So, what is the pont of the battle with Calder?

[brian 333]

Roy didn't have a problem with throwing animals to dangerous targets before. Remember how he treated the animals from his bag of tricks? Miko surely do.

Milo was, herself, insufferably cruel to said creatures. After having laid bare his suffering for her, Miko repaid Weasel with cruel rejection and cold dismissal. In doing so she set in motion the chain of events leading to her fall brcause when she really needed a true friend to talk to Weasel was reduced to eating raw rodent and sleeping alone in a ditch

[Precure]

I mean, a better example might've been when they sent the Anarchic giraffes and BoT critters into the Symbol of Death.

The weasel's case is more similar to dxm2000's example, since Roy literally threw them into the trolls.

Milo was, herself, insufferably cruel to said creatures.

Milo is probably the most animal friendly character in this comic, maybe sans Celia.

[dxm2000]

Roy didn't have a problem with throwing animals to dangerous targets before. Remember how he treated the animals from his bag of tricks? Miko surely do.

Note: I specified "dog of the neighbour they don't like", "throwing a pet" "Belkar's pet". You're missing half the problem here.

But as for "throwing animals to dangerous targets"... Fun fact!: Those aren't animals! No, really! What they are is actually "small, fuzzy ball"s, which turn, temporarily, into animals. They are, in essence a spell imitating an animal. They last 10 minutes and disappear after that or if they die. That is the actual 3.5e item function. "But dxm2000", I hear say(theoretically), "what about the weasel?" To that I say, "merely a throwaway joke/callback". Not like any of the others stuck around.

So, to answer the question, yes I do remember, but I also remember that they aren't actual animals. If they were actual animals (beyond the joke), then Roy would definitely not be good. Though also, the wizards who shoved hundreds of animals into the bag would be terribly evil.

Edit:

I mean, a better example might've been when they sent the Anarchic giraffes and BoT critters into the Symbol of Death. The exact details about summoned creatures and whether they're real beings or magical constructs varies, though, so I don't know what the critters count as. I think the answer depends on whether it's a joke or not.

Hmm... Fair point on the Chaos Giraffes, actually. Summon Monster VI(and its predecessors) mention actual summoning, not creating a fake creature, and there no mention of returning to its plane after the spell limit/death(though you'd assume, since it also doesn't mention the summon doing anything after the spell ends, such as turning against you). So that'd run afoul of "not good", but, unless Durkon, V or Elan know the spell, that knowledge may be unknown to them(also, per Hilgya (whether true or not-- she is an Evil cleric, after all), they don't die). Edit 2: Never mind, I forgot the difference between calling and summoning. Haven't touched 3.5e in well over a decade. Summons are only "dead" for 24 hours-- Wait. Summon Monster uses "call" in the short form description though. Gah. I guess it's up to interpretation?

[KorvinStarmast]

Roy didn't have a problem with throwing animals to dangerous targets before. Remember how he treated the animals from his bag of tricks? Miko surely do.

They obviously retain affection for him, and care for him, so perhaps they are magical by nature and your characterization of them is well off the mark.

[Peelee]

They obviously retain affection for him, and care for him, so perhaps they are magical by nature and your characterization of them is well off the mark.

I'd agree with that.

If the ball is removed and tossed up to 20 feet away, it turns into an animal. The animal serves the character who drew it from the bag for 10 minutes (or until slain or ordered back into the bag), at which point it disappears.

[Riftwolf]

Note: I specified "dog of the neighbour they don't like", "throwing a pet" "Belkar's pet". You're missing half the problem here.

But as for "throwing animals to dangerous targets"... Fun fact!: Those aren't animals! No, really! What they are is actually "small, fuzzy ball"s, which turn, temporarily, into animals. They are, in essence a spell imitating an animal. They last 10 minutes and disappear after that or if they die. That is the actual 3.5e item function. "But dxm2000", I hear say(theoretically), "what about the weasel?" To that I say, "merely a throwaway joke/callback". Not like any of the others stuck around.

So, to answer the question, yes I do remember, but I also remember that they aren't actual animals. If they were actual animals (beyond the joke), then Roy would definitely not be good. Though also, the wizards who shoved hundreds of animals into the bag would be terribly evil.

Edit:



Hmm... Fair point on the Chaos Giraffes, actually. Summon Monster VI(and its predecessors) mention actual summoning, not creating a fake creature, and there no mention of returning to its plane after the spell limit/death(though you'd assume, since it also doesn't mention the summon doing anything after the spell ends, such as turning against you). So that'd run afoul of "not good", but, unless Durkon, V or Elan know the spell, that knowledge may be unknown to them(also, per Hilgya (whether true or not-- she is an Evil cleric, after all), they don't die). Edit 2: Never mind, I forgot the difference between calling and summoning. Haven't touched 3.5e in well over a decade. Summons are only "dead" for 24 hours-- Wait. Summon Monster uses "call" in the short form description though. Gah. I guess it's up to interpretation?

In the next comic Hilgya says something about the giraffes going back to Limbo. It gets kinda confusing because dying means different things for different creatures and outsiders keep nudging the rules. The best case scenario for the Bag of Tricks is they're creatures with no soul, like the philosophical zombie thought experiment, who imitate behaviour of an animal unless instructed to otherwise or If It's Funny. In this case the critters were simulacra to trick the Symbol of Death, whereas the Chaos Giraffes were killed but only mostly dead, alive enough to be returned back to Limbo (and to blaaaaaith)

[brian 333]

My head canon to describe the difference:

A spirit from the outer or elemental plane is summoned to animate a mortal body created in the spirit's image by the spell. That magically constructed body is temporary and will eventually fall apart, releasing the spirit to return to its place of origin. This is different from portalling from the plane because the extra-planar body crosses over in that case.

Summon fire elemental allows the spirit to go back to the plane of fire. Calling or portalling transfers the physical body from the fire to the material plane. When the summoned one dies it still has a body to travel back to on its native plane. When the extraplanar body is destroyed on the material plane, where does the released spirit go? Detroit?

[Precure]

"Those animals are not animals because I say so"

[brian 333]

"Those animals are not animals because they are magical constructs designed to imitate animals but obey the summoner's commands."

Fixed it for you.

[dxm2000]

"Those animals are not animals because I say so"

Those animals are not animals because of the rules, which I, and subsequently Peelee, quoted from the PHB, but you ignored that(just as you ignore other things inconvenient to your arguments, rather than addressing them) in favour of making something up.

[Precure]

Those animals are not animals because of the rules, which I, and subsequently Peelee, quoted from the PHB, but you ignored that(just as you ignore other things inconvenient to your arguments, rather than addressing them) in favour of making something up.

Peelee's source still calls them animals though?

[dxm2000]

If a human becomes a dog for ten minutes, are they a dog, or a human who briefly became a dog? (Peelee's source/the DMG calls them animals once, which is immediately after "it turns into an animal")

The item listing doesn't claim that you are pulling an animal out of the bag, or an "animal that was previously turned into a ball", it claims that you are pulling a ball that turns, briefly, into an animal, under the condition that it is "tossed up to 20 feet away".

If you hold the ball indefinitely, it does not become an animal. Additionally, regardless of what you do with said "animal", be it kill it, abuse it, treat it well or have it do nothing, they despawn at the latest after 10 minutes(earlier if they die) during the course of which they serve the user, no matter what, implying a lack of will.

The balls replenish back up to 10 every week and the animal each one becomes is always random, implying every ball has the potential to turn into any animal. Also, though clearly the comic rules this different-- just like it rules that, despite Roy drawing "Grey Bag animals" he can get the "Tan Bag" rhino for a joke --normally you can only have one animal out at a time, implying that the bag is adding an effect to the balls, and can only apply effect one at a time, because if the bag was instead removing a transformation from the balls, theoretically so could you, so you could have multiple animals out.

So, unless (up to, depending on your usage amount)ten animals per bag(and who knows how many of those exist) are being kidnapped every week, then what is actually happening is that the bag is spawning(creation conjuration) and... "transmuting" balls into animals with magic that can only affect one thing at a time, for a duration of ten minutes or creating animals that didn't exist prior to the balls existing, and which cease existing ten minutes after the balls are thrown.

In either of the latter two cases I do not believe that it can be referred to as an animal before or after the ten minute(or less) period, and can only be referred to as an animal during, because that is the form the magic chose. However, treating it as an actual animal, would be equivalent to referring to things affected by Animate Objects (or other Animate spells) as living creatures and expecting them to be treated equally. If you had to chose between saving a cat and a cat spawned by the bag, would you ever chose the later over the former, knowing the above?

The only argument(that I see) for these being actual animals is that the aura of the Bag is Conjuration, the school of summoning, calling and teleportation, however, it is also the school of creation, which has(I feel) a much stronger argument, considering the above.

Spoiler: Item Description minus animal tables, aura/CL/cost/spell to craft/etc

Show

Bag of Tricks: This small sack appears normal and empty. However, anyone reaching into the bag feels a small, fuzzy ball. If the ball is removed and tossed up to 20 feet away, it turns into an animal. The animal serves the character who drew it from the bag for 10 minutes (or until slain or ordered back into the bag), at which point it disappears. It can follow any of the commands described in the Handle Animal skill (page 74 of the Player's Handbook). Each of the three kinds of a bag of tricks produces a different set of animals. Use the following tables to determine what animals can be drawn out of each.

The heavy warhorse appears with harness and tack and accepts the character who drew it from the bag as a rider.

Animals produced are always random, and only one may exist at a time. Up to ten animals can be drawn from the bag each week.

[Kish]

Ridiculous though this whole line of argument is, I am now hoping Xykon will be finally defeated by Roy's Bag of Tricks, so there's that.

[dxm2000]

Well, we can agree that the case is closed, anyway.

Ridiculous though this whole line of argument is, I am now hoping Xykon will be finally defeated by Roy's Bag of Tricks, so there's that.

...If you're not enjoying the conversation, you can ignore it.

[KorvinStarmast]

but you ignored that(just as you ignore other things inconvenient to your arguments, rather than addressing them) in favour of making something up.

At least 5e uses the tag "beast" to describe the same thing.

Ridiculous though this whole line of argument is, I am now hoping Xykon will be finally defeated by Roy's Bag of Tricks, so there's that.

That would ROCK!

...If you're not enjoying the conversation, you can ignore it.

I am glad that Kish is not ignoring this conversation.
Bag of Tricks beats Lich is Why We Play D&D!!!!

May it please the court
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/45492/22566

The defense rests.

[dxm2000]

At least 5e uses the tag "beast" to describe the same thing.

Not sure exactly what you are addressing here.

May it please the court
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/45492/22566

The defense rests.

Okay, now that is cute/fun ^^

I'd watch an anime/cartoon that did that xD

(Also, speaking of 5e... Huh, bag of tricks in 5e is real broken 0_0 Forget beating a Lich, with enough time (and food xD edit: Wait. Circle of life... you just need the right rolls!), you could conquer a nation!)

[Kardwill]

(Also, speaking of 5e... Huh, bag of tricks in 5e is real broken 0_0 Forget beating a Lich, with enough time (and food xD edit: Wait. Circle of life... you just need the right rolls!), you could conquer a nation!)

Broken? 3 critters a day, last until dawn before popping out of existence. Outside of some ridiculously convoluted scheme to avoid dawn that most GMs I know would immediately shoot down, I fail to see how it's any more broken than any lvl1 spell?

[dxm2000]

Broken? 3 critters a day, last until dawn before popping out of existence. Outside of some ridiculously convoluted scheme to avoid dawn that most GMs I know would immediately shoot down, I fail to see how it's any more broken than any lvl1 spell?

Ah, looks like they did errata that in, some years after my copy of the DMG was printed. The one I have mentions no such dawn restriction(or what happens when they die).

[Kardwill]

I can see a villain building up a roving band of feral beasts that they can sic at a village, yeah. But logistics will get real complicated if you want to build an army. Once you have a few dozen carnivores out, your "3 critters a day" regime may not be enough to sustain them ^^
And popping 3 creatures a day for several years still sounds less efficient than actually raising an army, hiring trainers and breeding warbeasts. Especially since you have to spend a bonus action to order each and every one of them individually.

[dxm2000]

But logistics will get real complicated if you want to build an army. Once you have a few dozen carnivores out, your "3 critters a day" regime may not be enough to sustain them ^^

I mean, I wasn't being super serious, but it isn't as unviable as you make it out to be(for a small nation to be clear). Some carnivores go several days without eating if they eat well. They could also probably hunt local wildlife. Then there's the food supplies of whatever town you attacked. And they can eat those lost in battle/their victims. Or you could get multiple bags(speeding up the process and providing more food, while reducing the number of "several days" that pass. Or hire clerics to repeatedly cast Create Food and Water...

In the end, you only need them temporarily, and you probably don't need thousands for a specific fight(unless you're attacking, say, Azure City). The main points of them would be exhausting the resources of those with class levels and taking out commoners.

And popping 3 creatures a day for several years still sounds less efficient than actually raising an army, hiring trainers and breeding warbeasts.

From an individual effort perspective, you are probably right. From a "less likely to lose a fight" perspective, probably true too. From an cost/time perspective? I disagree. These beast cost you nothing more to make than the bag itself. You don't have to train them to be obedient to you, they already are. You don't have to spend years breeding and recruiting. You don't have to spend money on gear, or persuade people to follow you or convince them not to worry about retaliation.

You lose one? You replace them. You lose a trained warbeast? That's hundreds of gold and years of effort wasted. You lose a hundred warbeasts? That's a crippling blow. You lose a hundred from the bag of tricks? Sure you've lost time, but that was an expected loss regardless, and you can replace them faster. If you're doing this, you're likely evil, what do you care?

Best part is, all the money you save can go toward protecting yourself, more bags and/or hiring some elites.

Especially since you have to spend a bonus action to order each and every one of them individually.

Actually, bonus action is only for when you give the commands. While telling multiple creature variations on "move here and do this" would likely require multiple bonus actions, you can give general commands like "Attack everyone in that town!"/"Attack the enemy!", and I see no reason you'd have to say that to every beast individually(even with just three that'd be weird).

Anyway, we have gotten wildly of track at this point, and this could probably be a thread to its own. This started with how the Calder battle might affect things, and the party's relation Bloodfeast 0_0

[Peelee]

I mean, I wasn't being super serious, but it isn't as unviable as you make it out to be(for a small nation to be clear). Some carnivores go several days without eating if they eat well. They could also probably hunt local wildlife. Then there's the food supplies of whatever town you attacked. And they can eat those lost in battle/their victims. Or you could get multiple bags(speeding up the process and providing more food, while reducing the number of "several days" that pass. Or hire clerics to repeatedly cast Create Food and Water...

In the end, you only need them temporarily, and you probably don't need thousands for a specific fight(unless you're attacking, say, Azure City). The main points of them would be exhausting the resources of those with class levels and taking out commoners.



From an individual effort perspective, you are probably right. From a "less likely to lose a fight" perspective, probably true too. From an cost/time perspective? I disagree. These beast cost you nothing more to make than the bag itself. You don't have to train them to be obedient to you, they already are. You don't have to spend years breeding and recruiting. You don't have to spend money on gear, or persuade people to follow you or convince them not to worry about retaliation.

You lose one? You replace them. You lose a trained warbeast? That's hundreds of gold and years of effort wasted. You lose a hundred warbeasts? That's a crippling blow. You lose a hundred from the bag of tricks? Sure you've lost time, but that was an expected loss regardless, and you can replace them faster. If you're doing this, you're likely evil, what do you care?

Best part is, all the money you save can go toward protecting yourself, more bags and/or hiring some elites.



Actually, bonus action is only for when you give the commands. While telling multiple creature variations on "move here and do this" would likely require multiple bonus actions, you can give general commands like "Attack everyone in that town!"/"Attack the enemy!", and I see no reason you'd have to say that to every beast individually(even with just three that'd be weird).

Anyway, we have gotten wildly of track at this point, and this could probably be a thread to its own. This started with how the Calder battle might affect things, and the party's relation Bloodfeast 0_0

How might the Calder battle affect Roy's bag?

[dxm2000]

Dunno. At don't imagine it'll happen at this point, unless... Roy pulls it out for some reason, and Calder bites off his arm? Easiest way at the start would've been to damage it while Sunny's anti magic was on it, but that chance has passed.

Considering the (not zero, but low-- though fun!) odds of the bag aiding in the final battle, I don't see it needing to be affected (vs Bloodfeast, who could at least, if nothing else provide a motivating moment)

[KorvinStarmast]

Dunno. At don't imagine it'll happen at this point, unless... Roy pulls it out for some reason, and Calder bites off his arm?

He could throw a rhino at Calder.