Handy Haversack

[SSGoW]

Would a Handy Haversack react negatively with a bag of holding somewhat like a bag of holding and a portable hole?

Both need the spell "secret chest" to create and the handy haversack seems like a mild low level bag of holding with an extra feature.

I think a few players have handy haversacks filled with stuff shoved into a bag of holding.....

[Jeraa]

No. Only portable holes and bags of holding interact that way. Unless it specifically says differently, handy haversacks (or any other item with an extradimensional/nondimensional space) can be put into each other just fine.

[gallagher]

my group has always said that extradimensional space inside another extradimensional space makes things go boom, so dont do it as part of your strategy as part of a bomb. if you accidentally, say, have a bag of holding inside a rope trick, we just arent going to care much.

[SSGoW]

From Rope Trick

"Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one. "

Is there anywhere else it talks about this in more detail?

[Heliomance]

Nope. Leading to the amusing situation where no matter what you do about bags of holding inside rope tricks, it's a house rule.

[graeylin]

From Rope Trick

"Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one. "

Is there anywhere else it talks about this in more detail?

and a haversack and a bag of holding are not extradimensional spaces... so, that rule really isn't applicable to them. they are nondimensional spaces.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, this is an extremely gray area within the rules. The only defined interaction is between a portable hole and a bag of holding. Everything else, such as that mention in the rope trick spell, is just a vague warning of "bad things" happening. Your DM may extrapolate from the portable hole/bag of holding, or he may not.

[jackattack]

Yes.

First off a handy haversack is a bag of holding, with convenient straps and better retrieval.

Secondly the d20pfsrd notes that non-dimensional spaces and extra-dimensional spaces are the same thing.

Thus, when a bag of holding is placed inside a handy haversack, it does not function and the items already inside it are not retrievable until the bag of holding is removed from the handy haversack.

However, that seems like a silly non-penalty penalty. "You can't take anything out of the sack until you take it out of the slightly larger sack it is in."

If I were DMing, I would rule that the nullifying effect on the bag of holding needs to wear off, and items in the bag of holding are not retrievable for the amount of time the bag was in the haversack (divided by 1d4-1, if you want to be nice).

[KutuluKultist]

(divided by 1d4-1, if you want to be nice).

That right there is going to violate the laws of logic so bad one time out of four that a huge explosion rips out the offending null-time seed and scatters extra-dimensional crevasses all over an area of 600 acres, turning once fertile and pleasant lands into horrible nether regions of neither here nor there where the answer to any question is "not now" and where you never ever get the cake. That's what happens, when you divide time by zero. That what you want? Hu, that what you want?

[ericgrau]

RAW: not specified (note: this is not the same as "no" nor "yes", even though players often use it to mean whatever is in their favor)
rope trick spell: yes, but no specific details given
some WotC article by one of the game designers: "IMO no, and ignore the rope trick problems"
FAQ by one of the game designers: yes, and any mix of extradimensional/nondimensional spaces is similar to a bag of holding in a portable hole.

Good luck! :smallbiggrin:

But seriously have the DM pick something. Either no effect or some astral-plane related effect.

[jackattack]

1d3 then, KuKu.

[SSGoW]

Hmm

How about this for a house rule...

If you put a bag of holding or other similar item (handy haversack) into another extra-dimensional space then the contents of the first item has a chance to slip into the astral plane. This chance is 35% + 5% for every hour, after all the contents of the first extra-dimensional space item (which is inside the second extra-dimensional space) has slipped into the Astral Plane the extra-dimensional space item (bag of holding etc) that is inside the other slips into the astral plane at a 100% chance.

The wording needs to be changed but this works even on rope trick. This keeps bag of holding abuse from happening but also keeps the party from being wiped out.

[Curmudgeon]

First off a handy haversack is a bag of holding, with convenient straps and better retrieval.
Nope. "Is like" and "is" are quite different. You get exactly the Bag of Holding similarities described in the Heward's Handy Haversack item description, and that's the limit of how each of its side pouches "is like a Bag of Holding". (The large central portion of the pack isn't described as being like anything else.)

[jackattack]

Nope. "Is like" and "is" are quite different. You get exactly the Bag of Holding similarities described in the Heward's Handy Haversack item description, and that's the limit of how each of its side pouches "is like a Bag of Holding". (The large central portion of the pack isn't described as being like anything else.)

Yep. Craft Wondrous Item, secret chest. If you want a different kind of extra-dimensional space, use a different spell. Quibbling over language between paragraphs that were written by different people at different times doesn't alter the fact that they are the same item with a different external appearance and some carrying capacity traded for ease of use.

[ericgrau]

Like does not mean identical. Like does not mean it works completely different.

It's still ambiguous.

[Ernir]

Secondly the d20pfsrd notes that non-dimensional spaces and extra-dimensional spaces are the same thing.

Do the 3.5 rules include this clause?

[Curmudgeon]

Do the 3.5 rules include this clause?
Nope. Rules Compendium treats them as two different things. From page 83:
Such items function or can be activated as long as they’re carried somewhere on the body—but not if stored in an extradimensional or nondimensional storage space (Emphasis added.)

[jackattack]

But the 2nd edition guide to high-level campaigns specifies that both the bag of holding and the handy haversack contain extradimensional spaces.

Per the 3.0 FAQ, “Items that function like bags of holding, such as Heward’s handy haversacks, cause the same mishaps when mishandled. "

And Rules of the Game says, "It's best to treat a Heward's handy haversack as a bag of holding when it interacts with a portable hole."

But to muddy the waters further RotG also says, "One bag of holding can be placed safely inside another (of course, the first bag's weight counts against what the second bag can hold)." Does that mean that the weight of the first bag itself counts against what the second bag can hold, or that the weight of the contents of the first bag counts against what the second bag can hold?

[Curmudgeon]

But the 2nd edition guide to ...
Jack, none of those references are actually relevant to the 3.5 D&D rules. (Those "Rules of the Game" articles are as much about Skip Williams's house rules as the actual D&D rules.) Now, a DM who wanted to add some extra depth and complexity to how these various magical spaces interact in their campaigns could look at one or more of those for ideas, but ultimately it's all house rules rather than the RAW affecting the bulk of D&D 3.5 gamers.

[jackattack]

Articles on Paizo's archive for 3.5 have nothing to do with 3.5 rules? The 3.5 rules sprang into existence without any history at all?

The wording discrepancy being cited as immutable fact is a holdover from earlier editions, and the two words should be read as synonyms.

A non-dimensional space is extra-dimensional, in that it is outside this dimension. The distinction is that the spaces in bags of holding, handy haversacks, portable holes, rope tricks, and magnificent mansions are each unique spaces that are self-contained and do not intersect with other known dimensions, planes of existence, or each other.

(Which is odd, as the base spell for a bag of holding and a handy haversack actually puts your stuff on the ethereal plane.)

The bag of holding / portable hole badness was meant to keep players from putting 16 bags in a hole and completely obliterating the encumbrance rules, or being so completely equipped that they would be prepared for every challenge that came up.

As a general principle I don't allow tesseracts to stack, but I don't rip space apart to prevent it.

[Curmudgeon]

Articles on Paizo's archive for 3.5 have nothing to do with 3.5 rules?
According to Wizards of the Coast rules? No, they generally do not. (If those archives include Dragon or Dungeon magazine content when they were published by Paizo under license from WotC, that's an exception; Dragon and Dungeon content is officially sanctioned for D&D.)

Here's what the Wizards of the Coast rules say is allowed:
D&D 3.5 core rules + official errata
3.5 System Reference Document content
official D&D 3.5 supplementary material on the wizards.com site
WotC D&D 3.5 rules supplements + official errata
3.5 D&D Dragon and Dungeon material
WotC D&D 3.0 supplements + official errata + WotC 3.5 update guides
WotC D&D 3.0 supplements + official errata where there is no 3.5 replacement for that content*
3.0 D&D Dragon and Dungeon material where there is no 3.5 replacement for that content*

*: plus "minor adjustments" to bring the existing material into a 3.5 game, according to each individual DM's judgment

Just about everything else: not official. (Doesn't mean it isn't fun or useful; it's just not binding.)

[Chronos]

Back in 2nd edition, putting any extradimensional or nondimensional space (Bags of Holding, Portable Holes, Rope Tricks, whatever) inside another was dangerous, and had consequences described in the rules. When they made 3rd edition, they remembered that, and put the warning in the Rope Trick spell, but when they updated the rule itself they only applied it to one specific combination of spaces. Personally, I'd like to see that rule return: If nothing else, it'd make it harder to play the 15 minute adventuring day.

[Rubik]

Back in 2nd edition, putting any extradimensional or nondimensional space (Bags of Holding, Portable Holes, Rope Tricks, whatever) inside another was dangerous, and had consequences described in the rules. When they made 3rd edition, they remembered that, and put the warning in the Rope Trick spell, but when they updated the rule itself they only applied it to one specific combination of spaces. Personally, I'd like to see that rule return: If nothing else, it'd make it harder to play the 15 minute adventuring day.It'd also make Rope Trick and plane-hopping absolutely worthless for anyone with extradimensional storage space, which most characters should have as soon as they can afford it.

[jackattack]

Just about everything else: not official. (Doesn't mean it isn't fun or useful; it's just not binding.)

Still doesn't change the fact that a haversack is essentially the same as a bag. It comes from the same spell, and it does the same thing (with volume/weight traded for better retrieval).

If (any portion of) a handy haversack is like a bag of holding, then putting a handy haversack in a portable hole is like putting a bag of holding in a portable hole. And wackiness will ensue.

And I still maintain that "non-dimensional" and "extra-dimensional" are synonymous in this context. Not just because of linguistics, but because it makes the game much more interesting and prevents total abuse of the encumbrance rules.

------

Side issue: A bag of holding weighs a fixed amount no matter what is put in it. It's dimensions are listed as 2'x4', but what is the third measurement? Is it fixed at fully expanded no matter what is put in it, or does the bag always appear to be empty, or does the bag expand from appearing empty to fully expanded according to how much is put in it?

'Cos that's going to affect whether a bag of holding will fit in the side pocket of a handy haversack at all, and how many will fit in the main pocket at what fullness.

[Coidzor]

(Doesn't mean it isn't fun or useful; it's just not binding.)

Binding? I wasn't aware there was a contract with WOTC implied in playing the game, much less actually drawn up.

OP: It's best to ignore those particular rules or you start to have the players use them creatively against the DM and then things get silly.