Question about Bags of Holding

[5w337x7007h]

I'm trying to debate with my GM on whether or not a bag of holding has a fixed mouth or a variable one.

He believes that a bag of holding has a fixed mouth, and nothing larger the mouth's dimensions can fit inside, meaning if you wanted to hide a large-size body, you'd have to finagle or cut it up to fit it inside.

I believe that the bag has a variable mouth, allowing the bag to adjust it's opening, or the size of the object, so that the object can fit through the opening and into the bag.

The description states that regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. This weight, and the limits in weight and volume of the bag's contents, depend on the bag's type. Also, if living creatures are placed within the bag, they can survive for up to 10 minutes, after which time they begin to suffocate. This would imply that the mouth has no effect on what the bag can accommodate for, suggesting that the mouth can either change its size, or the size of the object/creature going into the bag as long as the weight and dimensions do not exceed the bag's inner capacity.

[AvatarVecna]

AFAIK, it's not specified by RAW, which makes such a thing totally DM-dependent. Since your DM has made their stance understood, that's how it works until such a time as you convince them that it should be otherwise.

[Necroticplague]

It doesn't say it can grow to accommodate any sized object, so the default would be that it does not. If you can't fit it through the two-foot opening hole, it's not fitting.

[5w337x7007h]

It doesn't say it can grow to accommodate any sized object, so the default would be that it does not. If you can't fit it through the two-foot opening hole, it's not fitting.

Well the description doesn't say that it doesn't change either. The only thing it does say is that you cannot put anything inside that exceeds it's weight or volume limitations, which are magical in origin.

[AvatarVecna]

And, as I've already said, since it neither says you can nor says you can't, there is no RAW answer to the question you're asking, making it entirely DM dependent.

[5w337x7007h]

I'm trying to come up with a convincing argument on the subject.

If the lip of the bag is technically the inside and the outside, then while holding it's outside dimensions, it should alter the shape of the object going in, as long as it doesn't exceed the weight and volume limitations. Simply put, the bag itself is squeezing the object through the entrance via magical means.

Edit: There's also a scene in D&D: Book of Vile Darkness, that visually shows how things go into a bag of holding. Example; the scene where Grayson forces Vimak, a Goliath Barbarian, into a bag of holding and tosses it into a river to kill him.

[Jeraa]

Edit: There's also a scene in D&D: Book of Vile Darkness, that visually shows how things go into a bag of holding. Example; the scene where Grayson forces Vimak, a Goliath Barbarian, into a bag of holding and tosses it into a river to kill him.

The rules also say that a bag of holding is 2 feet by 4 feet, a lot bigger than shown in the movie. But then again, 4e could of changed the size of the bag.

[AvatarVecna]

I understand what you're looking for, the problem is that it doesn't exist, at least not in a way we can provide. You can argue that it should, whether for the Rule of Cool, or because it makes more sense if it works this way, but at the end of the day, it's either a matter of preference (as in the above arguments), or it's RAW. We can't change your DM's personal preference, and you've already apparently come up with a few arguments supporting the "but it should!" argument, so all that's left that we here on the forum can do is to point to something in RAW and say "it says right here that this thing works in this way".

If you're wanting arguments for why it should work the way you say, here's a few:

1) It's cooler that way.

2) It opens up new possibilities that can make puzzles and the like more interesting.

3) It doesn't make logical sense for it to not work this way.

4) Players using it this way means the DM can use it this way as well.

5) Although it's not an option by RAW, my spellcaster could pay money and XP to upgrade my BoH to be able to work that way.

There's a lot of IC and OOC arguments you could make, but that's not going to help if your DM is going off personal preference.

[Oberon Kenobi]

If you want an argument to present, you can point to the fact that there are similar items which do specify that their opening doesn't expand (e.g., Belt of Hidden Pouches), and therefore the Bag of Holding should by example specify if it follows the same rules. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so that's a really weaksauce argument.

Ultimately Vecna is right and it's your DM's call. You do not have a RAW leg to stand on, so if you want a bigger opening to work with try saving up for a Portable Hole. Or an Enveloping Pit, even better.

[JDL]

I feel your pain. I've also had the same argument with a DM in the past. At the end of the day they get to say what happens in the game, and you have to either accept it or move on to a different game.

Remember that the sack dimensions mean that anything as wide as 4 ft. (assuming the opening is on the long side) can fit inside the bag, or an object with a circumference of approximately 12.5 ft. around. That's still a significant amount. Maybe not enough to stuff a dragon corpse inside, but still enough for most types of loot.

Otherwise, just invest in a Portable Hole and ignore weight limits and size entirely.

[Necroticplague]

Well the description doesn't say that it doesn't change either. The only thing it does say is that you cannot put anything inside that exceeds it's weight or volume limitations, which are magical in origin.

The rules also don't say that humans don't have the ability to shoot DC 40 vs. death eye lasers as an at-will ray as a free action once per turn. DnD works on permissive rules; unless it says something can happen or work, it can't. So unless it specifically says it can stretch to accommodate any object within its volume or weight limitations, it can't.

[5w337x7007h]

Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. This weight, and the limits in weight and volume of the bag's contents, depend on the bag's type. This is the answer I was looking for, but I was too dumb to see it! This means it can magically alter the size of a large-sized statue so it can fit inside, as long as it's weight and volume do not exceed the bag's magical limitations. Outside it'll appear that someone is successfully stuffing a large-sized statue into a common 2' by 4' cloth sack.

If that doesn't tickle your fancy, then roll the lip of the bag down enough to where the inside is exposed, push said item inside, and it'll magically fit, because magic. Also, the bag is only non-functional when completely turned inside out.

[AvatarVecna]

Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. This weight, and the limits in weight and volume of the bag's contents, depend on the bag's type. This is the answer I was looking for, but I was too dumb to see it! This means it can magically alter the size of a large-sized statue so it can fit inside, as long as it's weight and volume do not exceed the bag's magical limitations. Outside it'll appear that someone is successfully stuffing a large-sized statue into a common 2' by 4' cloth sack.

If that doesn't tickle your fancy, then roll the lip of the bag down enough to where the inside is exposed, push said item inside, and it'll magically fit, because magic. Also, the bag is only non-functional when completely turned inside out.

Just for the sake of our curiosity, would you please let us know what your DM thinks of this argument once you present it to them?

[Oberon Kenobi]

I... don't really see how that's a fresh argument? That's literally the same thing you said in the first post:
The description states that regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. This weight, and the limits in weight and volume of the bag's contents, depend on the bag's type.

Having a set volume limit depending on type "regardless of what is put into the bag" does not actually speak towards the ability to put things in it in the first place anyway. My milk jug can hold a gallon of any fluid, which will weigh exactly nothing in zero-g regardless of what the fluid is, but I still can't fit my cat in it even though volumetrically he fits the dimensions. If I had a 55 gallon drum with a hole the same size, the same argument would apply to a shetland pony.

But hey, good luck with your argument. :smallcool:

[Cruiser1]

Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. This weight, and the limits in weight and volume of the bag's contents, depend on the bag's type. This means it can magically alter the size of a large-sized statue so it can fit inside, as long as it's weight and volume do not exceed the bag's magical limitations.
No, it doesn't. All the above says is that if an item is already inside a bag of holding, then it can be of any volume. It doesn't say that an item of arbitrary dimension can be magically squeezed through the bag's opening. For example, if you have a large deflated balloon crumpled up, then that balloon can easily fit inside the bag. Once inside, you can inflate the balloon as much as you want, and the inside of the bag will hold it. However, the inflated balloon can't be pulled out through the bag's opening unless it's deflated first.

A bag of holding measures 2' by 4'. If the opening of the bag is across the 2 foot edge, then the largest opening it allows is 4/pi = 15 inches across. However, if the opening of the bag is a slit across the 4 foot edge, then the opening can be expanded into a circle greater than 8/pi = 2.5 feet in diameter, which is enough for most anybody to fit through. If the opening is a slit from corner to opposite corner across the 2'x4' canvas (4.47 feet across) then it opens into a circle nearly 3 feet in diameter.

[5w337x7007h]

My argument is that casters wouldn't be stupid enough to overlook such an obvious flaw in magical item creation. They've got to have at least one or two items that won't fit through a hole that's nearly 3 feet in diameter, as well. And if not, the situation will come up eventually.

Here's an example; A Wizard finds a magic cauldron. He can't lift it, and it's too big for the opening of the bag of holding type IV. Shrink Item doesn't work on magical items, and if he breaks the cauldron it's magical properties cannot be restored through the spell Make Whole. Since he can't lift it, he can't use Dimension door, Teleport, or Greater Teleport, because those spells limit you to your carrying capacity, meaning he can't use them while overburdened. The only option is to leave it, which for a wizard might or might not be the best idea. Who else knows about this thing? Would it still be here when he gets back? He's got one chance to abscond with a magic cauldron and the bag he made can't hold the cauldron because of an issue that doesn't make sense. "The bag can hold it, but the opening is too small." because he didn't think he'd need to use the bag to hold something bigger than the bag is, even though the bag itself is magically enhanced to hold 25 times it's fixed weight, and 250 times the volume of it's non-magical counterpart. WTF GUYS... It's MAGIC, not LOGIC.

I guess in the end of this whole spiel, I'd prefer if my GM didn't use this kind of logic to dictate how a magic bag should work, and I'm looking for some advice that could convince him of that.

[Jeraa]

My argument is that casters wouldn't be stupid enough to overlook such an obvious flaw in magical item creation. They've got to have at least one or two items that won't fit through a hole that's nearly 3 feet in diameter, as well. And if not, the situation will come up eventually.

Here's an example; A Wizard finds a magic cauldron. He can't lift it, and it's too big for the opening of the bag of holding type IV. Shrink Item doesn't work on magical items, and if he breaks the cauldron it's magical properties cannot be restored through the spell Make Whole. Since he can't lift it, he can't use Dimension door, Teleport, or Greater Teleport, because those spells limit you to your carrying capacity, meaning he can't use them while overburdened. The only option is to leave it, which for a wizard might or might not be the best idea. Who else knows about this thing? Would it still be here when he gets back? He's got one chance to abscond with a magic cauldron and the bag he made can't hold the cauldron because of an issue that doesn't make sense. "The bag can hold it, but the opening is too small." because he didn't think he'd need to use the bag to hold something bigger than the bag is, even though the bag itself is magically enhanced to hold 25 times it's fixed weight, and 250 times the volume of it's non-magical counterpart. WTF GUYS... It's MAGIC, not LOGIC.

I guess in the end of this whole spiel, I'd prefer if my GM didn't use this kind of logic to dictate how a magic bag should work, and I'm looking for some advice that could convince him of that.

Dispel Magic (or similar) to make the item non magical for a bit, then Shrink Item. A dispelled magic item counts as a nonmagical item for 1d4 rounds. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned - Portable Holes work similar to bags of holding, but have a 6 foot diameter opening and no weight limit. And at ~283 cubic feet of volume, can hold more than the bags as well.

Magic has rules in D&D. Bags of Holding simply don't work the way you want them to.

[5w337x7007h]

Well there isn't anything on the limitations of the mouth of a bag of holding, and that's what perplexes me. This must've come up at some point, but they left it unwritten. They could've put a little sentence in saying, "The entrance of a bag of holding can accommodate for larger objects, or not, depending on your GM."

[Thurbane]

Saw this on the Paizo forums, seems like quite a good visual...

http://i59.tinypic.com/6z3l9s.jpg

[Oberon Kenobi]

Well, they didn't put in such a sentence, so as has been quite thoroughly covered by this point, it is up to your GM. You are free to argue logic with your GM, but if you're looking for rules to back you up there aren't any. You have offered an interpretation of the item description, which some have agreed with and others have not. Beyond this, I feel there is very little left to say on the matter that is not between you and your GM.

For my part, I will simply add that the Cadillac CTS, a very expensive luxury car designed by a team of engineers working for a company with decades of design experience, has doors that open exclusively by electric servo--meaning that if the batteries are dead, you can't open the doors to pop the hood to charge the battery. There is no such thing as being too smart to make bad design decisions, and that applies to wizards making magic items too.

Edit: Kensai'd by a very neat picture. I'm gonna save that one, visual references are really handy.

[Invader]

Well the description doesn't say that it doesn't change either. The only thing it does say is that you cannot put anything inside that exceeds it's weight or volume limitations, which are magical in origin.

The description doesn't say it's shoots lightning bolts and wish granting fairies out the opening either because that's not how descriptions work.

You have to assume that if an item behaves in a supernatural way it will be specifically be included in the description otherwise it behaves normally.

[Invader]

The rules also don't say that humans don't have the ability to shoot DC 40 vs. death eye lasers as an at-will ray as a free action once per turn. DnD works on permissive rules; unless it says something can happen or work, it can't. So unless it specifically says it can stretch to accommodate any object within its volume or weight limitations, it can't.

Bah, swordsaged with a different example lol.

[5w337x7007h]

Saw this on the Paizo forums, seems like quite a good visual...

http://i59.tinypic.com/6z3l9s.jpg

Wow. That's a lot smaller than I had imagined, so maybe the entrance isn't as detrimental to the item as I thought it'd be. I feel really silly for being so stubborn about the whole thing. I was gauging it's volume limit based on it's weight limit and that's why I tried standing my ground in the first place.

THANK YOU THURBANE THE VISUALIZER! You have quelled my fury and shown me the light! Portable holes are so much better.

[martixy]

Honestly it's up to the DM.

Topologically, if we assign an actual meaning to "non-dimensional space" I'd argue that it can stretch to however large the fabric can stretch, seeing as how the metric of "dimensions" loses meaning(also, existence) on one end of the "event horizon", therefore making it irrelevant to both ends.

Frickin' Science™

[Necroticplague]

My argument is that casters wouldn't be stupid enough to overlook such an obvious flaw in magical item creation. They've got to have at least one or two items that won't fit through a hole that's nearly 3 feet in diameter, as well. And if not, the situation will come up eventually.

WTF GUYS... It's MAGIC, not LOGIC.

I guess in the end of this whole spiel, I'd prefer if my GM didn't use this kind of logic to dictate how a magic bag should work, and I'm looking for some advice that could convince him of that.

That's not an argument about whether it does or doesn't, that's an meek suggestion of whether it should it should or shouldn't, and an easyily arguable one at that ("It's a limitation to to the very simple nature of the enchantment. All it does it bend space inside the bag. The outside is completely normal. A more thorough enchantment might extend it to the outside so that it can warp space to allow that kind of stretching.").

Right, it's magic, which means the only point of reference we have for what it can or can't do is what the rules say. The rules don't say it can stretch to accommodate objects larger that it's entrance, so it can't. I'm not sure where the ambiguity is in this.

You'd rather the rules not dictate how things work? What else would you think dictates how things work within a game?

[AvatarVecna]

Bags of Holding, as they currently exist, can only do precisely what the book says they can, and nothing more. If you'd like to argue that the grammatical implications of the magic item description support your argument, feel free to do so; I'm sure there's even some DMs out there that would change their minds based on that argument. But the playground doesn't seem to be accepting it as RAW, and it seems unlikely that your DM will either.

Instead of arguing about what it's capable of doing, maybe you could convince your DM to let you do magic stuff to make it work that way? Sure, a change like that might not be worth months of magical research, lots of gold spent, and XP burned to create the item, but add more changes, and it starts sounding like it's a kind of thing that's not only worth the effort, but is also an understandable upgrade. I'm talking like a bag that can hold twice as much as a type IV Bag of Holding, weighs half as much, is puncture resistant in some way (+X hardness vs piercing damage only, maybe), and the mouth of the BoH can expand to allow any item that can fit within its dimensions. That would be worth more than a standard type IV would be, and would be the kind of thing I'd love seeing my players put time and energy into researching for their mages.

[5w337x7007h]

Alright guys, I'm aware of something I was previously oblivious to.

There is a vast difference between a 250 foot cube and 250 cubic feet. I'm pretty sure I got confused because of the spells that use ft. cubes. I saw cubic ft. and somehow thought, "That means it's a 250 ft cube". And that's where I mistranslated the situation.

I am greatly sorry for wasting everyone's time on this. I also feel incredibly stupid for getting ft. cubes and cubic ft mixed up, but from now on I'll be sure to distinguish the two from each other. I'm also going to go to my GM and let him know how crazy I am, for confusing the two.

[AvatarVecna]

Alright guys, I'm aware of something I was previously oblivious to.

There is a vast difference between a 250 foot cube and 250 cubic feet. I'm pretty sure I got confused because of the spells that use ft. cubes. I saw cubic ft. and somehow thought, "That means it's a 250 ft cube". And that's where I mistranslated the situation.

I am greatly sorry for wasting everyone's time on this. I also feel incredibly stupid for getting ft. cubes and cubic ft mixed up.

Oh yeah, that's a huge difference.