PDA

View Full Version : Rope Trick + HHH



Kerrin
2010-09-23, 11:46 AM
From the description of the Rope Trick spell:

Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.
Does this mean that carrying a Heward's Handy Haversack into a Rope Trick space leads to KER-BLOOY?

That would be annoying due to HHH being so prevalent a piece of equipment in most adventuring parties. It would pretty much make the Rope Trick spell useless or the party would have to find a place to stash their HHHs before climbing into the Rope Trick space.

Duke of URL
2010-09-23, 11:50 AM
I think the general ruling is that you can take a bag of holding, handy haversack, or portable hole into the rope trick, but you can't use them while inside it. (Sub-ruling A: such items are suppressed; sub-ruling B: not suppressed, but attempting to use them would be a really bad idea.)

Kerrin
2010-09-23, 11:59 AM
That seems pretty reasonable: You can take them in but you better not use them while in there.

Huh, does that mean you can put a closed Bag of Holding inside a HHH? Or, does the "suppressed" idea only apply to the space inside a Rope Trick?

Urpriest
2010-09-23, 12:02 PM
While Rope Trick mentions the "bad idea" angle, all other "put an extradimensional space inside another one" items spell out in detail what happens when you do it, and if they don't specify then there's no effect.

squishycube
2010-09-23, 12:02 PM
I rule common sense: rules are there to prevent abuse. Using a bag of holding inside a rope trick is not an exploit. Putting bags of holding in bags of holding is.

Susano-wo
2010-09-23, 12:17 PM
Wait, I don't follow, Squishycube. you ahve two different sacks that always way 1 pound regardless of how much you have in them(though does it say how big they get? do they fill like normal until the normal capacity is filled, do they always appear empty, always appear full?...).

At best its a minor non-game rules encumberance/style issue. The only exploit I can think of is actually using two as a bomb (Knew a guy who did that. suicided himself against a dragon).

Asheram
2010-09-23, 12:25 PM
Isn't there a fix for this on the Wizard homepage?
I think it was said that this certain reaction Only worked between magic bags and portable holes.

herrhauptmann
2010-09-23, 05:54 PM
Isn't there a fix for this on the Wizard homepage?
I think it was said that this certain reaction Only worked between magic bags and portable holes.

Bags and portable holes are the only named reaction. The HHH does state that the two side pouches are like bags of holding. So you could assume they react poorly with a portable hole.

Pretty sure that the caution statement in the spell is a holdover from older editions, one which might have been left behind so that DMs would be able to create extra interactions. Of course, if your DM does create extra interactions, he should really warn you that he just created a few houserules.

Kaeso
2010-09-23, 05:58 PM
Yo dawg I heard you like interdimensional storage space ....

On a more serious note, I think it sounds logical that using a HHH inside a rope trick leads to ... bad stuff.

JackMage666
2010-09-23, 06:00 PM
I once killed a munchkin this way...

awa
2010-09-23, 06:06 PM
i would not consider it a house rule its just up to the dm what happens.

herrhauptmann
2010-09-23, 06:12 PM
If there's nothing explicitly stated in the rules (hence this recurring question), then any ruling is technically a houserule.

JonestheSpy
2010-09-23, 06:17 PM
If there's nothing explicitly stated in the rules (hence this recurring question), then any ruling is technically a houserule.

Ah, this debate again. Really, the spell as written demands the DM create some kind of house rule about it, by saying it's hazardous without specifying how. If you ignore it and just say nothing happens, that's a house rule too.

Jack_Simth
2010-09-23, 06:42 PM
If there's nothing explicitly stated in the rules (hence this recurring question), then any ruling is technically a houserule.No more so than 'humans, barring specific reason otherwise, have two arms, two legs, and a head'. See, the rules, being finite, cannot cover every situation. They just can't; it's simply not possible.

That's part of why there's a DM. To make rulings on things the rules don't particularly cover. The exact interaction of a Handy Haversack and a Rope Trick? It's one of those things the rules don't particularly cover. So the DM needs to make a ruling on it, one way or another.

sokbeest
2010-09-23, 07:10 PM
Isn't there a fix for this on the Wizard homepage?There's this article by 3rd edition designer Skip Williams:

Rules of the Game: Carrying Things (Part Three) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a)

...in which, redgarding Rope Trick's reference to potential hazards, the Sage writes: "I recommend that you ignore this reference."

FWIW, the 3.0 FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MainFAQv06272003.zip) says that taking extradimensional items into extradimensional spaces created by spells poses no harm.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-09-23, 10:46 PM
...in which, redgarding Rope Trick's reference to potential hazards, the Sage writes: "I recommend that you ignore this reference."

FWIW, the 3.0 FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MainFAQv06272003.zip) says that taking extradimensional items into extradimensional spaces created by spells poses no harm.

As I point out every time this comes up, it's simply a holdover from 2e, where putting any extradimensional space in any other usually did do terrible things. In updating to 3e, they removed everything but the bag of holding/portable hole interaction but forgot to remove this reference. Simple as that.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-23, 10:49 PM
I once killed a munchkin this way...

Er, grats?

I'm guessing it caused rocks falling?

Marnath
2010-09-23, 10:51 PM
Wait, I don't follow, Squishycube. you ahve two different sacks that always way 1 pound regardless of how much you have in them(though does it say how big they get? do they fill like normal until the normal capacity is filled, do they always appear empty, always appear full?...).

At best its a minor non-game rules encumberance/style issue. The only exploit I can think of is actually using two as a bomb (Knew a guy who did that. suicided himself against a dragon).

The reason it is an exploit is that a bag of holding can hold a large number of other bags of holding, all of which can be full, and you only carry 5 pounds. By having them not stack, you necessitate carrying them all seperately at 5 pounds each. In order to carry the dozens or hundreds of bags of holding that would fit inside one, you'd need to be really strong and have a decent sized wagon.

BeholderSlayer
2010-09-24, 08:16 AM
No, it doesn't result in BOOM, by RAW.

Bags of Holding and Heward's Handy Haversacks are NON-dimensional spaces, not EXTRAdimensional spaces. Rope trick specifically references EXTRAdimensional spaces.

Beheld
2010-09-24, 08:32 AM
The reason it is an exploit is that a bag of holding can hold a large number of other bags of holding, all of which can be full, and you only carry 5 pounds. By having them not stack, you necessitate carrying them all seperately at 5 pounds each. In order to carry the dozens or hundreds of bags of holding that would fit inside one, you'd need to be really strong and have a decent sized wagon.

Do you seriously have a problem with players spending 127,500gp on bags of holding and then carrying them around with less encumbrance?

Marnath
2010-09-24, 08:38 AM
Do you seriously have a problem with players spending 127,500gp on bags of holding and then carrying them around with less encumbrance?

That number gets a lot smaller after the item creation optimizers get done with it. :smalltongue:

Beheld
2010-09-24, 08:51 AM
That number gets a lot smaller after the item creation optimizers get done with it. :smalltongue:

Okay, fine, the spend less money, they still spend an absurd amount of money to get carrying capacity in excess of what they will ever use, so who cares?

Marnath
2010-09-24, 09:06 AM
Okay, fine, the spend less money, they still spend an absurd amount of money to get carrying capacity in excess of what they will ever use, so who cares?

.....the game designers?

Maerok
2010-09-24, 09:23 AM
I think Beheld is implying that there are far more things to be worried about as a DM than a really large yet finite storage capacity.

Marnath
2010-09-24, 09:28 AM
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I never said it was something a GM should worry about. I explained how it could be an exploit. A crappy exploit is still an exploit. The person who originally asked the question was unsure why it mattered. The reason it matters is encumbrance. The fact that no one pays attention to those rules anyway is irrelevant.

BeholderSlayer
2010-09-24, 09:32 AM
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I never said it was something a GM should worry about. I explained how it could be an exploit. A crappy exploit is still an exploit. The person who originally asked the question was unsure why it mattered. The reason it matters is encumbrance. The fact that no one pays attention to those rules anyway is irrelevant.

Perhaps true, but there's no evidence anything bad should happen. As I stated, they are non-dimensional, not extra-dimensional.

Marnath
2010-09-24, 09:43 AM
Perhaps true, but there's no evidence anything bad should happen. As I stated, they are non-dimensional, not extra-dimensional.

What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? If you put a bag of holding inside another bag of holding it tears a hole to another plane. Which is a design thing to stop what I outlined earlier.

BeholderSlayer
2010-09-24, 09:45 AM
What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? If you put a bag of holding inside another bag of holding it tears a hole to another plane. Which is a design thing to stop what I outlined earlier.

No, if you put one inside a PORTABLE HOLE it ripes a hole to another plane. There is nothing that states that putting a Bag of Holding inside another results in that outcome.

DaMullet
2010-09-24, 09:47 AM
What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? If you put a bag of holding inside another bag of holding it tears a hole to another plane. Which is a design thing to stop what I outlined earlier.
That's actually what happens when you put a bag of holding in a portable hole. There are no interactions defined for stacking like spaces, so one could theoretically create a 100-foot deep portable hole if you had enough of them.

Twilight Jack
2010-09-24, 09:50 AM
Pathfinder actually went to the trouble of defining the effects here. Basically, you can take it into a rope trick safely, but you can't access anything in the bag while you're inside.

Marnath
2010-09-24, 10:02 AM
You know what? I was thinking of the time in one of the novels where Harkell Harpell or whatever his name is tries to fish a Chest of Holding out of the water with some sort of spell that produces a pocket dimension and it exploded. So I guess i'm wrong, and you can have ten thousand pounds of sand in a small bag on your waist. :smallbiggrin:

A little creativity for a system to dump all bags at once and you could seriously inconvenience someone with that many cubic feet of material.

Emperor Tippy
2010-09-24, 10:27 AM
It's more fun if you convince your DM to play with real world physics.

Step 1: Open a Bag of Holding underwater, filling it up.
Step 2: Turn Bag of Holding inside out.
Step 3: Point Bag of Holding at object(s) you want inside and turn it right side out.
Step 4: Watch the nice vacuum such all those objects inside.

It's also a great way to put hole's in doors.

Asheram
2010-09-24, 10:28 AM
Sorry... going to murder some catgirls now.. but this thread has made me think about at what speed an object would come out of... say... a bag of holding type 4, when you turn it inside out... and persume that the bag was empty except for this lone object.

Hague
2010-09-24, 11:48 AM
I'd rule that you can't access the bag inside another extradimensional storage space. That is, if you open the bag of holding inside a rope trick, the bag is just an empty bag.

Alternately, you can simply make it so that a bag turns itself inside out when you try putting it inside another bag of holding, dumping the contents of the first bag. Therefore, you can put an empty portable hole or bag of holding inside another extradimensional space. If the interior of the extra-dimensional space cannot fit the contents of the bag you put into it, the excess appears outside the bag/hole in which you put the bag/hole.

DragoonWraith
2010-09-24, 02:18 PM
By RAW, opening an HHH inside a Rope Trick is "hazardous". That term is completely undefined. Any definition of "hazardous" is a houserule, and therefore is not really appropriate for discussing Rope Trick's balance (this comes up from time to time). Also, any houserule to the definition of hazardous absolutely should be told to the players before the game starts. "Gotcha!"s like that are simply incredibly lame.

BeholderSlayer
2010-09-24, 03:01 PM
How many times do I have to say this?

HHH is not an extradimensional space. It is a nondimensional space. So are bags of holding.

DonEsteban
2010-09-24, 07:13 PM
You don't have to say it. ;)

And thank you for not screaming.

Have a nice day.

Greenish
2010-09-24, 07:17 PM
You know what? I was thinking of the time in one of the novels where Harkell Harpell or whatever his name is tries to fish a Chest of Holding out of the water with some sort of spell that produces a pocket dimension and it exploded.Maybe he was using an earlier edition?

Or maybe it was just because he is a Harpell. :smallamused:

Zeful
2010-09-24, 09:55 PM
By RAW, opening an HHH inside a Rope Trick is "hazardous". That term is completely undefined. Any definition of "hazardous" is a houserule, and therefore is not really appropriate for discussing Rope Trick's balance (this comes up from time to time). Also, any houserule to the definition of hazardous absolutely should be told to the players before the game starts. "Gotcha!"s like that are simply incredibly lame.

I disagree you should bring it up when it becomes relevant, if ever. I also don't think you should tell them what it does automatically. The game does have knowledge checks for a reason.

Marnath
2010-09-24, 10:01 PM
Maybe he was using an earlier edition?

Or maybe it was just because he is a Harpell. :smallamused:

It's an old book, so yeah probably older edition, back when messing with space-time was more dangerous. The other theory works too though. I swear, that family is totally insane. :smallbiggrin: Like the time one of them got into a contest with another arcane to see who could kill more(whatever monster it was, undead or something) and he almost got Tenser's Transformation cast before they stopped him. Or when he accidently teleported his eyes to mithril hall and that one dwarf cleric chick had to suck on 'em to keep 'em wet for him. :smalltongue:

Alavar
2010-09-24, 10:08 PM
It's an old book, so yeah probably older edition, back when messing with space-time was more dangerous. The other theory works too though. I swear, that family is totally insane. :smallbiggrin: Like the time one of them got into a contest with another arcane to see who could kill more(whatever monster it was, undead or something) and he almost got Tenser's Transformation cast before they stopped him. O:smalltongue:

I think that was the same book :smallbiggrin: and IIRC it was Robillard who he got in the pissing contest with. And the explosion doohickey was definitely known about, because Robillard(IIRC) freaked out as he was casting it. I think it made the enemy ships go boom! too.:smallcool:

Marnath
2010-09-24, 10:11 PM
I think that was the same book :smallbiggrin: and IIRC it was Robillard who he got in the pissing contest with. And the explosion doohickey was definitely known about, because Robillard(IIRC) freaked out as he was casting it. I think it made the enemy ships go boom! too.:smallcool:

You might be right, it's all pretty fuzzy for me, having not read those novels for, well, almost a decade.

Hawriel
2010-09-24, 11:01 PM
It's more fun if you convince your DM to play with real world physics.

Step 1: Open a Bag of Holding underwater, filling it up.
Step 2: Turn Bag of Holding inside out.
Step 3: Point Bag of Holding at object(s) you want inside and turn it right side out.
Step 4: Watch the nice vacuum such all those objects inside.

It's also a great way to put hole's in doors.

This would never happen. Filling a bag of holding with water would distroy it. If you put more mass into a bag of holding that it can carry it destroys the bag of holding and any thing inside. The volume of a bag of holding and how much water that will enter it will far exceed the weight limit.

A type one bag of holding has a valume of 30 cubic feet. A cubic foot of water weighs 62 pounds (rounded down). 30 cubic feet of water weighs 1860 pounds. That is 1610 pounds over the type 1 bag's limit of 250.

Good luck trying to carry away that treasure hord you just found.

Also bags of holding to not weigh 5 pounds. the smallest weighs 15 and the largest 60.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bagofHolding

The handy haver sack is not just like a bag of holding.

The haversack does weigh 5 punds even when fully loaded. however the side compartments have a 2 cubic foot volume and 20 pounds weight limit. The main compartment has 8 cubic feet and an 80 pound limit.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#handyHaversack

Marnath
2010-09-24, 11:12 PM
This would never happen. Filling a bag of holding with water would distroy it.

Actually it should fill to capacity and stop.

Baron Malkar
2010-09-25, 01:48 AM
I think that was the same book :smallbiggrin: and IIRC it was Robillard who he got in the pissing contest with. And the explosion doohickey was definitely known about, because Robillard(IIRC) freaked out as he was casting it. I think it made the enemy ships go boom! too.:smallcool:

It was a Dimension door...:smallsigh:

Greenish
2010-09-25, 04:03 AM
It's an old book, so yeah probably older edition, back when messing with space-time was more dangerous. The other theory works too though. I swear, that family is totally insane. :smallbiggrin: Like the time one of them got into a contest with another arcane to see who could kill more(whatever monster it was, undead or something) and he almost got Tenser's Transformation cast before they stopped him. Or when he accidently teleported his eyes to mithril hall and that one dwarf cleric chick had to suck on 'em to keep 'em wet for him. :smalltongue:It was one of the later Drizzt novels... Passage to Dawn, unless I'm mistaken, that had both of the incidents.