanic, the more recent is considered official. The FAQ in question contains material older than the article in question, both penned by the same authority (albeit the Sage alias is different).

So, officially:
bag + bag is okay
hole + hole = okay
bag + hole = boom

In your game:
Do what you want, but stay consistent.

I would tend to disagree with this assessment based upon the precedence of sources. Errata trumps FAQ wihch trumps article. Even if Skip were the Sage, I would give the article less weight because it is an article -- not a new rules clarificaton or new errata.

Skip is no longer the Sage and although he now writes articles for WoTC, he no longer dispenses new rulings for them. These articles almost certainly receive less vetting than a new piece of errata or FAQ entry receives. I am reminded of Skip's discussion of magic item creation that stated the listed Caster Level was a prerequisite which came out immediately after the Sage ruled the opposite.

Further, the original source is a core source from the DMG. The FAQ clarified the DMG entry about extra- and non- dimensional space interaction.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Slyde Shadowdart 11-01-05, 10:01 PM	Extradimensional spaces are notorious for creating spectacular and dangerous effects when placed inside each other; however, the dangers can be somewhat overrated. One bag of holding can be placed safely inside another (of course, the first bag's weight counts against what the second bag can hold). Likewise, one portable hole can be placed safely inside another. Hmmm. Nope. I think mine will continue to explode/open rifts/open portals/implode/etc. thanks. What's funny, is this is written from the perspective of "well, it doesn't say I can't." From the bag of holding description on page 248 of the Dungeon Master's Guide: If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole (page 264), a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: Bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process. Note that a careful reading of that will indeed show you, if you're searching for it, a lack of ill effects when placing one bag of holding into another. However, if you refer back to earlier editions (i.e. established precedence), you'll find that doing such causes things that are...not good...to happen. But, nonetheless, if you read a passage in the book and it doesn't explicitly forbid something, that must mean that no amount of common sense can make it wrong. It's bad enough that 90% of the players I meet have this attitude toward the rules, but now WotC is publishing articles promoting this way of approaching the game? Bah. Makes me glad I don't base my games entirely on "it's in the book". Mini-rant concluded. Post your thoughts.
Seeker95 11-01-05, 10:12 PM	Slyde, you're not reading the rules closely enough. The portable hole is an extra-dimensional space. The bag of holding is a non-dimensional space. You can't mix the two. But you can match the two. Bag in Hole = Bad. Hole in Bag = Bad. Bag in Bag = Good. Hole in Hole = Good.
residieu 11-01-05, 10:17 PM	Why is this post sticking way out here in the middle of nowhere without a thread?
Nagol 11-01-05, 10:26 PM	Actually, if you check out the Main 3 FAQ, the Sage (who was Skip at the time...go figure) ruled the opposite -- any permanent extra or non - dimensional space had deleterious effects on any other.
Slyde Shadowdart 11-01-05, 10:31 PM	Slyde, you're not reading the rules closely enough. The portable hole is an extra-dimensional space. The bag of holding is a non-dimensional space. You can't mix the two. But you can match the two. Bag in Hole = Bad. Hole in Bag = Bad. Bag in Bag = Good. Hole in Hole = Good. Meh. It's still lame. I refuse to bow to the new world order. Muhahaha. :schemes: Actually, if you check out the Main 3 FAQ, the Sage (who was Skip at the time...go figure) ruled the opposite -- any permanent extra or non - dimensional space had deleterious effects on any other. As it well should.
Wharin 11-01-05, 11:04 PM	Slyde, you're not reading the rules closely enough. The portable hole is an extra-dimensional space. The bag of holding is a non-dimensional space. You can't mix the two. But you can match the two. Bag in Hole = Bad. Hole in Bag = Bad. Bag in Bag = Good. Hole in Hole = Good. So its dont cross the seams? :rimshot:
Tyler Do'Urden 11-01-05, 11:09 PM	So if you've got like five portable holes, could you unroll one, unroll a second at the bottom of the first, and so on, and make a 50ft deep portable pit, fly out, then cast some minor illusion over the top of it to look like the surrounding surface? Would you have to fill it with cheese or would that just happen?
Seeker95 11-02-05, 10:06 AM	Would you have to fill it with cheese or would that just happen?You'd have to fill it with cheese. Here's why: Unless you want every piece of equipment you put into the portable hole to have to take 1d6 falling damage, we must assume that objects placed into the hole are not falling when they enter. If objects are not falling, there is no "bottom" -- it is just extra space. The rules for a [i]portable hole[/]i make no mention of objects contained therein being damaged. Not even if you fall 120 feet! The objects are not falling. A body placed therein will not fall either.
Zherog 11-02-05, 11:17 AM	However, if you refer back to earlier editions (i.e. established precedence), you'll find that doing such causes things that are...not good...to happen. But, nonetheless, if you read a passage in the book and it doesn't explicitly forbid something, that must mean that no amount of common sense can make it wrong. And, really, there's your problems. What rules are printed in previous editions mean exactly nothing in the current edition. In previous editions, you could take a page from a spellbook and cast it like a scroll. Nothing in the current rules says otherwise; are we therefore to assume it's OK?
q'afuu 11-02-05, 11:31 AM	(i.e. established precedence) Precedence is not the same as precedent. ;) That aside, lots of previous edition precedents have been thrown out the window (often with good cause): race/class combo limitations, level caps, the use of (arbitrary) tables instead of fixed formulas, and so on.
porygandrew 11-02-05, 11:50 AM	A body placed therein will not fall either. Which raises a scenario: Let's assume that it takes 6 seconds (one full round action) to jump inside of a bag of holding. With Terminal Velocity, speed of gravity, and all of those formulas I'm sure a math wiz reading this knows, what is the minimum height needed to safely jump into a bag of holding and not take falling damage?
Giant Turtle 11-02-05, 02:42 PM	Guys, this is totally DM's call. Me? I'm going with the old school rules, you put a bag of holding or portable hole (or anything similar) into any other similar container then enjoy your 10x10x10 gate that takes everything in the area to the astral plane. For the falling into a bag of holding/portable hole, what does it matter? if you get someone to fall in your bag of holding/portable hole, they're screwed anyways. Oh, and I am still gonna use the rule where you can make a bag of holding but creating a bag made out of Phase Spider silk, FTW.
Slyde Shadowdart 11-02-05, 10:56 PM	Precedence is not the same as precedent. ;) That aside, lots of previous edition precedents have been thrown out the window (often with good cause): race/class combo limitations, level caps, the use of (arbitrary) tables instead of fixed formulas, and so on. Thanks for the save on my legalese. :D Yes, some things that weren't all that great were left out for the better. IMO, this is neither a change for the better, nor can it even be said to actually exist without reading the rules passage through munchkin-tinged lenses. Twee diddly froom, two bags of holding go boom.
Zherog 11-03-05, 11:45 AM	...nor can it even be said to actually exist without reading the rules passage through munchkin-tinged lenses. Twee diddly froom, two bags of holding go boom. Alrighty, then. Using only 3rd edition sources, demonstrate to me where the rules say bag of holding + bag of holding = kaboom, or where portable hole + portable hole = big bang theory. ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-03-05, 03:51 PM	Meh. The protable hole > Bag of holding thing is just a 'BAHAHAHA! I get to screw the players' thing anyway.
Seeker95 11-03-05, 05:01 PM	Meh. The portable hole > Bag of holding thing is just a 'BAHAHAHA! I get to screw the players' thing anyway.Not in the least. There is no subjective application of the rule if you follow the rules. Placing a hole into a bag of holding or the reverse is clearly defined. Either the player does this and the outcome happens, or the player does not and the outcome does not happen. The only time there is any "I get to screw the players" involved is when the application of a rule is subjective in its outcome (like wish fulfillment or teleport errors) or occurrence (random encounters and NPC reactions).
Nagol 11-03-05, 05:09 PM	Alrighty, then. Using only 3rd edition sources, demonstrate to me where the rules say bag of holding + bag of holding = kaboom, or where portable hole + portable hole = big bang theory. ;) simple enough. Right here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MainFAQv06272003.zip) on page 33.
Seeker95 11-03-05, 10:47 PM	Zherog, he's got you there. It's in the FAQ. However... When two non-core sources give differing interpretations or versions of the same mechanic, the more recent is considered official. The FAQ in question contains material older than the article in question, both penned by the same authority (albeit the Sage alias is different). So, officially: bag + bag is okay hole + hole = okay bag + hole = boom In your game: Do what you want, but stay consistent.
Nagol 11-04-05, 06:47 AM	Zherog, he's got you there. It's in the FAQ. However... When two non-core sources give differing interpretations or versions of the same mechanic, the more recent is considered official. The FAQ in question contains material older than the article in question, both penned by the same authority (albeit the Sage alias is different). So, officially: bag + bag is okay hole + hole = okay bag + hole = boom In your game: Do what you want, but stay consistent. I would tend to disagree with this assessment based upon the precedence of sources. Errata trumps FAQ wihch trumps article. Even if Skip were the Sage, I would give the article less weight because it is an article -- not a new rules clarificaton or new errata. Skip is no longer the Sage and although he now writes articles for WoTC, he no longer dispenses new rulings for them. These articles almost certainly receive less vetting than a new piece of errata or FAQ entry receives. I am reminded of Skip's discussion of magic item creation that stated the listed Caster Level was a prerequisite which came out immediately after the Sage ruled the opposite. Further, the original source is a core source from the DMG. The FAQ clarified the DMG entry about extra- and non- dimensional space interaction.