Is Heward's Handy Haversack underpriced?

[Feldar]

The subject line says it all.

The basic premise here is that when it's so good that you can't imagine not having it, it's either too cheap or too powerful.

For a mere 2000g you can have wondrous carrying capacity with no attacks of opportunity from retrieving stored items. How many of you know a player who does not have one for a character willingly (not because they can't afford it, and not because they haven't found one and the DM keeps storage capacity under control)? I'm gonna bet that answer is in the low single digits.

Putting aside rules for magical item cost, at what price would players start questioning whether or not to buy a handy haversack?

[Cerefel]

I don't think the haversack is popular because it's powerful, it's popular because it's convenient. It doesn't tend to have a huge impact on encounter winrate or resource expenditure, but it does make item retrieval much less complicated. I also suspect that if the price was much higher, almost nobody would use it at all (e.g. glove of storing). The haversack is fine as-is, and there's no real reason to change it.

[rrwoods]

I spent some time trying to think about what it is I disagree with in the premise, and what I came to is this:

It’s possible that the reason an item is ubiquitous is because it’s “too” powerful/cheap. But, I think, that conclusion requires an additional component: the presence of alternatives. That is, it can be the clear winner in almost all cases as opposed to other options that solve the same problem.

But, are there any options that try to compete with the Haversack? A bag of holding, maybe, but it doesn’t really do the same thing. I think that if your goal is to reduce the Haversack’s ubiquity, the answer is to create a competitive alternative, not to increase its cost or decrease its utility.

The other perspective — one I don’t hold but nonetheless recognize as valid — is that the capability the ubiquitous option provides is undesirable on its face. In that case, the solution isn’t to make the option less attractive, but rather to ban it.

[Feldar]

I am compelled to point out that I mentioned neither banning the object nor changing its cost. I merely asked a question about when it would no longer become an automatic purchase.

I would also add that there are existing alternatives, including the backpack, the bag, the bag of holding, and the portable hole. One of the players in my campaign carries around a box, which isn't even listed on the gear lists.

[Troacctid]

I can easily imagine not having it. In fact, I hardly ever buy it. The main reason you'd want it is to avoid the bookkeeping of tracking encumbrance. However, it introduces a whole different style of bookkeeping, because now you're tracking a long inventory sheet full of situational items that you'll probably never use. And, I mean, that style of gameplay can be fun once in a while, but I don't want it to be every single character I play. Plus, it only takes one person in the party with 20 Strength to just carry all that crap the normal way, as long as you leave out the stupid heavy stuff like ladders and portable rams.

Don't get me wrong, it's one of the best extradimensional storage items. I just don't think extradimensional storage, generally speaking, is that important—and in the instances where it is important, it's still only the second or third best option.

Bottom line: correctly priced, and not overpowered.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Along with the "no other alternatives for an item of convenience" point made above is that most magic items are way too expensive for what they do. WAY too expensive. Like, ridiculously so. And apparently the devs agreed, considering how much cheaper magic items were later in 3.5's lifecycle. Just look at the MIC. Tons of inexpensive magic items that oftentimes do more and better than items you can find from early supplements like the DMG.

So it's not that it's underpriced; it's that most other things are way overpriced. You know you've got issues when you're charging 20,000 gp for a single +1 to some d20 rolls. Or three times that for a monk item.

[rrwoods]

I interpreted your “at what price” question to mean that you wanted to know what price to assign the item.

I argue that the alternatives that you mention do not serve the same function as the haversack. At least, in my experience, there is a difference-in-kind (not just in-strength) between haversack and every other “option”. Depending on how the game is run, that might not be true; in those cases yes the other options (as you pointed out) already compete, so my answer to the original question is “2,000 gp”.

[Maat Mons]

I don't think that an item being popular necessarily means that it's underpriced. I mean, very nearly every character wears clothing. Should we eliminate the "one free set of clothes" rule, and increase the cost of all the outfits until players start to seriously consider the merits of nudity?

It's okay if there are some things that everyone is just expected to have after a certain point. Actually, I'd argue for some ubiquitous magic items being made even cheaper, or maybe free. Cloak of Resistance, I'm looking at you! Just give me a scaling bonus to saves built into the level progression already. I don't want to have to hit up magic marts between adventures just to keep my numbers where they should be.

A universal truth of games is that inventory management is not gameplay. It's a distraction from gameplay. Just like eating, sleeping, repairing equipment, crafting and gathering, including it in a game only serves to make the game worse. Every game designer who has ever included one of those elements in their games needs to sit in a corner and think about what they've done.

Really, D&D should start in a place where you never need to bother thinking about how much your equipment weighs. The Handy Haversack gets you closer to that place faster. It is undeniably a good.

[Harrow]

I think I have a problem with the original question. Player wealth is not static. If everyone only played at a particular level and had to choose a load-out that they couldn't modify afterwards, then the question of "at what price would you consider not getting one" would apply. Because, as it stands, it's more like a flow chart. "Do you want this item?" If "No" then price doesn't matter, because you wouldn't bother writing it on your character sheet if it was free. If "Yes" then that means you're going to pick it up as soon as it's reasonably affordable, meaning when you already have what you need of essential +numbers items and anything necessary for your build to function with enough money left over to cover the cost of the item.

Basically, it's about when players can afford an item, not if.

I had a similar thought recently about the Anklets of Translocation. I would buy them for literally every character I play. When I realized that, I had to ask if the item was overpowered or underpriced. After all, if every MtG deck I build uses a particular card, then it's likely to good for my local meta and I should stop using it. "Shouldn't the same logic apply here?" I thought to myself. Then I realized, swift action movement + escaping from a grapple, both with no other requirements for activation or use? I would buy that on every character regardless of the price, if I had the money to afford it. It wasn't a matter of if I would pick them up, but when. So, the effect is just too good to pass up on. Does that make it broken? Not really. If your campaign falls apart because the Sorcerer can escape a couple grapples a day or because they have an extra large backpack that they can dig through as a move action, then the campaign wasn't going to last very long anyway.

That was a wall of text to answer your question with my own. What level do you think is appropriate for an adventurer to pick up some extradimensional space?

[liquidformat]

First off I quite often take portable hole over HHH after level 10, and most artificers always take portable hole over HHH once they can afford it. Also Efficient Quiver is very similar to Heward's Handy Haversack in cost and functionality.

I spent some time trying to think about what it is I disagree with in the premise, and what I came to is this:

It’s possible that the reason an item is ubiquitous is because it’s “too” powerful/cheap. But, I think, that conclusion requires an additional component: the presence of alternatives. That is, it can be the clear winner in almost all cases as opposed to other options that solve the same problem.

But, are there any options that try to compete with the Haversack? A bag of holding, maybe, but it doesn’t really do the same thing. I think that if your goal is to reduce the Haversack’s ubiquity, the answer is to create a competitive alternative, not to increase its cost or decrease its utility.

The other perspective — one I don’t hold but nonetheless recognize as valid — is that the capability the ubiquitous option provides is undesirable on its face. In that case, the solution isn’t to make the option less attractive, but rather to ban it.

To be honest you really have five items(technically seven) competing for the same function with some variation between them and they are: Bag of Holding I-IV, Efficient Quiver, Glove of Storing, Heward's Handy Haversack, and Portable Hole. Lets compare them to see how they shape up:




Item
Item Weight
Content Weight
Content Volume
Market Price(gp)
Storage Cost
Storage Mass
Note



BTI
15lb
250lb
30c.ft.
2,500
.1(.012)
17
NA


BTII
25lb
500lb
70c.ft.
5,000
.1(.014)
20
NA


BTIII
35lb
1,000lb
150c.ft.
7,400
.13(.02)
29
NA


BTIV
60lb
1,500lb
250c.ft.
10,000
.15(.025)
25
NA


EQ
2lb
~99lb
-
1,800
.06(-)
50
1 item free/move action retrieve/store


GoS
-
20lb
-
10,000
.002(-)
20
1 item free action retrieve/store


HHH
5lb
120lb
12c.ft.
2,000
.06(.006)
24
move action retrieve


PH
-
-
1,131c.ft.
20,000
-(.057)
var
10 min air


*storage to cost ratio I looked at by lb/gp (c.ft./go).
EQ space for items similarly sized to javalins and bows is a bit ambiguous in what would actually fit in each space so I guestimated 99lb though the actual amount could be more or less.

Anyways the EG and HHH look inline with each other both by cost, weight, and functionality; GoS should probably be priced similarly priced to EG and HHH.

The Bags are rather screwy. Bag type III and IV compare badly to Portable holes as they are comparatively more expensive storage capacity to cost ratio, have less functionality since portable hole can be leveraged to be army storage or a workshop, and weigh too much. Enter PH price wrong the Bags type III&IV are still not great in comparison, however, it is only a difference around a factor of 3 now which is much more reasonable. On the other hand Bag Type I and II while they seem similarly to EQ and HHH on paper end up being carrying capacity prohibitive since most characters can fit their 'baggage items' within 70-120lb and adding on the extra 10-20lb in carry weight shoots them in the foot. In actuality the total equipment weight a level 1 and level 20 character need carry don't change much so cheaper lighter options like EQ and HHH are always a better choice, especially since they have the added functionality when removing items...

On a side note PH is still the best choice based on price and in comparison the HHH is off when comparing storage capacity to price by around a factor of 10, so you would expect to have a capacity of around 110c.ft. for a 2k gp price tag.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

A universal truth of games is that inventory management is not gameplay. It's a distraction from gameplay. Just like eating, sleeping, repairing equipment, crafting and gathering, including it in a game only serves to make the game worse. Every game designer who has ever included one of those elements in their games needs to sit in a corner and think about what they've done.

The survival genre says "Hi". Take away gathering, crafting, eating, drinking, repairing, and oxygen management from, say, Subnautica, and you end up with a game that isn't Subnautica anymore. Also a game that can barely claim to be a game, since it lacks almost any challenge between you and your goals.

With regards to D&D, I'm all for including things like weight and inventory management in the books, because it's way easier to ignore it and play without those rules than it is to try and create those stats if you do want to play the kind of game that tracks those things.

[Fizban]

The subject line says it all.

The basic premise here is that when it's so good that you can't imagine not having it, it's either too cheap or too powerful.

For a mere 2000g you can have wondrous carrying capacity with no attacks of opportunity from retrieving stored items. How many of you know a player who does not have one for a character willingly (not because they can't afford it, and not because they haven't found one and the DM keeps storage capacity under control)? I'm gonna bet that answer is in the low single digits.
Yup, that's about right. I'm pretty sure the idea is supposed to be that the Bag of Holding type 1 carries more loot, but since loot is valued by magic and gems and no one tracks coin weight, there's just no incentive for the Bag. The convenience is simply too great, and there are no other storage items to compare to.

If you do track coin weight, and the PCs have to actually buy magic items with coins: 2,000 gold pieces is 40lbs of gold. Even converting to platinum, mid-level adventurers will need magical storage just to do business. And if you charge a 10% exchange rate for converting to and from gems (pretty sure that's an official suggestion for money changing), then they'll really not want to have to convert their cash twice just to carry it around. And even at lower levels, random treasure hoards can contain hundreds or thousands of copper and silver pieces.

Putting aside rules for magical item cost, at what price would players start questioning whether or not to buy a handy haversack?
The thing to remember is that even the Haversack isn't seriously affordable until at least 5th level, when WBL gets high enough that 2,000gp isn't nearly half your gear. If you actually have to play through those levels, and you aren't handed one by the DM, even if you can afford it, choosing when it's time to stop buying actual upgrades and get magical storage when you could just keep feeding mules to the grinder, is a bit of a big decision. Further, archer characters might want an Efficient Quiver at nearly the same price, and decide to put off the Haversack yet further (though the only real benefit of the Quiver is being able to draw your longbow or staff collection from storage quickly).

What price would make people question the Haversack? Look at the few other storage items that exist, which people still pass up because the Haversack is too stronk, and you'll find a price of 5,000gp on the Ring of Arming and Belt of Hidden Pouches in their MiC versions. Kick the Haversack up to 4 or 5,000, and you should have people looking at other options, whether it's the Bag Type 1 or Belt.

And speaking of pricing- if you want to fix the fact that all these 2-5,000gp storage items use a 5th level spell with a 5,000gp focus etc as their prerequisite, making them even more ludicrously underpriced, change the prerequisite to Shrink Item.

As for being neccesary- characters with str 10 or less often start eating speed penalties just for carrying their food, water, bedroll, light armor, and clothing. Even if you have a mule or major Bag or Portable Hole, having any amount of emergency supplies on your person for emergencies, can still be prohibitive enough to make the Haversack near-mandatory.

Regarding various other items:

Glove of Storing was originally 2,000gp or so, making it much more competitive. The massive increase should suggest the free action convenience is what they're punishing, but the Haversack stayed the same.
People often seem to forget that the Portable Hole is 10 feet deep, making retrieving something very non-trivial.
Belt of Hidden Pouches was originally priced at 11,000gp or so, so only a fairly simple 50% cut down to around double the comparable PHB items. I don't recall what Ring of Arming's original price was.
There's also a Cloak of Weaponry, but it has to compete with other cloaks and holds only one weapon up to Medium size (so, a two hander?) with swift action retrieval, which is better or worse than the original depending on Quick Draw/other swift items you have.

[Maat Mons]

{scrubbed}

Anyway, if you take away all the terrible parts of something, and what you're left with doesn't at all resemble the original, good. And if you take away all the terrible parts of something, and you're left with nothing, or at least nothing of any substance, that means the original thing should never have existed in the first place.

[Gnaeus]

I think other people may be trying to say this, but.

If something is near mandatory, that begs the question, is it good for the game.

I think relieving mundane item tedium for high level characters is good for the game.

So it is, in fact OVERPRICED. By 2000 GP. Just tell every player a haversack is a class feature at level 6.

[Zanos]

No, I don't think it's underpriced.

Almost anyone that hits something with a weapon will want a +1 weapon because a weapon counting as magical is very necessary as you face enemies that you need magic weapons to hurt. If every character has a +1 weapon, is +1 overpowered? Probably not, it's just something the game expects you to have at some point. There's a pretty large number of items that I consider 'essential' for the majority of adventurers. Mundane equipment for starters, like rope, a light source, grappling hooks, a horse. Then for magic items you've got your healing, storage, your +1 weapons and armor.

Anyway, I don't think torches are overpowered.

[Crake]

I spent some time trying to think about what it is I disagree with in the premise, and what I came to is this:

It’s possible that the reason an item is ubiquitous is because it’s “too” powerful/cheap. But, I think, that conclusion requires an additional component: the presence of alternatives. That is, it can be the clear winner in almost all cases as opposed to other options that solve the same problem.

But, are there any options that try to compete with the Haversack? A bag of holding, maybe, but it doesn’t really do the same thing. I think that if your goal is to reduce the Haversack’s ubiquity, the answer is to create a competitive alternative, not to increase its cost or decrease its utility.

The other perspective — one I don’t hold but nonetheless recognize as valid — is that the capability the ubiquitous option provides is undesirable on its face. In that case, the solution isn’t to make the option less attractive, but rather to ban it.

Belt of Many Pouches from Complete Arcane has 64 1 cubic foot pouches, with the same ability to retrieve items as a move action without provoking as a haversack, but with the added benefit of letting your familiar hop inside with all the benefits of a familiar pouch spell. I believe it runs for 8000gp off the top of my head 11,000gp actually, and is a very useful way to keep your familiar safe while having a lot of discreet storage space (the 64 pouches only look like 8 on the outside, each pouch actually accessing 8 different pouches)

Fair bit more expensive, but indispensable for keeping your familiar safe when you want them hidden and away.

[InvisibleBison]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Perhaps because they have different tastes than you, and don't find survival games to be tedious.

[Maat Mons]

{scrubbed}

[Feldar]

Belt of Many Pouches from Complete Arcane has 64 1 cubic foot pouches, with the same ability to retrieve items as a move action without provoking as a haversack, but with the added benefit of letting your familiar hop inside with all the benefits of a familiar pouch spell. I believe it runs for 8000gp off the top of my head 11,000gp actually, and is a very useful way to keep your familiar safe while having a lot of discreet storage space (the 64 pouches only look like 8 on the outside, each pouch actually accessing 8 different pouches)

Fair bit more expensive, but indispensable for keeping your familiar safe when you want them hidden and away.

This particular example is better than the haversack (albeit at a lower capacity) but costs 5.5 times as much! The only difference is the familiar ability, which frankly helps only a small percentage of characters.

What I got from all this is that storage items are wildly inconsistent in pricing. It does feel like 5k is a better price point for the haversack considering the significance of not having to search through the item and being able to avoid attacks of opportunity.


I don't think the haversack is popular because it's powerful, it's popular because it's convenient. It doesn't tend to have a huge impact on encounter winrate or resource expenditure, but it does make item retrieval much less complicated. I also suspect that if the price was much higher, almost nobody would use it at all (e.g. glove of storing). The haversack is fine as-is, and there's no real reason to change it.
I disagree sort of -- being able to carry more miscellany probably leads to easier victory in a third of encounters, but that is just an estimate with no actual statistics to back it up. Without the haversack, the character probably spends a round searching the backpack and the bad guys get a freebie round to win/escape.

I get Gnaeus' position as well -- the last thing I want to spend game time on is encumbrance, but I also want a semblance of realism and to reward good preparation.

Thanks everyone for the great discussion!

[Arkhios]

Compared to even the slightest Bag of Holding, Haversack's capacity is quite meager. 80 lb. + 20 lb. + 20 lb. is less than half of (read: NOTHING compared to) Bag of Holding Type I's 250 lb.

Except you can't "combine" those compartments as one big whole.

If anything, Haversack is overpriced.

[Cerefel]

I disagree sort of -- being able to carry more miscellany probably leads to easier victory in a third of encounters, but that is just an estimate with no actual statistics to back it up. Without the haversack, the character probably spends a round searching the backpack and the bad guys get a freebie round to win/escape.

A THIRD of the time you're in encounters wherein you would lose if you didn't dig a particular item out of your backpack?? :smalleek:

[Fizban]

This particular example is better than the haversack (albeit at a lower capacity) but costs 5.5 times as much! The only difference is the familiar ability, which frankly helps only a small percentage of characters.

What I got from all this is that storage items are wildly inconsistent in pricing. It does feel like 5k is a better price point for the haversack considering the significance of not having to search through the item and being able to avoid attacks of opportunity.
The item was originally printed in Tome and Blood, and even used as an explicit breakdown of a pricing process. The 640lbs of gear it holds is actually greater than the Bag Type 2, which is 5,000gp. It also has a continuous Familiar Pocket effect, which was 2nd level when first printed, for another 12,000gp. And they even thought about finding stored gear as Locate Object at-will, for another 12,000gp.

And then immediately throw that out because the price is obviously way too high- and go with a completely arbitrary price of 5,000gp for the bag, and then 1/4 of the other given functions, which has nothing to do with anything. Making the example completely useless.

Meanwhile the Handy Haversack was already a 3.0 item. So the comparison should have been Bag 2 for 500lbs, Haversack for another 120 (close enough for the 8x8x10) plus gear sort, which is 7,000gp. Then ignore the Familiar Pocket effect cost as a freebie consequence of "but my familiar hides in my backpack, it should be able to hide in my belt of holding" logic.

Or at the SpC level of 1st, continuous Familiar Pocket is a mere 2,000gp. On top of what is basically a Bag 2 and Haversack, so even without multiple function markups it should still be 9,000gp (and weigh 30lbs, ha).

No matter how you price it, MiC is still giving it a discount at 5,000gp, or so it would seem- but MiC cuts the total weight down to 150lbs, much closer to the Haversack, and with pockets so small that fitting things is a real concern. A Haversack with continuous Familiar Pocket is. . . exactly 5,000gp with the standard multi-function markup.

However, MiC makes no note of the Familiar Pocket function, so they're actually just charging 5,000gp for what they've brought down to roughly equivalent to the Haversack. Maybe the point is supposed to be that the oh so hidden pockets are worth a massive markup? But it's a magic belt with pockets, that's not exactly subtle, and the Haversack is a backpack- stealing something out of the bottom of a backpack is basically impossible, so the contents are already safe, with only the wearer having the easy retrieval.

Want another item to compare to? Consider the fact that Shrink Item can shrink "a fire and its fuel," and realize that you should be able to Shrink a bag or chest and its contents. A 1/day item of Shrink Item is 6,000gp or 5,400gp for 10 cubic feet. Which is 80 gallons or around 640lbs of water (or several tons of gold, depending on how closely packed it is), for example. No convenience in combat, but supreme weight capacity.

Compared to even the slightest Bag of Holding, Haversack's capacity is quite meager. 80 lb. + 20 lb. + 20 lb. is less than half of (read: NOTHING compared to) Bag of Holding Type I's 250 lb.

Except you can't "combine" those compartments as one big whole.
Not having all your stuff rolling around in a single pile is a downside? Half the capacity for perfect retrieval is a bargain. Unless your DM is giving you 100lb+ statues as required loot, there is no situation you actually need the Bag to fit something. And it weighs 1/3 as much, when one of the major reasons people take the Haversack is that Bag 1 is 15lbs and their puny arms can't carry it.

Unless the problem is that you expect or need to carry bodies around?

[Elkad]

It was a 1.0 or 2.0 item actually. In some module. Tsojcanth? ToEE?

In my group it was a groundbreaking discovery when we found one and only one many years ago. A party member died over the dispute for who got it (and then the winner concealed the fact he had it for many sessions).

The basic version we have in 3.5 doesn't actually hold all that much. Oh the volume and sorting is nice, but you could fit 120lbs of water in a modern pack. (of course it would weigh 120lbs, not 5 - which matters to the wizard, but not the fighter)

[liquidformat]

I disagree sort of -- being able to carry more miscellany probably leads to easier victory in a third of encounters, but that is just an estimate with no actual statistics to back it up. Without the haversack, the character probably spends a round searching the backpack and the bad guys get a freebie round to win/escape.


I have been playing 3.0 and 3.5 since they respectively came out and I can count on one hand the number of times the HHH's ability to always have the item you want on top played a factor in an encounter... With things like wand chambers and weapon capsules there isn't often a need to get into your bag during combat. I guess if you are a rogue thrower focusing on splash weapons like acid and alchemist fire that might be true but I have never thought those were worth the price tag to be used like that...

For me the HHH is a better choice than bag I or II because it only weighs 5lb compared to 15lb or 25lb. Having to eat the extra 10-20lb is where the value of the bag comes in. Quite often the group has a cart or some pack mules for hauling treasure and what not. There are also saddlebags of holding if I recall, I thin they are in the A&EG but would have to look, AFB at the moment.

[Feldar]

A THIRD of the time you're in encounters wherein you would lose if you didn't dig a particular item out of your backpack?? :smalleek:

I did say it's an estimate with no stats to back it up. I also did not say lose -- I said the bad guys get another action up, whether that be trying to win or trying to escape. The haversack gives you the move action that you would spend searching for free, and actions count (even move actions). (I might even be wrong -- maybe it's a full round action to search for a stored item in a backpack. Trying to find it.)


I have been playing 3.0 and 3.5 since they respectively came out and I can count on one hand the number of times the HHH's ability to always have the item you want on top played a factor in an encounter... With things like wand chambers and weapon capsules there isn't often a need to get into your bag during combat. I guess if you are a rogue thrower focusing on splash weapons like acid and alchemist fire that might be true but I have never thought those were worth the price tag to be used like that...

I never said it was a top factor. I said it's a far more common factor than folks estimate, precisely because people have gotten so used to taking the "find this in my backpack" action for granted.

If you wait until the party enters the forbiddance and then make them list where they're carrying each item, lo and behold it's not as much of an issue. Suddenly all the stuff they need is not in the Heward's...


For me the HHH is a better choice than bag I or II because it only weighs 5lb compared to 15lb or 25lb. Having to eat the extra 10-20lb is where the value of the bag comes in. Quite often the group has a cart or some pack mules for hauling treasure and what not. There are also saddlebags of holding if I recall, I thin they are in the A&EG but would have to look, AFB at the moment.
I believe that's correct. When I dropped those in a current game the party fought over them for an hour before giving them to the bard. They always seem popular.


It was a 1.0 or 2.0 item actually. In some module. Tsojcanth? ToEE?

In my group it was a groundbreaking discovery when we found one and only one many years ago. A party member died over the dispute for who got it (and then the winner concealed the fact he had it for many sessions).

The basic version we have in 3.5 doesn't actually hold all that much. Oh the volume and sorting is nice, but you could fit 120lbs of water in a modern pack. (of course it would weigh 120lbs, not 5 - which matters to the wizard, but not the fighter)

As someone who has trained for backpacking and backpacked for weeks, I can tell you that 120 pounds is a very heavy pack!

[liquidformat]

the idea you would actually try and fight with a 120lb pack on your back is a glaring inaccuracy if you are even going for any sort of realism. even trying to fight with 40lb in a pack on your back is going to dramatically reduce your capability. but in the end it is a game so there is always some handwaving with things.

The two things you are really paying for with the haversack is 1 that it is only 5lb and two is the move action retrieval. However, in most games I have played in the move action retrieval is moot and is even granted to things like the portable hole. So it really depends on your dm whether that retravel is moot or not but most of the time I think it is.

On the other hand as I said above the portable hole is much superior to the bag 3&4 and using the capacity to cost ratio I put in above, if you were to size down a portable hole to 2k gp you would expect to get a volumetric capacity of 226 cu.ft. which is almost the capacity of a bag type IV. By that logic the HHH is questionably overpriced as are the bags of holding compared to the portable hole...

[Maat Mons]

Oh good lord! Did someone actually take me seriously?

Can I get a show of hands? How many people recognized that what I said was a joke, and a parody of intolerant gamers?

Or did I upset people who actually hate those who like different things than they do? Because they were the one's who were the butt of my joke.

People, I've sunk far more hours than I care to think about into Terraria.

[liquidformat]

Oh good lord! Did someone actually take me seriously?

Can I get a show of hands? How many people recognized that what I said was a joke, and a parody of intolerant gamers?

Or did I upset people who actually hate those who like different things than they do? Because they were the one's who were the butt of my joke.

People, I've sunk far more hours than I care to think about into Terraria.

To be fair I was on the fence whether you were joking or not because of the lack of blue text.... <(") tone can be hard in forums...

[Maat Mons]

I've never really gone in for the blue text approach. I understand that lack of tone hurts. I try to make up for it by making the joke-viewpoint even more ridiculous than I would in speech. I figure if it's silly enough, no one could possibly think I'm serious.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Oh good lord! Did someone actually take me seriously?

Can I get a show of hands? How many people recognized that what I said was a joke, and a parody of intolerant gamers?

Or did I upset people who actually hate those who like different things than they do? Because they were the one's who were the butt of my joke.

People, I've sunk far more hours than I care to think about into Terraria.

For what it's worth, I laughed at the third post. The 2nd one, I assumed you were serious.

[Crake]

This particular example is better than the haversack (albeit at a lower capacity) but costs 5.5 times as much! The only difference is the familiar ability, which frankly helps only a small percentage of characters.

What I got from all this is that storage items are wildly inconsistent in pricing. It does feel like 5k is a better price point for the haversack considering the significance of not having to search through the item and being able to avoid attacks of opportunity.

If you go by the item guidelines, an item that was nothing but a familiar pocket would cost 2*3*2000gp, or 12,000gp on it's own, so it's hard to really reverse engineer how much the belt would cost on it's own without that functionality.

[icefractal]

While I like the idea of the faster access time, in practice it's pretty rare to ever be retrieving something in combat. Even when I played an alchemist-type, and had a whole selection of alchemical stuff to throw, it became very niche after the first few levels, and usually even if I was using it I'd take it out in advance so my Unseen Servant could hand it to me as needed.

The low weight is nice though, and sometimes it's logistically difficult to use a Portable Hole (no flat surface to spread it out, for example, or trying to retrieve something while moving), so I find a HHH+PH (or Enveloping Pit) combo to be a good mix once it's affordable.

[Elkad]

As someone who has trained for backpacking and backpacked for weeks, I can tell you that 120 pounds is a very heavy pack!

As someone who carried a pack in the Airborne Infantry, that's about the average load for an approach march.

A 2017 Government Accountability Office report identified Marine loads of 90 to 159 pounds, with an average of 117 pounds, and Army loads of 96 to 140 pounds, with an average of 119 pounds.
I was an assistant machine gunner for a few months, then a machine gunner the rest of my 4 years, which put me on the upper end of that. And at 5'11" and 142lbs, it was literally my own body weight. With maybe a 13str.
On the way to the plane with 50lbs of parachute and reserve on top of that, I was in the 'stagger at 5'/rnd' category on flat asphalt, and be physically incapable of walking up the ramp into the back of the plane unassisted.


the idea you would actually try and fight with a 120lb pack on your back is a glaring inaccuracy if you are even going for any sort of realism. even trying to fight with 40lb in a pack on your back is going to dramatically reduce your capability. but in the end it is a game so there is always some handwaving with things.

You drop your pack when you roll initiative - for the movement speed if nothing else. And yes, that occasionally leads to shenanigans where someone tries to make off with it, or you need something in it and you left it 180' thataway.

IRL, Army packs have quick releases on the shoulder straps. And you never use the kidney belt, just let the pad ride on your web belt as a substitute. Pull 2 tabs and your pack is gone.

See here for more.
https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/the-soldiers-heavy-load-1

[Darg]

After reading this thread I have to ask, does any one know what a bag of holding looks like and how it is held?


Bag of Holding: This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size.

A cloth sack. 2 feet wide by 4 feet deep. It would have a simple draw string, not straps to wear. At all times you would be holding it with a hand, probably swung over the shoulder like Santa's bag of holding. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather not have to drop the bag every time I have to fight. Haversack is the superior item for combat access hands down.

The smart thing is to combine them like you can in 3.5, at least as far as I am aware. Carry the haversack, put a bag of holding in the large space so you can leave the smaller spaces for quick access things like potions or some such and pull out the BoH for when you need a mule.

[Elkad]

After reading this thread I have to ask, does any one know what a bag of holding looks like and how it is held?

image search a US Military laundry bag - that's what I picture.

Or a 100lb sack of beans, minus the beans. You don't get a drawstring that way, you just twist up the top.

[Crake]

After reading this thread I have to ask, does any one know what a bag of holding looks like and how it is held?



A cloth sack. 2 feet wide by 4 feet deep. It would have a simple draw string, not straps to wear. At all times you would be holding it with a hand, probably swung over the shoulder like Santa's bag of holding. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather not have to drop the bag every time I have to fight. Haversack is the superior item for combat access hands down.

The smart thing is to combine them like you can in 3.5, at least as far as I am aware. Carry the haversack, put a bag of holding in the large space so you can leave the smaller spaces for quick access things like potions or some such and pull out the BoH for when you need a mule.

I usually put my bag of holding inside a mundane backpack.

[Telonius]

Personally I issue one haversack to each adventurer at level 1, for free, not counting against WBL. Encumbrance for every fiddly little thing is annoying to track, and it slows down the game. ("Okay, who has room to carry anything? Fighter's already carrying 300 pounds of gear... wait, which of that stuff is yours?") Not tracking it at all wrecks suspension of disbelief. Giving everybody a semi-plausible magical hammerspace (at least for basic stuff) is the best compromise I can think of.

So, no, not overpriced at 2000gp.

[Vaern]

math
Can I get some numbers on the enveloping pit while you're at it, just for the sake of curiosity? Granted, it's intended to be used as a portable pitfall trap rather than as a means of storage, but it is described as functioning as a larger, cheaper portable hole and could be used for storage as such if so desired.


At all times you would be holding it with a hand

That's why it's called a Bag of Holding.
Since it's described as a sack I've always just imagined it as looking like a burlap potato sack. No reason you couldn't stash it inside of a regular backpack or something, though, aside from the fact that they get particularly heavy as you get to higher tiers of bags.

Is the Handy Haversack underpriced? No, not really.
It costs 4/5 what a Bag of Holding I does for roughly 1/3 the effect in regards to volume and at 1/3 the carry weight. It is comparatively more expensive for what it does, but the extra little benefits it carries just make it much more convenient.
It's essentially like paying $0.75 for a 12-oz can of Mtn Dew to crack open in the car on the way home from the grocery store, even though the 2-litres are on sale for $0.99 a few aisles away from the checkout. The 2-litre is an objectively better deal in terms of cost over volume, but the 12-oz is much easier to carry and handle - especially on the go.
There's still plenty of reason to get a regular bag of holding, of course. Every once in a while you encounter that odd creature who drops, say, 11,000 copper pieces. As you get up to higher levels you can also expect enemies to start dropping larger and larger amounts of art and magic items that you don't necessarily need or want. The haversack is good to have for stuff that you actually need to have on you when adventuring; the bag of holding is useful for bulk storage of stuff that you don't necessarily need, but is valuable enough that you can't reasonably leave it behind. It's essentially a portable storage unit that can be used to carry around your old junk until it's convenient to get rid of it.

[liquidformat]

Can I get some numbers on the enveloping pit while you're at it, just for the sake of curiosity? Granted, it's intended to be used as a portable pitfall trap rather than as a means of storage, but it is described as functioning as a larger, cheaper portable hole and could be used for storage as such if so desired.


Enveloping Pit: So from my reading the pit is a 10'/10'/50' pit, and those numbers are used in my calcs.


Item
Item Weight
Content Weight
Content Volume
Market Price(gp)
Storage Cost
Storage Mass
Note



EP
-
-
5,000c.ft.
3,600
-(1.389)
-
NA



All considering I think it is way underpriced, it is a portable hole but functionally much better (by a factor of ~10) for less than half the price. I don't quite understand the alignment comments. If it were something like only some one with lawful evil, lawful neutral, or neutral evil are capable of activating an enveloping pit sure it would make sense but as written I don't see a meaningful difference in its functionality if you aren't lawful evil, lawful neutral, or neutral evil...

[Vaern]

Enveloping Pit: So from my reading the pit is a 10'/10'/50' pit, and those numbers are used in my calcs.


Item
Item Weight
Content Weight
Content Volume
Market Price(gp)
Storage Cost
Storage Mass
Note



EP
-
-
5,000c.ft.
3,600
-(1.389)
-
NA



All considering I think it is way underpriced, it is a portable hole but functionally much better (by a factor of ~10) for less than half the price. I don't quite understand the alignment comments. If it were something like only some one with lawful evil, lawful neutral, or neutral evil are capable of activating an enveloping pit sure it would make sense but as written I don't see a meaningful difference in its functionality if you aren't lawful evil, lawful neutral, or neutral evil...

The price difference is a bit more ridiculous... Everything I'm seeing on the Portable Hole shows it as being 20k - DMG, SRD, and PFSRD - but your table only have it listed at half that. The enveloping pit is closer to 1/6 the portable hole's cost, rather than just being less than half the price.

It does say that it functions as a larger portable hole for someone with those particular alignments, so presumably it doesn't function at all for someone who is chaotic, good, or true neutral (unless they have UMD). They also need to worship Kurtulmak and have a divine connection to use the bonus ability to make it spring open from a distance. While there is no race restriction, the deity and alignment requirements are basically tailor-made to ensure that particularly devoted kobolds are the only ones who are going to be using the item to its full potential (though it can still be immensely useful to any lawful, evil, or lawful evil character in general without that bonus ability).
Aside from the restrictions on its abilities, I'm sure a large part of the price difference is the intent of the item even if the two are functionally similar. A portable hole is meant to be used as storage, while the enveloping pit is written to be used as a trap. It would actually be somewhat impractical to use a 50-foot pit just for storage, especially for a non-caster. You could reasonably hop into a 10-foot-deep portable hole and expect to be able to pull yourself out without too much trouble, but for a 50-foot enveloping pit you'd pretty much have to have spider climb or fly readily available at any time you wanted to retrieve something to ensure you don't injure yourself or end up trapped in the pit yourself.

[Troacctid]

It would actually be somewhat impractical to use a 50-foot pit just for storage, especially for a non-caster. You could reasonably hop into a 10-foot-deep portable hole and expect to be able to pull yourself out without too much trouble, but for a 50-foot enveloping pit you'd pretty much have to have spider climb or fly readily available at any time you wanted to retrieve something to ensure you don't injure yourself or end up trapped in the pit yourself.
That's why you put it on a vertical surface. Now it's a 50-foot hallway.

[Darg]

No reason you couldn't stash it inside of a regular backpack or something, though, aside from the fact that they get particularly heavy as you get to higher tiers of bags.

2x4 ft is quite large to fit in a normal backpack. It's taller than some dwarves and almost as tall as some humans.

[Vaern]

2x4 ft is quite large to fit in a normal backpack. It's taller than some dwarves and almost as tall as some humans.
There's nothing saying that the bag has any bulk as though there was anything inside it, and since the storage space is extradimensional it would make sense for the item itself to appear and act as though it were empty. I'd guess you could fold it up like an ordinary empty sack made from weirdly heavy fabric. But I suppose that's a DM call.


That's why you put it on a vertical surface. Now it's a 50-foot hallway.
Fair enough, though it's arguable if it would work with the enveloping pit. It says that the opening stops if it hits a wall or similar obstruction, and makes mention of the opening being as small as 1 foot in diameter when folded and placed on the ground. The portable hole doesn't have anything of the sort in the description, though the enveloping pit has some context in its description to indicate that it's meant to be opened on a horizontal surface.

[vasilidor]

a great many magic items are overpriced in the game already. the handy haversack is not among them.

[liquidformat]

The price difference is a bit more ridiculous... Everything I'm seeing on the Portable Hole shows it as being 20k - DMG, SRD, and PFSRD - but your table only have it listed at half that. The enveloping pit is closer to 1/6 the portable hole's cost, rather than just being less than half the price.

right you are I must have put in the crafting cost when making my table then went from there without rechecking. In that case the the bag of hold 3&4 aren't a horrible price, granted I really hate the bags of holding simply due to their weight...

[Morcleon]

It would actually be somewhat impractical to use a 50-foot pit just for storage, especially for a non-caster. You could reasonably hop into a 10-foot-deep portable hole and expect to be able to pull yourself out without too much trouble, but for a 50-foot enveloping pit you'd pretty much have to have spider climb or fly readily available at any time you wanted to retrieve something to ensure you don't injure yourself or end up trapped in the pit yourself.

You could always install scaffolding on the inside of the pit. I usually go for long poles of wood on each corner, a few floors of wooden planks, and a ladder going all the way up and down. Once you get more money, you can always upgrade the materials.

[yarrowdeathbloo]

A universal truth of games is that inventory management is not gameplay. It's a distraction from gameplay. Just like eating, sleeping, repairing equipment, crafting and gathering, including it in a game only serves to make the game worse. Every game designer who has ever included one of those elements in their games needs to sit in a corner and think about what they've done.

Really, D&D should start in a place where you never need to bother thinking about how much your equipment weighs. The Handy Haversack gets you closer to that place faster. It is undeniably a good.

I would disagree with this view, since craftying,gathering and inventory management are my favorite parts of a lot of games I play.

[liquidformat]

You could always install scaffolding on the inside of the pit. I usually go for long poles of wood on each corner, a few floors of wooden planks, and a ladder going all the way up and down. Once you get more money, you can always upgrade the materials.

I mean by the time you have 10'/10'/50' space creating 5 floors with a 10' ladder going between each doesn't seem unreasonable... A&EG gives a price for local lumber at 1gp-10gp/50lb, Stronghold Builders gives info on making walls, snd there is always the use of spells. Creating walls with wall of stone with wood flooring and supports between would be pretty straightforward and coast effective. Heck if you can do 'horizontal walls' you can use wall of stone to create your flooring too on the cheap...

[Zanos]

I would disagree with this view, since craftying,gathering and inventory management are my favorite parts of a lot of games I play.
I agree, and there are certainly games set up with this in mind. Hell, one of the games I have hundreds of hours on it's a pretty big deal what pocket you decide to put your medical supplies in, because having to root through your backpack in the middle of combat while you're bleeding to get something to stop the bleeding might get you killed. Or grabbing a backup weapon if you get disarmed, or it's not effective against your target. So you need to carefully manage what goes in your backpack(slow), and whats in say, your coat pockets or your belt(relatively fast).

That said, I do not think D&D is one of those types of games. The rules for inventory management are heavily abstracted, and I don't think many people would enjoy having to meticulously write down which scroll they have in which pocket.