I know retrieving an item from a handy haversack is a move action that does not provoke AoOs. However, getting anything out of a rucksack on one's back IRL is fairly impossible, let alone if that rucksack is also competing with staves and swords and shields and whatnot.
Is the intent of the haversack to allow you to reach in and snag items during combat?
My gut goes with yes, that is the way I have always seen it played. Taking a move action out of combat would be kind of useless. I believe RAW normally getting something that is stored on your character or in there pack is a standard action.
I don't have any hard proof though that says its a move action in combat, just my 2 cents worth.
The "actions in combat" table lists "retrieve a stored item" as a move action that triggers an attack of opportunity. If items could only be removed from a handy haversack out of combat, the "does not provoke attacks of opportunity" clause wouldn't be necessary. So, I'm pretty sure a character is supposed to be able to retrieve items from a HH (or a backpack) in combat.
If that upsets your verisimilitude too much, then consider that a HH is a magic item, which lets you do the otherwise impossible. :-)
The "actions in combat" table lists "retrieve a stored item" as a move action that triggers an attack of opportunity. If items could only be removed from a handy haversack out of combat, the "does not provoke attacks of opportunity" clause wouldn't be necessary. So, I'm pretty sure a character is supposed to be able to retrieve items from a HH (or a backpack) in combat.
If that upsets your verisimilitude too much, then consider that a HH is a magic item, which lets you do the otherwise impossible. :-)
I don't have a problem with the verisimilitude. Just trying to be fair to my players.
I don't have a problem with the verisimilitude. Just trying to be fair to my players.The "actions in combat" table lists "retrieve a stored item" as a move action that triggers an attack of opportunity. If items could only be removed from a handy haversack out of combat, the "does not provoke attacks of opportunity" clause wouldn't be necessary. So, I'm pretty sure a character is supposed to be able to retrieve items from a HH (or a backpack) in combat.
If that upsets your verisimilitude too much, then consider that a HH is a magic item, which lets you do the otherwise impossible. :-)
The haversack allows you to retrieve an item without being stabbed in the face. :)
As an aside you can't get anything out of a HH in an extra-dimensional space such as inside a Create Pit spell.
Quote rules please.
Quote rules please.
From here
A number of spells and magic items utilize extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, a bag of holding, a handy haversack, and a portable hole. These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension. Such items do not function, however, inside another extradimensional space. If placed inside such a space, they cease to function until removed from the extradimensional space. For example, if a bag of holding is brought into a rope trick, the contents of the bag of holding become inaccessible until the bag of holding is taken outside the rope trick. The only exception to this is when a bag of holding and a portable hole interact, forming a rift to the Astral Plane, as noted in their descriptions.
I know retrieving an item from a handy haversack is a move action that does not provoke AoOs. However, getting anything out of a rucksack on one's back IRL is fairly impossible, let alone if that rucksack is also competing with staves and swords and shields and whatnot.
Is the intent of the haversack to allow you to reach in and snag items during combat?
Keep in mind a haversack is not a backpack or a rucksack. It is a one strap bag (think Timbuk2 if you get the reference) that can easily be swung to your front and the large flap opened (I do it everyday multiple times with mine). So yeah, I think a move action makes sense. From a regular backpack it would have to be more, I think. Someone above said Standard, but I would house rule two moves.
