So if I were to houserule that extradimensional spaces do not stop functioning when placed inside each other, what horrible consequences would there be? I don't see what purpose the normal rule serves.
More seriously I guess you'd have to lay ground work rulings for reaching into a bag then reaching into another bag.
What do you see as needing a ruling? Fumbling around in a bag of holding to find something is a move action that provokes. Once you've found what you want, fiddling with it (inside the bag) is whatever it is---in this case, reaching farther inside to find something, which is still a move action that provokes.
Really it's just like having a normal bag with a smaller bag inside with stuff inside that. The fact that the bags are bigger inside than out doesn't come into it.
*nods*
That's why I prefaced that with "Groundwork".
Something that just occurred to me though is that Bags of Holding have weight limits even if their weight doesn't change, if the second Bag is still accessible would you add its contents' weight to the main bag?
I would add the (fixed) weight of the interior bag, not that of its contents. And I'd add the external volume of the interior bag to the exterior bag's volume usage.
That is, as far as as the first bag is concerned it's just like the second bag was a mundane bag of the same apparent volume with the same apparent weight. Which is how I handle it under the normal rules, too.
Note that the first bag is therefore unconcerned with exactly what the contents of the second bag are... even if they include several more bags of holding.
With a mundane bag inside you would count its weight, by which I mean the result of putting it on a merchant's scale. That happens to be equal to the weight of the contents plus the weight of an empty sack. But that fact isn't important, so follow the same rule for a magical bag inside.
|
That wasn't what I was getting at, it's despite they're wight staying the same Bags of Holding have a weight limit that determines how much you can put into them. If you allow multiple Bags of Holding to be placed within one another but don't add the weight of their contents to each bag before them then the weight limit is meaningless, as well as the space one.
In that case you wouldn't really need to stack Bags of Holding within one another.
We already allow multiple bags of holding to be placed within one another---the contents just become temporarily inaccessible---and I presume you wouldn't hold the weight of the inaccessible contents against the weight limit of the bag that the other bags are in. Right? So what's really changed?
By taking an extra move action and provoking. Under the normal rules, you could use the same action to withdraw the inside bag from the other and then retrieve its contents. So what practical matter has changed? What can the PCs accomplish that they couldn't before?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens is infinite carrying capacity. If that is your goal than simply ignore encumbrance and carrying capacity. Personally I think that makes for a poor gaming experience.
No, they can do that already. They just go through a slightly different retrieval procedure which takes the same amount of time.
EDIT: this one is to Rysky.
Um, you only have infinite capacity if you have infinite bags, which would cost you an infinite amount of money.
EDIT: this one is for Mysterious Stranger.
IMHO, it's important to set some limits on magic. The one concerning bags of holding and their variants is a little quirky, but it works.
You've fallen into a pit spell? No reaching into your bag.
You've crawled up your rope trick? No reaching into your bag then, either.
You've fallen into a portable hole? Ooops!!!
Bags inside bags seems like a quirky way to cheese the encumbrance system. You can already do this without the ability to reach into bags inside bags. How much added inconveninece is there to require you to take the inside bag out to access its contents? Or are you wanting to put handy haversacks inside each other to spam free retrieval actions?
Just say no. <g>
When did I say they didn't have to adhere to the weight and space limits any more? If you put a Type II bag of holding inside a Type I bag of holding you have used up 25 lbs of the 250 lbs the latter has available. This is equally true whether or not the contents of the interior bag become accessible, BTW.
IMHO, it's important to set some limits on magic. The one concerning bags of holding and their variants is a little quirky, but it works.
You've fallen into a pit spell? No reaching into your bag.
You've crawled up your rope trick? No reaching into your bag then, either.
You've fallen into a portable hole? Ooops!!!
I consider this a bug, not a feature. It's inconvenient for the character without adding anything to the game.
Bags inside bags seems like a quirky way to cheese the encumbrance system. You can already do this without the ability to reach into bags inside bags. How much added inconveninece is there to require you to take the inside bag out to access its contents? Or are you wanting to put handy haversacks inside each other to spam free retrieval actions?
I don't care about the extra inconvenience of bags-in-bags either way. The above situations are what I'm interested in fixing; other people are obsessed with putting bags inside bags even though, as you mention, this can already be done.
BTW, retrieving from a handy haversack is not a free action. It is a move action that does not provoke.
|
|
I've said that you shouldn't use the wight and space limits instead if you're having the nestled bags not add their weight to the overall bag. I believe that if you can still access the contents of the second bag then the weight of the contents of the second bag should also be applied to the first bag since they are technically in the first bag.
I will state though that this is just my ruminations on the concept, since the whole thing is already entirely in homebrew rules.
I've said that you shouldn't use the wight and space limits instead if you're having the nestled bags not add their weight to the overall bag. I believe that if you can still access the contents of the second bag then the weight of the contents of the second bag should also be applied to the first bag since they are technically in the first bag.
Well, you want the weight of the contents to apply, I want the weight of the bag to apply; nobody wants it to be free. Hence, infinite capacity is a straw man.
If the interior bag remains inaccessible, then you are going with current RAW. No problems there. Though you're going to be extra peeved when you fall in a portable hole. <g>
|
|
I've said that you shouldn't use the wight and space limits instead if you're having the nestled bags not add their weight to the overall bag. I believe that if you can still access the contents of the second bag then the weight of the contents of the second bag should also be applied to the first bag since they are technically in the first bag.Well, you want the weight of the contents to apply, I want the weight of the bag to apply; nobody wants it to be free. Hence, infinite capacity is a straw man.
It inches closer to being infinite than not though.
Rysky, under RAW, if I put a Type II bag (weighs 25 lbs) that's full (500 lbs) into a Type I bag, how much of the weight capacity of the latter is used up? 25, 500, or 0 lbs?
|
There is no real difference in my perspective. As you have already pointed out, RAW allows you to stack extradinentional spaces like nesting dolls already. This is actually a trick I use often in PFS, I put my handy haversack in my pathfinder pouch when I need to smuggle things around. As it stands, it requires a bit of a song and dance to access stuff (pulling out bags to open them, dangling bags out of rope trick to access them, etc.) but they are, at worst, minor inconvieniences. If you want to do away with that rule in a home game, I see no real issue with it.
Rysky, under RAW, if I put a Type II bag (weighs 25 lbs) that's full (500 lbs) into a Type I bag, how much of the weight capacity of the latter is used up? 25, 500, or 0 lbs?By RAW you also can't access the 500lbs of content in the nestled bag.
Yes, I know. But it was a serious question. How much weight capacity is used up?
|
|
Yes, I know. But it was a serious question. How much weight capacity is used up?Rysky, under RAW, if I put a Type II bag (weighs 25 lbs) that's full (500 lbs) into a Type I bag, how much of the weight capacity of the latter is used up? 25, 500, or 0 lbs?By RAW you also can't access the 500lbs of content in the nestled bag.
By RAW only 25lbs, but you can't access the contents. For all intents and purposes the bag is the only thing within. If you can access the contents of the nestled bag then they are within too and should be counted against the limit I believe.
By RAW only 25lbs, but you can't access the contents. For all intents and purposes the bag is the only thing within. If you can access the contents of the nestled bag then they are within too and should be counted against the limit I believe.Yes, I know. But it was a serious question. How much weight capacity is used up?Rysky, under RAW, if I put a Type II bag (weighs 25 lbs) that's full (500 lbs) into a Type I bag, how much of the weight capacity of the latter is used up? 25, 500, or 0 lbs?By RAW you also can't access the 500lbs of content in the nestled bag.
But when I have a bag of holding in my pocket, I can access its contents just fine, so why aren't they within my pocket and hence counting against my carrying capacity?
"Because magic," which applies just as well to the nested bags.
|
|
By RAW only 25lbs, but you can't access the contents. For all intents and purposes the bag is the only thing within. If you can access the contents of the nestled bag then they are within too and should be counted against the limit I believe.Yes, I know. But it was a serious question. How much weight capacity is used up?Rysky, under RAW, if I put a Type II bag (weighs 25 lbs) that's full (500 lbs) into a Type I bag, how much of the weight capacity of the latter is used up? 25, 500, or 0 lbs?By RAW you also can't access the 500lbs of content in the nestled bag.But when I have a bag of holding in my pocket, I can access its contents just fine, so why aren't they within my pocket and hence counting against my carrying capacity?
"Because magic," which applies just as well to the nested bags.
Because you're pocket isn't an extradimensional space.
So if I were to houserule that extradimensional spaces do not stop functioning when placed inside each other, what horrible consequences would there be? I don't see what purpose the normal rule serves.
I was always under the impression that this "stop functioning" clause, like the portable holes inside bags of holding explosions, were just remnants from old rule sets introduced for flavor reasons. No *need* to have 'em explode in this way, but Gygax et. al. thought it would be fun.
Don't do it. There's no need and players will abuse it in every way you haven't imagined.
Because you're pocket isn't an extradimensional space.By RAW only 25lbs, but you can't access the contents. For all intents and purposes the bag is the only thing within. If you can access the contents of the nestled bag then they are within too and should be counted against the limit I believe.Yes, I know. But it was a serious question. How much weight capacity is used up?Rysky, under RAW, if I put a Type II bag (weighs 25 lbs) that's full (500 lbs) into a Type I bag, how much of the weight capacity of the latter is used up? 25, 500, or 0 lbs?By RAW you also can't access the 500lbs of content in the nestled bag.But when I have a bag of holding in my pocket, I can access its contents just fine, so why aren't they within my pocket and hence counting against my carrying capacity?
"Because magic," which applies just as well to the nested bags.
No, because the bag of holding in my pocket is magic---if it weren't, its contents would weigh me down---and magic does not always obey common sense.
(I think you're arguing that counting the weight of the contents of a nested bag is common sense, rather than arguing that it's a logical necessity or gives the most balanced results. Please correct me if this is not the case.)
So if I were to houserule that extradimensional spaces do not stop functioning when placed inside each other, what horrible consequences would there be? I don't see what purpose the normal rule serves.I was always under the impression that this "stop functioning" clause, like the portable holes inside bags of holding explosions, were just remnants from old rule sets introduced for flavor reasons. No *need* to have 'em explode in this way, but Gygax et. al. thought it would be fun.
That's certainly why bags and holes interact that way. But the rule that bags stop working when in other bags or a rope trick space wasn't present in 2nd ed. So why was it added? Something to do with the pit spells, maybe?
|
|
That's certainly why bags and holes interact that way. But the rule that bags stop working when in other bags or a rope trick space wasn't present in 2nd ed. So why was it added? Something to do with the pit spells, maybe?So if I were to houserule that extradimensional spaces do not stop functioning when placed inside each other, what horrible consequences would there be? I don't see what purpose the normal rule serves.I was always under the impression that this "stop functioning" clause, like the portable holes inside bags of holding explosions, were just remnants from old rule sets introduced for flavor reasons. No *need* to have 'em explode in this way, but Gygax et. al. thought it would be fun.
Makes it harder to escape them if you can't access helpful stuff.
Don't do it. There's no need and players will abuse it in every way you haven't imagined.
Brother Fen, when someone asks "what would go wrong if I did X," telling them "don't do it, unspecified stuff will go wrong!" is not helpful. The whole point of the OP was to ask what will go wrong. Tell me how the players will abuse it, not just that they'll find a way.
Ah yes, that is what I'm arguing.
My posts started as you asked for "consequences" and I guess I got caught up in the argument, my apologies.
No problem, just checking.
In that case I assert that while the need to invoke "because magic" is, as always, an annoyance, it's not the kind of serious problem that you prevent by instituting a rule that itself makes no more sense. So I'd like to keep looking for what those larger problems might be.
|
|
Ah yes, that is what I'm arguing.
My posts started as you asked for "consequences" and I guess I got caught up in the argument, my apologies.
No problem, just checking.
In that case I assert that while the need to invoke "because magic" is, as always, an annoyance, it's not the kind of serious problem that you prevent by instituting a rule that itself makes no more sense. So I'd like to keep looking for what those larger problems might be.
*nods*
My previous arguments was just me going off the current rules and seeing what felt like what worked best as the result of specific changes, but back to your question the only mechanical use/abuse I can think of is being secretive. If they have multiple bags with contents normally to use them they'd have to put their hand into that specific bag, which might be telling. With them all nestled they could just have their hand appear to be in their pocket, much more discreet.
|
Don't do it. There's no need and players will abuse it in every way you haven't imagined.
I've basically been doing what Fuzzy-Wuzzy is talking about for years and none of my players have ever abused it. I can get away with this because I know my players and they aren't looking for a silly exploit like this.
-Skeld
Ah yes, that is what I'm arguing.
My posts started as you asked for "consequences" and I guess I got caught up in the argument, my apologies.
No problem, just checking.
In that case I assert that while the need to invoke "because magic" is, as always, an annoyance, it's not the kind of serious problem that you prevent by instituting a rule that itself makes no more sense. So I'd like to keep looking for what those larger problems might be.
*nods*
My previous arguments was just me going off the current rules and seeing what felt like what worked best as the result of specific changes, but back to your question the only mechanical use/abuse I can think of is being secretive. If they have multiple bags with contents normally to use them they'd have to put their hand into that specific bag, which might be telling. With them all nestled they could just have their hand appear to be in their pocket, much more discreet.
Any thoughts on create pit scenarios, with or without bags/haversacks involved? Since those spells didn't exist in 2nd ed they're a logical place to find a culprit. But offhand it looks to me like even creating a pit inside a created pit should be OK....
The most interesting issue seems to be if this change makes it possible to put bag A inside bag B, and then put bag B inside bag A.
I think, just from action economy, your players would have to be very detailed about what item was in which bag, which bag is inside which other bag(s), and spend the appropriate time/provoking actions to retrieve. It's a non-issue in a noncombat situation, but if time is tight or there are AOOs involved, it could become quite the shipping manifest.
But otherwise I don't see a big issue with it.
The most interesting issue seems to be if this change makes it possible to put bag A inside bag B, and then put bag B inside bag A.
I'm pretty sure that requires at least one of them to be a Klein Bottle of Holding rather than a mere bag.
I think, just from action economy, your players would have to be very detailed about what item was in which bag, which bag is inside which other bag(s), and spend the appropriate time/provoking actions to retrieve. It's a non-issue in a noncombat situation, but if time is tight or there are AOOs involved, it could become quite the shipping manifest.
Well, nobody is going to force them to nest bags of holding. Those who choose to get whatever optimization they can out of that are hopefully prepared to pay the price you've described---or just put all combat-relevant stuff into the outermost bag.
I think part of it is to stop people from creating Pits inside existing pits. I know you covered this, but hear me out. So you can create a pit anywhere within 100+10ft per level, and a 2nd level create pit spell maxes out at a depth of 30ft at 6th level. A sixth level Wizard has 4-5 casts of Create pit, which would allow him to drop someone 150ft total over 5 rounds. The individual would then be stuck at the bottom for 2 rounds, and then rise up 30ft per turn after that.
Hungry Pits could drop someone a much greater distance, especially with the Reach Spell metamagic. I think dropping someone 1000ft is something they wanted to avoid handling. Silly and inefficient, but thems the rules.
Honestly, I don't see anything game breaking about this houserule. If you already ignore encumbrance within reason then there isn't much difference.
I consider this a bug, not a feature. It's inconvenient for the character without adding anything to the game.
Then why not just super simplify things in your home games and increase the carrying capacity and volume of your extra dimensional stuff by a factor of 10?
That way you have the volume you are trying to achieve and do not have to jump through hoops to figure out how hard it is to get to an item burried inside a bag which is inside a bag which is inside a bag ad nasuseum?
I think part of it is to stop people from creating Pits inside existing pits. I know you covered this, but hear me out. So you can create a pit anywhere within 100+10ft per level, and a 2nd level create pit spell maxes out at a depth of 30ft at 6th level. A sixth level Wizard has 4-5 casts of Create pit, which would allow him to drop someone 150ft total over 5 rounds. The individual would then be stuck at the bottom for 2 rounds, and then rise up 30ft per turn after that.
Hungry Pits could drop someone a much greater distance, especially with the Reach Spell metamagic. I think dropping someone 1000ft is something they wanted to avoid handling. Silly and inefficient, but thems the rules.
Excellent point. So I may need to specify "While you can put one extradimensional space inside another, you still cannot create an extradimensional space inside an existing one." That would stop pits within pits but still allow bags and haversacks to function inside pits. Also stops rope tricks inside rope tricks but I don't think I care which way that one goes.
I consider this a bug, not a feature. It's inconvenient for the character without adding anything to the game.Then why not just super simplify things in your home games and increase the carrying capacity and volume of your extra dimensional stuff by a factor of 10?
That way you have the volume you are trying to achieve and do not have to jump through hoops to figure out how hard it is to get to an item burried inside a bag which is inside a bag which is inside a bag ad nasuseum?
You kinda failed to quote the part that described just what it was that I consider a bug. It had nothing to do with bags inside bags and everything to do with bags ceasing to work inside pits. Your suggestion does not impact that situation at all.
Gilfalas, the relevant part was this.
I consider this a bug, not a feature. It's inconvenient for the character without adding anything to the game.IMHO, it's important to set some limits on magic. The one concerning bags of holding and their variants is a little quirky, but it works.
You've fallen into a pit spell? No reaching into your bag.
You've crawled up your rope trick? No reaching into your bag then, either.
You've fallen into a portable hole? Ooops!!!