Bag of Holding vs Handy Haversack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bag of Holding vs Handy Haversack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
GaffeR
06-28-06, 06:56 AM So I'm starting up a low strength, fairly low level Sorcerer and I figure some extra-dimensional storage wouldn't be bad. I don't have a ton to spend, so which is it; the Bag of holding (type I) or the handy haversack?

For 500 gp more, the bag of holding holds 250 pounds or 30 ft^3. The haversack holds a measly 120 pounds or 12 ft^3. It does have the nifty ability of item retrieval, though. It's also 10 pounds lighter.

Which one should I pick?
Silverthumb128
06-28-06, 07:24 AM Hmm, if you intend to store spell components in the bag, I'd go with Haversack, hands down. Less capable for holding mounds of treasure, but as you said, it'll be a fairly low level/power campaign, so I'd go with the Haversack. Its just an all-around good item to have when you can afford it.
SamiPeikko
06-28-06, 07:24 AM Haversack. The weight of the sack is really the thing that matters. Remember also that there are three compartments in it, not just the middle one.

Plus you do not need scroll organizer or bandoleer for your wands, even though botion belt with one potion retreived per round as a free action is still worth 1 or 50gp, if your campaign has them.
tarkin
06-28-06, 09:47 AM Haversack.

The bags are for large storage, not for countering a low strength.
lukelightning
06-28-06, 10:08 AM Haversack. It's plenty big enough for most characters' stuff and the "easy retrieval" ability is useful.
OravennasBrother
06-28-06, 10:42 AM But remember neither of them can store a WMD Arrow of doom. :doh:

They also have to be careful about Rope Trick, falling in a portable hole etc.
And finally it might be cheaper to hire a porter or purchase a mule (you know the low magic way of transporting goods)
Dalthbar
06-28-06, 10:56 AM Is it just me or is the fact that bags of holding increase in weight for the different types seem completely counter-intuitive when considering extra-dimensional spaces?

I _expect_ a bag of holding to ALWAYS weigh the same as a non-magical, empty bag of the same size.

I just don't get it.
ShinAkuma2
06-28-06, 12:45 PM Hmm, if you intend to store spell components in the bag, I'd go with Haversack, hands down.

I wouldn't recommend putting Spell Components in anything except a spell component pouch.

Retrieving a component from a HHH would be a move action, instead of the normal free action.
Felinix
06-28-06, 11:48 PM Since everyone's posted why the Haversack is more beneficial gamewise I think the only thing left for me to say is that I would go with the Haversack simply because it's fun to say: "I'm wearing a Handy Haversack."

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GaffeR 06-28-06, 06:56 AM	So I'm starting up a low strength, fairly low level Sorcerer and I figure some extra-dimensional storage wouldn't be bad. I don't have a ton to spend, so which is it; the Bag of holding (type I) or the handy haversack? For 500 gp more, the bag of holding holds 250 pounds or 30 ft^3. The haversack holds a measly 120 pounds or 12 ft^3. It does have the nifty ability of item retrieval, though. It's also 10 pounds lighter. Which one should I pick?
Silverthumb128 06-28-06, 07:24 AM	Hmm, if you intend to store spell components in the bag, I'd go with Haversack, hands down. Less capable for holding mounds of treasure, but as you said, it'll be a fairly low level/power campaign, so I'd go with the Haversack. Its just an all-around good item to have when you can afford it.
SamiPeikko 06-28-06, 07:24 AM	Haversack. The weight of the sack is really the thing that matters. Remember also that there are three compartments in it, not just the middle one. Plus you do not need scroll organizer or bandoleer for your wands, even though botion belt with one potion retreived per round as a free action is still worth 1 or 50gp, if your campaign has them.
tarkin 06-28-06, 09:47 AM	Haversack. The bags are for large storage, not for countering a low strength.
lukelightning 06-28-06, 10:08 AM	Haversack. It's plenty big enough for most characters' stuff and the "easy retrieval" ability is useful.
OravennasBrother 06-28-06, 10:42 AM	But remember neither of them can store a WMD Arrow of doom. :doh: They also have to be careful about Rope Trick, falling in a portable hole etc. And finally it might be cheaper to hire a porter or purchase a mule (you know the low magic way of transporting goods)
Dalthbar 06-28-06, 10:56 AM	Is it just me or is the fact that bags of holding increase in weight for the different types seem completely counter-intuitive when considering extra-dimensional spaces? I _expect_ a bag of holding to ALWAYS weigh the same as a non-magical, empty bag of the same size. I just don't get it.
ShinAkuma2 06-28-06, 12:45 PM	Hmm, if you intend to store spell components in the bag, I'd go with Haversack, hands down. I wouldn't recommend putting Spell Components in anything except a spell component pouch. Retrieving a component from a HHH would be a move action, instead of the normal free action.
Felinix 06-28-06, 11:48 PM	Since everyone's posted why the Haversack is more beneficial gamewise I think the only thing left for me to say is that I would go with the Haversack simply because it's fun to say: "I'm wearing a Handy Haversack."