A few questions about bags of holding [Archive] - Wizards Community

A few questions about bags of holding [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Psionx
04-16-08, 05:41 PM 1. Can a bag of holding be put in another bag of holding?
2. Can a bag of holding be put in a Handy Haversack
3. If no on question 2, how do you lug around 60 lbs? Mithral straps to your sholders like a backpack?
Shaggy_Shaggs
04-16-08, 05:48 PM Yes and yes. A lot of people don't realize this, and will swear otherwise, but the only dangerous interaction between extradimensional spaces is that between bags of holding and portable holes. Though if you had a bag of holding and no handy haversack, even if the bag were difficult to carry around it would sure save space in your cart/wagon or make things easier on your pack animal.
Psionx
04-16-08, 07:09 PM Thanks much for the clarification, I was worried about the prospect of a 60 lb sack with a STR of 12.
groveborn
04-17-08, 04:08 AM Thanks much for the clarification, I was worried about the prospect of a 60 lb sack with a STR of 12.

The portable hole is considerably lighter. It has no weight to speak of, and isn't restricted to mass either, only volume. It does cost more though.
mvincent
04-17-08, 04:22 PM 1. Can a bag of holding be put in another bag of holding?Ask your DM.

From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a):
"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.

From the 3.0 FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a):
“It’s a general rule that you can’t mix items containing nondimensional or extradimensional spaces (things that are bigger inside than out) with each other or with portable holes. Such combinations tend to strain the fabric of the cosmos. Putting one bag of holding within another is just like putting the bag into a portable hole."

Note that the above two rulings are contradictory even though they were written by the same person. The RotG is the latter, if that helps.

For historical reference: from the 2ed guide to High-level campaigns, section on magic items:
"Extradimensional Spaces: These items tend to produce spectacular effects when one is placed within another. The following items contain extradimensional spaces: bag of holding, bag of transmuting, flatbox, girdle of many pouches, Heward’s handy haversack, portable hole, and pouch of accessibility. The following spells produce extradimensional spaces: extradimensional pocket, Mordenkainen’s magnificent mansion, and rope trick.

In most instances, placing one extradimensional space inside another opens a rift to the Astral Plane, casting both the items and their contents through the rift. The items and anything contained within them are scattered randomly in the infinite depths of the Astral Plane."

Can a bag of holding be put in a Handy HaversackHandy haversacks are treated as bags of holding in this respect.

how do you lug around 60 lbs? Mithral straps to your sholders like a backpack?60 pounds is considered an acceptable weight if placed in a backpack (soldiers do this all the time). I agree though that it's needlessly heavy. A type III bag is far better than a type IV (unless you need to tote something bigger than 150 cubic feet). Merchants might have use for this, and such bags are probably placed more often in saddlebags.
risner
04-21-08, 01:01 AM 1. Can a bag of holding be put in another bag of holding?
2. Can a bag of holding be put in a Handy Haversack
3. If no on question 2, how do you lug around 60 lbs? Mithral straps to your sholders like a backpack?

1) Ask your DM. There is sufficient text to rule both ways (that you can put bag in bag and that you can't put bag into bag.)

2) Ask you DM the result of #1, if you can't put a Bag in a Bag then you can't put it in a HHH (since it is also a Bag of holding.) To be fair, the fact a HHH is a Bag of holding at all is also in debate.

3) Wha?
mvincent
04-21-08, 12:19 PM To be fair, the fact a HHH is a Bag of holding at all is also in debate.From the Handy haversack rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#handyHaversack):
"each is like a bag of holding"

From the 3.0 FAQ:
"Items that function like bags of holding, such as Heward’s handy haversacks, cause the same mishaps when mishandled."

From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a):
"It's best to treat a Heward's handy haversack as a bag of holding when it interacts with a portable hole."

and (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050111a):
"The bag of holding and similar items, such as Heward's handy haversack..."
groveborn
04-22-08, 02:28 AM From the Handy haversack rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#handyHaversack):
"each is like a bag of holding"

From the 3.0 FAQ:
"Items that function like bags of holding, such as Heward’s handy haversacks, cause the same mishaps when mishandled."

From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a):
"It's best to treat a Heward's handy haversack as a bag of holding when it interacts with a portable hole."

and (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050111a):
"The bag of holding and similar items, such as Heward's handy haversack..."

Just because the "HHH is a bag of holding" side has better arguments, and is right, doesn't mean that it's not debated. Shame.
Shaggy_Shaggs
04-22-08, 02:46 AM Sure, for a 3.0 game. 3.5, not so much, though I suppose that doesn't matter to most folks that like everything going wrong for the PCs whether or not it's actually supposed to.

I suddenly wonder what percentage each of DMs who rule all extradimensional spaces don't work together, and DMs who use fumbles for attack rolls and/or skills, overlap to be in both groups.
1 ton ghost
04-22-08, 11:48 AM These are primarilly balance issues to power gamers that want to have their cake and eat it too. Typically, they want a laizze fare attitude to incredible item acquisition w/out consideration to the possible consequences, no matter how tragic or hilarious (or hilariously tragic) they might be.

Basically, it's to help them actually brainstorm new ideas concerning weight restrictions rather than just keep piling up the treasure into these magic spaces. This is especially humorous when DM's use the random treasure charts verbatim and you wind up w/ like 500,000 cp.
At 50 coins = 1 lb, this can become, eh, problematic...

For danger perspective in a FR campaign, main caster took one for the team and bought a Portable Hole. They were fond of Teleporting and given CL vs extra bodies to the spell, some would just jump in his Portable Hole to evade the "max ppl transported ruling". They bamf, open the hole, and out they come. Arcane APC. But the danger always remained.
After some fair deliberation, I said, "Just gimmie a Knowledge Planar and/or KnowAracan roll." to which he did and all was fine. That is, I said, "Ok, you beat the DC, you realize (per ruling in DMG) the threat of extradimensional space and the cosmic craziness/danger of your fellow party members (almost all of them had HH Haversacks or Bag of Holding.)"

Solution; all bags/backpacks go w/ and outside "traveler" or the caster mage before PC extras go in Hole.

However, after hopscotching around the planet, like most PCs they got lazy. Normally, we'd default to "standard teleport protocol", but when using it tactically once (tried to trap an enemy in it then close the Hole and suffocate them in 10 minutes [max air supply]), the guy that elected to bullrush the enemy into the hole, and thusly himself, failed to remember after many many reminders that he had a Haversack on when he charged in...
I said, "Yes, the enemy is defeated...but so are you. Poof. Off you go to the Astral or wherever the Hell ppl go when you mix the 2 dangerous items."

All the party stored treasure (some 56k gp of treasure) was lost, tank was lost, enemy (and all its precious intel) was lost, etc because of 1 stupid mistake...
mvincent
04-22-08, 12:13 PM Just because the "HHH is a bag of holding" side has better arguments, and is right, doesn't mean that it's not debated. Shame.Absolutely correct. I did not mean to imply otherwise ;)

Sure, for a 3.0 game. 3.5, not so muchWhy do you say? They did not change any core rules or descriptions of extra dimensional spaces in this regard. Also, 3.0 FAQ clarifications (absent a reason not to) actually count for 3.5.

Since Skip's change of heart in the RotG happened well into 3.5, his originally ruling stood for quite awhile in the 3.5 edition.
FrostWolf
04-23-08, 10:13 PM Hmm... Idea. Get yourself a portable hole and some type of minion that needs no air (A homunculus would be ideal). put in what gear you'll want access to (I.E: everything) and a ring gate. Now put the other ring gate in your backpack, and have your minion pass stuff out to you as needed.

Just a thought.
mvincent
04-24-08, 04:13 PM Hmm... Idea. Get yourself a portable hole and some type of minion that needs no air (A homunculus would be ideal). put in what gear you'll want access to (I.E: everything) and a ring gate. Now put the other ring gate in your backpack, and have your minion pass stuff out to you as needed.Nice idea. By canon it wouldn't work because ring gates must be on the same plane, but some DM's would probably allow it.

At worst you could simply have the minion set up shop (i.e. unload the portable hole) in a safe zone on the same plane. Then you could even use the portable hole to pass unlimited amounts of large objects (or people) through the ring gates.
groveborn
04-26-08, 12:23 AM Nice idea. By canon it wouldn't work because ring gates must be on the same plane, but some DM's would probably allow it.

At worst you could simply have the minion set up shop (i.e. unload the portable hole) in a safe zone on the same plane. Then you could even use the portable hole to pass unlimited amounts of large objects (or people) through the ring gates.

Ring gates do not allow unlimited anything. 100lbs per day.
Jay_Ibero_911
04-26-08, 01:04 AM Ring gates do not allow unlimited anything. 100lbs per day.

Well the portable hole does not have a given weight...and at worst it couldn't be more than a pound or so......so passing as much as the portable hole can fit ~50 times per day...also need to be within 100 miles for ring gates to work too...
mvincent
04-26-08, 01:12 AM Ring gates do not allow unlimited anything. 100lbs per day.I think you might have missed the point:
1) Put hundreds (or thousands) of pounds of gear (and maybe a few PCs/NPCs) in a portable hole.
2) Fold up portable hole (which has negligible weight now) and pass it through the ring gates.

Even if your DM does house rule an arbitrary weight to the piece of ethereal spider silk, it's unlikely to limit most people.
Jay_Ibero_911
04-26-08, 01:38 AM Set up waystations around the entire planet 100 miles apart, having a set of ring gates for every combination of stations within 100 miles of each other, and tons of portable holes, at least 1 per station. Incredibly expensive and complicated, but it would let anyone travel to pretty much anywhere on the planet as fast the the portable hole could be passed through the series of ring gates.
mvincent
04-26-08, 01:50 AM Set up waystations around the entire planet 100 miles apart, having a set of ring gates for every combination of stations within 100 miles of each other, and tons of portable holes, at least 1 per station. Incredibly expensive and complicated, but it would let anyone travel to pretty much anywhere on the planet as fast the the portable hole could be passed through the series of ring gates.Permanency'd Teleportation circles would be cheaper (and have no maximum distance).
risner
04-26-08, 10:13 AM Just because the "HHH is a bag of holding" side has better arguments, and is right, doesn't mean that it's not debated. Shame.

/agree

It doesn't matter if we agree, there are a number of folks that say a HHH is not a smaller bag of holding. They argue the merits of the word "like".
groveborn
04-26-08, 11:12 PM I think you might have missed the point:
1) Put hundreds (or thousands) of pounds of gear (and maybe a few PCs/NPCs) in a portable hole.
2) Fold up portable hole (which has negligible weight now) and pass it through the ring gates.

Even if your DM does house rule an arbitrary weight to the piece of ethereal spider silk, it's unlikely to limit most people.

I did, sorry.

/agree

It doesn't matter if we agree, there are a number of folks that say a HHH is not a smaller bag of holding. They argue the merits of the word "like".

Yeah.... merits. I know it never gets very far, but:
# wish: prefer or wish to do something; "Do you care to try this dish?"; "Would you like to come along to the movies?"
# find enjoyable or agreeable; "I like jogging"; "She likes to read Russian novels"
# resembling or similar; having the same or some of the same characteristics; often used in combination; "suits of like design"; "a limited circle of like minds"; "members of the cat family have like dispositions"; "as like as two peas in a pod"; "doglike devotion"; "a dreamlike quality"
# equal in amount or value; "like amounts"; "equivalent amounts"; "the same amount"; "gave one six blows and the other a like number"; "an equal number"; "the same number"
# be fond of; "I like my nephews"
# feel about or towards; consider, evaluate, or regard; "How did you like the President's speech last night?"
# a similar kind; "dogs, foxes, and the like", "we don't want the likes of you around here"
# alike(p): having the same or similar characteristics; "all politicians are alike"; "they looked utterly alike"; "friends are generally alike in background and taste"
# a kind of person; "We'll not see his like again"; "I can't tolerate people of his ilk"
# want to have; "I'd like a beer now!"
# comparable: conforming in every respect; "boxes with corresponding dimensions"; "the like period of the preceding year"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

It seems to me that "like" means "the same as, or nearly so".
risner
04-27-08, 09:14 PM It seems to me that "like" means "the same as, or nearly so".

/Agree and I agree it takes on all the properties.

But again, I've been in multiple page arguments over whether or not it means it takes on the properties of the bag of holding or if it simply means it is a different thing that functions the same?
FrostWolf
04-28-08, 11:03 AM Hmm... One gate in your pack, the other in the storage room of your Zeppelin that is in a holding pattern over your current dungeon.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Psionx 04-16-08, 05:41 PM	1. Can a bag of holding be put in another bag of holding? 2. Can a bag of holding be put in a Handy Haversack 3. If no on question 2, how do you lug around 60 lbs? Mithral straps to your sholders like a backpack?
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-16-08, 05:48 PM	Yes and yes. A lot of people don't realize this, and will swear otherwise, but the only dangerous interaction between extradimensional spaces is that between bags of holding and portable holes. Though if you had a bag of holding and no handy haversack, even if the bag were difficult to carry around it would sure save space in your cart/wagon or make things easier on your pack animal.
Psionx 04-16-08, 07:09 PM	Thanks much for the clarification, I was worried about the prospect of a 60 lb sack with a STR of 12.
groveborn 04-17-08, 04:08 AM	Thanks much for the clarification, I was worried about the prospect of a 60 lb sack with a STR of 12. The portable hole is considerably lighter. It has no weight to speak of, and isn't restricted to mass either, only volume. It does cost more though.
mvincent 04-17-08, 04:22 PM	1. Can a bag of holding be put in another bag of holding?Ask your DM. From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a): "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. From the 3.0 FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a): “It’s a general rule that you can’t mix items containing nondimensional or extradimensional spaces (things that are bigger inside than out) with each other or with portable holes. Such combinations tend to strain the fabric of the cosmos. Putting one bag of holding within another is just like putting the bag into a portable hole." Note that the above two rulings are contradictory even though they were written by the same person. The RotG is the latter, if that helps. For historical reference: from the 2ed guide to High-level campaigns, section on magic items: "Extradimensional Spaces: These items tend to produce spectacular effects when one is placed within another. The following items contain extradimensional spaces: bag of holding, bag of transmuting, flatbox, girdle of many pouches, Heward’s handy haversack, portable hole, and pouch of accessibility. The following spells produce extradimensional spaces: extradimensional pocket, Mordenkainen’s magnificent mansion, and rope trick. In most instances, placing one extradimensional space inside another opens a rift to the Astral Plane, casting both the items and their contents through the rift. The items and anything contained within them are scattered randomly in the infinite depths of the Astral Plane." Can a bag of holding be put in a Handy HaversackHandy haversacks are treated as bags of holding in this respect. how do you lug around 60 lbs? Mithral straps to your sholders like a backpack?60 pounds is considered an acceptable weight if placed in a backpack (soldiers do this all the time). I agree though that it's needlessly heavy. A type III bag is far better than a type IV (unless you need to tote something bigger than 150 cubic feet). Merchants might have use for this, and such bags are probably placed more often in saddlebags.
risner 04-21-08, 01:01 AM	1. Can a bag of holding be put in another bag of holding? 2. Can a bag of holding be put in a Handy Haversack 3. If no on question 2, how do you lug around 60 lbs? Mithral straps to your sholders like a backpack? 1) Ask your DM. There is sufficient text to rule both ways (that you can put bag in bag and that you can't put bag into bag.) 2) Ask you DM the result of #1, if you can't put a Bag in a Bag then you can't put it in a HHH (since it is also a Bag of holding.) To be fair, the fact a HHH is a Bag of holding at all is also in debate. 3) Wha?
mvincent 04-21-08, 12:19 PM	To be fair, the fact a HHH is a Bag of holding at all is also in debate.From the Handy haversack rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#handyHaversack): "each is like a bag of holding" From the 3.0 FAQ: "Items that function like bags of holding, such as Heward’s handy haversacks, cause the same mishaps when mishandled." From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a): "It's best to treat a Heward's handy haversack as a bag of holding when it interacts with a portable hole." and (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050111a): "The bag of holding and similar items, such as Heward's handy haversack..."
groveborn 04-22-08, 02:28 AM	From the Handy haversack rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#handyHaversack): "each is like a bag of holding" From the 3.0 FAQ: "Items that function like bags of holding, such as Heward’s handy haversacks, cause the same mishaps when mishandled." From the Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a): "It's best to treat a Heward's handy haversack as a bag of holding when it interacts with a portable hole." and (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050111a): "The bag of holding and similar items, such as Heward's handy haversack..." Just because the "HHH is a bag of holding" side has better arguments, and is right, doesn't mean that it's not debated. Shame.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-22-08, 02:46 AM	Sure, for a 3.0 game. 3.5, not so much, though I suppose that doesn't matter to most folks that like everything going wrong for the PCs whether or not it's actually supposed to. I suddenly wonder what percentage each of DMs who rule all extradimensional spaces don't work together, and DMs who use fumbles for attack rolls and/or skills, overlap to be in both groups.
1 ton ghost 04-22-08, 11:48 AM	These are primarilly balance issues to power gamers that want to have their cake and eat it too. Typically, they want a laizze fare attitude to incredible item acquisition w/out consideration to the possible consequences, no matter how tragic or hilarious (or hilariously tragic) they might be. Basically, it's to help them actually brainstorm new ideas concerning weight restrictions rather than just keep piling up the treasure into these magic spaces. This is especially humorous when DM's use the random treasure charts verbatim and you wind up w/ like 500,000 cp. At 50 coins = 1 lb, this can become, eh, problematic... For danger perspective in a FR campaign, main caster took one for the team and bought a Portable Hole. They were fond of Teleporting and given CL vs extra bodies to the spell, some would just jump in his Portable Hole to evade the "max ppl transported ruling". They bamf, open the hole, and out they come. Arcane APC. But the danger always remained. After some fair deliberation, I said, "Just gimmie a Knowledge Planar and/or KnowAracan roll." to which he did and all was fine. That is, I said, "Ok, you beat the DC, you realize (per ruling in DMG) the threat of extradimensional space and the cosmic craziness/danger of your fellow party members (almost all of them had HH Haversacks or Bag of Holding.)" Solution; all bags/backpacks go w/ and outside "traveler" or the caster mage before PC extras go in Hole. However, after hopscotching around the planet, like most PCs they got lazy. Normally, we'd default to "standard teleport protocol", but when using it tactically once (tried to trap an enemy in it then close the Hole and suffocate them in 10 minutes [max air supply]), the guy that elected to bullrush the enemy into the hole, and thusly himself, failed to remember after many many reminders that he had a Haversack on when he charged in... I said, "Yes, the enemy is defeated...but so are you. Poof. Off you go to the Astral or wherever the Hell ppl go when you mix the 2 dangerous items." All the party stored treasure (some 56k gp of treasure) was lost, tank was lost, enemy (and all its precious intel) was lost, etc because of 1 stupid mistake...
mvincent 04-22-08, 12:13 PM	Just because the "HHH is a bag of holding" side has better arguments, and is right, doesn't mean that it's not debated. Shame.Absolutely correct. I did not mean to imply otherwise ;) Sure, for a 3.0 game. 3.5, not so muchWhy do you say? They did not change any core rules or descriptions of extra dimensional spaces in this regard. Also, 3.0 FAQ clarifications (absent a reason not to) actually count for 3.5. Since Skip's change of heart in the RotG happened well into 3.5, his originally ruling stood for quite awhile in the 3.5 edition.
FrostWolf 04-23-08, 10:13 PM	Hmm... Idea. Get yourself a portable hole and some type of minion that needs no air (A homunculus would be ideal). put in what gear you'll want access to (I.E: everything) and a ring gate. Now put the other ring gate in your backpack, and have your minion pass stuff out to you as needed. Just a thought.
mvincent 04-24-08, 04:13 PM	Hmm... Idea. Get yourself a portable hole and some type of minion that needs no air (A homunculus would be ideal). put in what gear you'll want access to (I.E: everything) and a ring gate. Now put the other ring gate in your backpack, and have your minion pass stuff out to you as needed.Nice idea. By canon it wouldn't work because ring gates must be on the same plane, but some DM's would probably allow it. At worst you could simply have the minion set up shop (i.e. unload the portable hole) in a safe zone on the same plane. Then you could even use the portable hole to pass unlimited amounts of large objects (or people) through the ring gates.
groveborn 04-26-08, 12:23 AM	Nice idea. By canon it wouldn't work because ring gates must be on the same plane, but some DM's would probably allow it. At worst you could simply have the minion set up shop (i.e. unload the portable hole) in a safe zone on the same plane. Then you could even use the portable hole to pass unlimited amounts of large objects (or people) through the ring gates. Ring gates do not allow unlimited anything. 100lbs per day.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-26-08, 01:04 AM	Ring gates do not allow unlimited anything. 100lbs per day. Well the portable hole does not have a given weight...and at worst it couldn't be more than a pound or so......so passing as much as the portable hole can fit ~50 times per day...also need to be within 100 miles for ring gates to work too...
mvincent 04-26-08, 01:12 AM	Ring gates do not allow unlimited anything. 100lbs per day.I think you might have missed the point: 1) Put hundreds (or thousands) of pounds of gear (and maybe a few PCs/NPCs) in a portable hole. 2) Fold up portable hole (which has negligible weight now) and pass it through the ring gates. Even if your DM does house rule an arbitrary weight to the piece of ethereal spider silk, it's unlikely to limit most people.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-26-08, 01:38 AM	Set up waystations around the entire planet 100 miles apart, having a set of ring gates for every combination of stations within 100 miles of each other, and tons of portable holes, at least 1 per station. Incredibly expensive and complicated, but it would let anyone travel to pretty much anywhere on the planet as fast the the portable hole could be passed through the series of ring gates.
mvincent 04-26-08, 01:50 AM	Set up waystations around the entire planet 100 miles apart, having a set of ring gates for every combination of stations within 100 miles of each other, and tons of portable holes, at least 1 per station. Incredibly expensive and complicated, but it would let anyone travel to pretty much anywhere on the planet as fast the the portable hole could be passed through the series of ring gates.Permanency'd Teleportation circles would be cheaper (and have no maximum distance).
risner 04-26-08, 10:13 AM	Just because the "HHH is a bag of holding" side has better arguments, and is right, doesn't mean that it's not debated. Shame. /agree It doesn't matter if we agree, there are a number of folks that say a HHH is not a smaller bag of holding. They argue the merits of the word "like".
groveborn 04-26-08, 11:12 PM	I think you might have missed the point: 1) Put hundreds (or thousands) of pounds of gear (and maybe a few PCs/NPCs) in a portable hole. 2) Fold up portable hole (which has negligible weight now) and pass it through the ring gates. Even if your DM does house rule an arbitrary weight to the piece of ethereal spider silk, it's unlikely to limit most people. I did, sorry. /agree It doesn't matter if we agree, there are a number of folks that say a HHH is not a smaller bag of holding. They argue the merits of the word "like". Yeah.... merits. I know it never gets very far, but: # wish: prefer or wish to do something; "Do you care to try this dish?"; "Would you like to come along to the movies?" # find enjoyable or agreeable; "I like jogging"; "She likes to read Russian novels" # resembling or similar; having the same or some of the same characteristics; often used in combination; "suits of like design"; "a limited circle of like minds"; "members of the cat family have like dispositions"; "as like as two peas in a pod"; "doglike devotion"; "a dreamlike quality" # equal in amount or value; "like amounts"; "equivalent amounts"; "the same amount"; "gave one six blows and the other a like number"; "an equal number"; "the same number" # be fond of; "I like my nephews" # feel about or towards; consider, evaluate, or regard; "How did you like the President's speech last night?" # a similar kind; "dogs, foxes, and the like", "we don't want the likes of you around here" # alike(p): having the same or similar characteristics; "all politicians are alike"; "they looked utterly alike"; "friends are generally alike in background and taste" # a kind of person; "We'll not see his like again"; "I can't tolerate people of his ilk" # want to have; "I'd like a beer now!" # comparable: conforming in every respect; "boxes with corresponding dimensions"; "the like period of the preceding year" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn It seems to me that "like" means "the same as, or nearly so".
risner 04-27-08, 09:14 PM	It seems to me that "like" means "the same as, or nearly so". /Agree and I agree it takes on all the properties. But again, I've been in multiple page arguments over whether or not it means it takes on the properties of the bag of holding or if it simply means it is a different thing that functions the same?
FrostWolf 04-28-08, 11:03 AM	Hmm... One gate in your pack, the other in the storage room of your Zeppelin that is in a holding pattern over your current dungeon.