Bag of Devouring contradiction

[Falcon X]

I feel like I’m the only one misreading this, but my group can’t figure out what happens to a person inside a bag of devouring.
It seems like the text says that they are instantly are devoured at the beginning of their turn. It also says they can use an action to try to escape.
Can anyone help me make sense of these seemingly contradictory statements?


This bag superficially resembles a Bag of Holding but is a feeding orifice for a gigantic extradimensional creature. Turning the bag inside out closes the orifice.

The extradimensional creature attached to the bag can sense whatever is placed inside the bag. Animal or vegetable matter placed wholly in the bag is devoured and lost forever. When part of a living creature is placed in the bag, as happens when someone reaches inside it, there is a 50 percent chance that the creature is pulled inside the bag. A creature inside the bag can use its action to try to Escape with a successful DC 15 Strength check. Another creature can use its action to reach into the bag to pull a creature out, doing so with a successful DC 20 Strength check (provided it isn't pulled inside the bag first). Any creature that starts its turn inside the bag is devoured, its body destroyed.

Inanimate Objects can be stored in the bag, which can hold a cubic foot of such material. However, once each day, the bag swallows any Objects inside it and spits them out into another plane of existence. The DM determines the time and plane.

If the bag is pierced or torn, it is destroyed, and anything contained within it is transported to a random location on the Astral Plane.

[MaxWilson]

I think that means you have one round to escape (hopefully you haven't used your action yet on the round you get pulled in), and then you're dead.

[JonBeowulf]

Wow, they really messed that up. I'm leaning towards changing it to be "any creature that ends it's turn inside the bag is devoured". Or maybe roll initiative for the bag and have it devour the creature on its turn after the snatched creature's first turn.

Or I may just DM-fiat the thing out of existence.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The intention, near as I can tell, is for this item to be a trick for those who believe it to be a Bag of Holding.

If you, on your turn, reach your hand in you have a 50/50 chance of being sucked in. If you still have an action, you can attempt to escape or on following creatures turns they can attempt to free you as well.

If you do not escape before the start of your next turn, your body is destroyed and you die.

This opens up some room for shenanigans if your DM is open to allowing you to force people into the bag in some manner, because if they are pulled in outside of their turn and no one around wants to pull them out then they have no opportunity to escape.

[msfnc]

Presumably, one has already begun their turn when reaching into the bag (as an item interaction). If they haven’t yet used their action, they may then use it to attempt escape. If they have already used their action, or fail the escape attempt, they must then rely on someone else to pull them out, because they’ll be devoured at the beginning of their next turn.

[Falcon X]

The intention, near as I can tell, is for this item to be a trick for those who believe it to be a Bag of Holding.

If you, on your turn, reach your hand in you have a 50/50 chance of being sucked in. If you still have an action, you can attempt to escape or on following creatures turns they can attempt to free you as well.

If you do not escape before the start of your next turn, your body is destroyed and you die.

This opens up some room for shenanigans if your DM is open to allowing you to force people into the bag in some manner, because if they are pulled in outside of their turn and no one around wants to pull them out then they have no opportunity to escape.
Such shenanigans are, indeed, what is prompting this question.

I get the point though. As a trap item, you might only use your move to interact with it and not your action, so your action can be used to get out.
Still, as a trap, I see it being explored more outside of combat, and the wording makes that complicated. Sigh...

I feel like Jeremy Crawford should have talked about this in Sage Advice, but I’m not finding anything.

[Imbalance]

Read the "When" statement again.

[Keravath]

If you are running it outside of combat then the character will still have an action on the turn they are pulled into the bag and will have one attempt to escape. If you are interacting with the bag in combat then the character can try to get themselves out of the bag on the turn they used their object interaction to reach into it but only if they have not used their action already that turn.

The wording is such that the character only gets ONE attempt to escape and in the case where they have already used their action on the turn they are pulled in then they don't get an opportunity.

Out of combat, characters have not used their action so I would rule it that initiative starts just before the creature is pulled into the bag but after the triggering event so that they have the remainder of their turn to try to escape but they did not start their turn in the bag. This would appear to me to be the closest to the written text though a DM could decide that initiative starts after the creature is pulled in making it an instant death trap since they start their turn in the bag and are killed.

[KorvinStarmast]

The intention, near as I can tell, is for this item to be a trick for those who believe it to be a Bag of Holding.

If you, on your turn, reach your hand in you have a 50/50 chance of being sucked in. If you still have an action, you can attempt to escape or on following creatures turns they can attempt to free you as well.

If you do not escape before the start of your next turn, your body is destroyed and you die.

This opens up some room for shenanigans if your DM is open to allowing you to force people into the bag in some manner, because if they are pulled in outside of their turn and no one around wants to pull them out then they have no opportunity to escape.
Shenanigans example 1:

A. Warlock casts Polymorph on a creature which fails it save. The creature is now a snail.
B. Warlock picks up the snail
C. Warlock opens bag but does not reach in
D. Warlock drops the snail into the bag (Concentration is not broken) (Or uses tongs to "place" the snail into the bag)
E. Bag devours snail (Concentration is now moot)
F. Bag burps, and thanks the Warlock for the escargot. :smallsmile:

Why this works:
1. The bag is a feeding orifice for a gigantic extradimensional creature
2. The extradimensional creature attached to the bag can sense whatever is placed inside the bag. Animal or vegetable matter placed wholly in the bag is devoured and lost forever

[ProsecutorGodot]

Shenanigans example 1:

A. Warlock casts Polymorph on a creature which fails it save. The creature is now a snail.
B. Warlock picks up the snail
C. Warlock opens bag but does not reach in
D. Warlock drops the snail into the bag (Concentration is not broken) (Or uses tongs to "place" the snail into the bag)
E. Bag devours snail (Concentration is now moot)
F. Bag burps, and thanks the Warlock for the escargot. :smallsmile:

Why this works:
1. The bag is a feeding orifice for a gigantic extradimensional creature
2. The extradimensional creature attached to the bag can sense whatever is placed inside the bag. Animal or vegetable matter placed wholly in the bag is devoured and lost forever

Sure, you've only got to rule whether the following sentence starting with "when a living creature..." is meant to suggest that "animal or vegetable matter" from the previous sentence is intended to be non-living.

Not that it really makes much of a difference, I'm entirely sure a snail would have a -5 penalty to strength checks and as such can't force its way out regardless.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Or I may just DM-fiat the thing out of existence.

Yeah, cursed items generally (exception demon armor) are a DM middle finger to players. Definitely don't include them, they don't make the game any "funner".

[Tanarii]

Yeah, cursed items generally (exception demon armor) are a DM middle finger to players. Definitely don't include them, they don't make the game any "funner".
They're fine if you're still playing "everything in this dungeon is a deadly trap and getting the rewards out alive is the challenge, and thus fun". Also fine if the assumption is "save the world without dying" is the challenge, but less directly relevant to the goal, so usually not as fun.

They suck if you're playing "this is a story/movie plot campaign, and you should assume you'll have the same character alive throughout, the fun comes from seeing the DM's (or module writer's) story unfold".

[stoutstien]

Yeah, cursed items generally (exception demon armor) are a DM middle finger to players. Definitely don't include them, they don't make the game any "funner".

Generally I agree that cursed items that don't have big pros and cons are pointless. The shield of missle attraction comes to mind as a good example.

The bag of devouring is only scary if it's not identified as one. After that it's a dangerous tool for a sly party or ones that have to dispose of evidence frequently. I take one over a bag of holding any day.

[Angelalex242]

I could even see a bag of devouring being used as the tool of execution in some kingdoms.

"We sentence you to death." *Shoves Bag of Devouring on person's head*

[Bloodcloud]

Yeah, cursed items generally (exception demon armor) are a DM middle finger to players. Definitely don't include them, they don't make the game any "funner".

There are many way to use cursed items. It can be a minor funny curse, like boots that make your feet stink, a curse that limits usage of the items...

I killed a player with a bag of devouring, it was part of a hag loot. It really solidified the hags as a threat, reminded my cocky players that Dnd can turn deadly, and then they used the bag as a body dispenser. Overall, very satisfied with the effect it had. they gained a usefull item (at a steep cost).

[Imbalance]

Yeah, cursed items generally (exception demon armor) are a DM middle finger to players. Definitely don't include them, they don't make the game any "funner".


There are many way to use cursed items. It can be a minor funny curse, like boots that make your feet stink, a curse that limits usage of the items...

I killed a player with a bag of devouring, it was part of a hag loot. It really solidified the hags as a threat, reminded my cocky players that Dnd can turn deadly, and then they used the bag as a body dispenser. Overall, very satisfied with the effect it had. they gained a usefull item (at a steep cost).

Cursed items are perfect hag loot. My players just got their first open hint of hag activity in their area when they slew a minion wearing a coven eye. Next, their dreams will haunt them. In any event, each of my hags is in possession of something cursed but useful, including a BoD, a Deck of Many Things, and a Mirror of Life Trapping.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

This bag is NOT a curse to a player with it.

That Polymorph trick above is hilarious and allows for some interesting debates concerning really hardcore bad guys who are fed to the extradimensional creature.

Can the creature eat an ancient white dragon who failed all his legendary saves amd ended up polymorphed into a red-eared slider.?

[Lunali]

To boost the point of those saying that it isn't a curse once you know about it. There's a reason the bag of devouring is very rare while the bag of holding is only uncommon.

BTW, for the canny adventurer, the easiest way to tell the difference is to toss a rock in then turn it inside out. A bag of holding will spit the rock back out, along with anything else inside, a bag of devouring will turn into a normal bag, which can be a plot hook in itself.

Another fun trick for hiding something small, take a bag of holding, turn it inside out, put yourhand in the bag and grab the object, turn it right side out. You now have an object in a bag that can't be directly accessed because the inside of the extradimensional space is blocking it.

[Atalas]

To boost the point of those saying that it isn't a curse once you know about it. There's a reason the bag of devouring is very rare while the bag of holding is only uncommon.

BTW, for the canny adventurer, the easiest way to tell the difference is to toss a rock in then turn it inside out. A bag of holding will spit the rock back out, along with anything else inside, a bag of devouring will turn into a normal bag, which can be a plot hook in itself.

Another fun trick for hiding something small, take a bag of holding, turn it inside out, put yourhand in the bag and grab the object, turn it right side out. You now have an object in a bag that can't be directly accessed because the inside of the extradimensional space is blocking it.

The problem there being whether the adventurer's even know things like a bag of devouring exists. I've played a game where, with random starting loot tables, one player started with a Bag of Devouring. We have yet to use chicanery with it mostly due to a lack of opportunity. Either that player isn't on that particular adventurer (West Marches style game, but with far too few people to properly be called such), or one of the player's who could instigate such chicanery isn't there.

[Grey Watcher]

...

Another fun trick for hiding something small, take a bag of holding, turn it inside out, put yourhand in the bag and grab the object, turn it right side out. You now have an object in a bag that can't be directly accessed because the inside of the extradimensional space is blocking it.

I'm not sure I follow. If the object was in the bag to start with, it gets spilled out when the bag is turned inside out, per the usual rules. But, as I understand it, the inside out bag is essentially a mundane bag until it's turned rightside out. Which means that the object would get pushed out in the process of pulling the outside back out. So I fail to see how you the object ends up hidden. What am I not understanding?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm not sure I follow. If the object was in the bag to start with, it gets spilled out when the bag is turned inside out, per the usual rules. But, as I understand it, the inside out bag is essentially a mundane bag until it's turned rightside out. Which means that the object would get pushed out in the process of pulling the outside back out. So I fail to see how you the object ends up hidden. What am I not understanding?

Yeah, I'm not sure this works for a regular old bag of holding, turning the bag inside out does indeed spill it's contents and you have to put it the right way again before it can be used.

One interpretation of that, which I'm not sure I like, is that an inside out bag of holding is unusable even as a mundane bag. The other is that it is, but any item you try to "keep inside" the out turned bag will obviously fall right out when you flip it. I don't see a way to keep an item "stuck" in the bag because of it's the right way, it goes into the extra-dimensional space.

[Imbalance]

Might be better with an illustration. I get what Lunali described, but I'm not sure it would work. You essentially use the out-turned bag as a glove to grasp an item. As such, there is no extra-dimensional space. While still grasping the item, pull the bag off of your hand and close it about the item, like people do with their pets' mess in the park, or something. The extra space forms at the mouth of the bag, but the item is in the mundane bag - so does it remain, inaccessible; or does the space displace it?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Might be better with an illustration. I get what Lunali described, but I'm not sure it would work. You essentially use the out-turned bag as a glove to grasp an item. As such, there is no extra-dimensional space. While still grasping the item, pull the bag off of your hand and close it about the item, like people do with their pets' mess in the park, or something. The extra space forms at the mouth of the bag, but the item is in the mundane bag - so does it remain, inaccessible; or does the space displace it?

A regular bag of holding says nothing about the mouth being where the extra space forms, all it says is that the interior is larger than it appears. If you did this, the item should simply fall into the extra-dimensional space.

[Imbalance]

A regular bag of holding says nothing about the mouth being where the extra space forms, all it says is that the interior is larger than it appears. If you did this, the item should simply fall into the extra-dimensional space.

What happens to the extra-dimensional space when the bag is turned inside out? If all of the contents are ejected, how do we imagine where the mundane bag material ends and the magical hypercube begins? I can easily imagine it as you say, but the item's "plain English" RAW leaves ample room for DM interpretaion.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What happens to the extra-dimensional space when the bag is turned inside out? If all of the contents are ejected, how do we imagine where the mundane bag material ends and the magical hypercube begins? I can easily imagine it as you say, but the item's "plain English" RAW leaves ample room for DM interpretaion.

Well, like I said in a previous post, it does specify that the bag can't be used while it's inside out. The most reasonable interpretation, in my opinion, is that a reversed bag of holding functions like a regular bag if you attempt to use it as one while it's inside out but if you flip it over again anything that would be inside the bag is now inside the extra-dimensional space.

There is no "mundane inside" to store things in, anything on its proper functioning inside is in the big space.

[Cygnia]

My Druid has a pet Bag of Devouring and has used the "Take how much you need to be bribed for outta this bag!" trick to great effect. :smallbiggrin:

[Damon_Tor]

I feel like there's a shenanigan out there where a guy proficient with tailor's tools can make the bag into a hat. They put the hat on a non-living minion (an undead or construct, typically) and then go about business as usual. In a situation where the party is overwhelmed and forced to retreat, the hat-bearers job will be to delay the enemy so the party can escape, and die in the process. The enemy will then likely sense that the hat is a magic item, and will likely attempt to wear it, probably whichever of them sees itself as in charge. In this way, the enemy leader is killed making it easier to win the second engagement.

[Grey Watcher]

It seems to me that the text has an implied contradiction. "Extradimensional space" implies the mouth of the bag is a portal to somewhere else entirely. Which would imply the physical inside of the bag itself exists, concealed behind the portal. This is somewhat reinforced by the idea that a broken bag spills out into the Astral Plane. But the "interior space considerably larger than its outside dimensions" line implies that it's the same space as if the bag was mundane, just magically distorted.

I guess you could resolve it by interpreting "extradimensional" as a mathematician would: the bag is taking advantage of a fourth spatial dimension. Still doesn't explain why a broken bag spills onto the Astral of all places. Or why the bag's weight is entirely unaffected by the contents, for that matter. And using "dimension" this way runs very counter to the way the word is used in most fantasy and sci-fi (to refer to a different reality). Especially given that DnD already uses "plane" in that pop-culture way and ignores the mathematical definition of the term.

Personally, I'd be fine with either interpretation, but the text isn't as clear as it could be about exactly what's going on beyond "MAGIC!"