This past weekend, I put my players through a custom dungeon with several branches to go through. One such branch held a gauntlet of traps and unfortunately, the rogue tripped one that set off a series of targeted Mage's Disjunction at random magic items. One such item hit was a Bag of Holding. I rolled randomly, using a list of the items my players had at the time (I try to keep track so they aren't rolling through with major items at level 7 or too many things for me to handle against my monsters) and then rolled the saves based said items.
One such item was a Bag of Holding that failed. I let the players know what was going on, but my session ran out before I gave a final ruling on the argument that ensued. The book clearly states the item is destroyed. To me, that is the same as rupturing a bag of holding so everything within is lost. The player who held the item is arguing otherwise.
Opinions?
I’m with you. Bags of Holding are supet useful, but accidents waiting to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the items within a BoH are in an extra dimensional space, and disjunction destroys the physical opening to that space, yes, all that's inside is lost... good luck finding the demiplane it opened on to retrieve the contents... maybe with a wish?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bag of holding isn't usually destroyed by mages disjunction
All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are unraveled and destroyed completely (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item for the duration of this spell. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher. If an item’s saving throw results in a natural 1 on the die, the item is destroyed instead of being suppressed.
You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.
You can also use this spell to target a single item. The item gets a Will save at a -5 penalty to avoid being permanently destroyed.
So, if the item wasn't specifically targeted, and didn't roll a 1 on its save, then it's just turned into an ordinary bag for the duration and it's contents are inaccessible. After the spell ends it's a bag of holding again and I've always played that it's contents are again accessible.
he did say "series of targeted Mage's Disjunction at random magic items"
I think the point was that unless a 1 was rolled on the save it isn't actually destroyed. And I think they're just wanting to verify that a 1 was in fact rolled.
no, if it's NOT targeted at a specific item then a 1 will get it destroyed (when not targeting specific every item make a save to not get nurffed while the spell duration is going a 1 kill'it). when used as targeted spell vs a single item (as the op mentioned he did) the item make a save with -5 and a fail of ANY kind make it destroyed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, if it's NOT targeted at a specific item then a 1 will get it destroyed (when not targeting specific every item make a save to not get nurffed while the spell duration is going a 1 kill'it). when used as targeted spell vs a single item (as the op mentioned he did) the item make a save with -5 and a fail of ANY kind make it destroyed.
Not really true, because the rules are poorly written
The rules say:
"If an item’s saving throw results in a natural 1 on the die, the item is destroyed instead of being suppressed."
AND:
"You can also use this spell to target a single item. The item gets a Will save at a -5 penalty to avoid being permanently destroyed."
Except there isn't a DC to avoid being destroyed, the only rule is "If you roll a natural 1". Subtracting 5 from your will saving throw wont impact if it's destroyed or not, but can impact if it's suppressed or not.
I think the rules might be meant to say, "If you target a specific item, instead of suppressing it must succeed at a Will Save or be permanently destroyed. This check is made at a -5."
But that's not what it says and the way it's written isn't clear that it is the desired result.
It's also worth noting that if the bag of holding was obscured. Personally I don't keep my bag of "Hold all my s#+~" out in the open, it couldn't be targeted anyways.
I've looked back at the spell and agree with Claxon on the part of the targeted maguc items. In retrospect, I've gone through the recording of the session. (I like to go back to see what happened so I can put down notes for future sessions or even use the campaign to influence future campaigns.) The All targeted magic items that failed their roll did get destroyed. The effect was not actually an AoE effect for suppression. The gauntlet was meant to get harder as they went through. Funny enough, they weren't even at the end when they got to those traps.
I appreciate the outlooks from other angles.
dc of save against a spell is not written... R U serius?!?
lets break this apart. let me know where it's 'not clear':
global spell (not targeted). all items need to save (dc is per hte spell dc. if you can't figure it up...10+spell level + atribute for spellcasting + feats if any. should be obius but...).
if item saved. he is not affcted. if he fail but nto roll nat 1 he is dumpen (become non magical) untill the spell doration expire. if a nat 1 is rulled it is destroyed.
next targeted spell at specific item. item make a save wiht -5 penalty .dc again is the same vs the spell dc (i don't understand you saying dc is not mantioned. any spell wich mantioned a save against it's effect uses the common spell dc formula. it's in the class abilities info AND the magic section of the rules)
now what exectly is not clear?!?
Got to say I have trouble seeing anything other than what zza ni says about the DC. DC is the same as the spell when it targets an area, only if you target a specific object the save is now at -5. Unsure where the doubt comes from although since Claxon seems to think there's ambiguity I'm inclined to go looking even though I don't see it personally.
There are many badly-worded spell descriptions in Pathfinder, but this one seems readable enough to me. Then again, the fact that people are having trouble parsing it suggests there was room for improvement.
I agree, if it is targeted at a specific item it clearly says "will save -5 to be destroyed." If it was using the same "has to be a 1" rule then why have a different section for "targeted."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the 'get destroyed at nat one' is not in the same section as the '-5 to will' it's two different casting details that effect differently. you can't read one's information into the other without it saying so.
this way you can pick from 2 options:
1: target ALL of your enemy's items (might even hit more then one target's items) and have a good chance of taking them off for a duration with 5% (if nat 1 is rolled) to take some off permanently - very good at high levels when a lot is set on gear - look at fighter's dependency at them.
or
2: try and take out one specific troublesome magic item with greater chance to succeed (-5 to it's save beside the normal chance). - this one is known for it's heroic sacrifice when used to destroy artifacts (i think the rules were you get a tiny-tainy chance to do so, and if you succeed you loose all spell casting abilities. but you do not need to use the artifact's specific destruction rules - which might be hard as hell)
i like to think of this as the magical approach to the deference between soppressive fire and head-shot sniping.
To me, that is the same as rupturing a bag of holding so everything within is lost.
With that ruling, you get:
Quick method to get to the astral plane:
1) Cast Rope Trick
2) Climb up
3) Cast Dispel Magic on the Rope Trick
4) Profit
/cevah
Rope trick isn't a bag of holding.
A Bag of Holding is a nondimensional space, according to the item description.
The Editor's note states: "Bag of Holding refers to the space inside as “non-dimensional” whereas the rules on extradimensional spaces explicitly refer to bags of holding as examples of extradimensional spaces."
Rope Trick is also an extradimensional space.
If shutting does the bag causes loss to the astral, then why would shutting down the Rope Trick not do the same. That was my point.
Create Pit creates an extradimensional space.
When it ends, the stuff inside is expelled. This what I would expect to happen with Mage's Disjuction on a Bag of Holding. Not the rupture condition.
/cevah
A keg of black powder and a keg of water are both kegs, but lighting a keg of water on fire won't blow you up.
Not all extradimensional spaces are equal, hence the different properties of a bag of holding versus a portable hole.