greg kaye
Explorer
Waterdeepian! =DWait, are they African or European air-blown waterskins?
Waterdeepian! =DWait, are they African or European air-blown waterskins?
That's just awesome!!The correct answer is the amount that makes you look ridiculous.
The air inside a bag of holding would be on a different plane of existence so I'd say no.
However, an "empty" bag of holding might be considered to contain 64 square feet of air and, underwater, if you could catch the air (and fill the bag with something like water) then that would provide loads of buoyancy. I had considered this in an underwater campaign in case there was ever a situation where we wanted to get something heavy from the sea bed just to get back up to the surface quickly.
A barrel can contain four cubic feet of material. If just 8 barrels of air were kept in a Bag of holding then that would give 32 square feet of air. If we don't consider air compression at depth, then each barrel could give 62.41 Lbs of buoyancy with 8 barrels providing a total of 499.28 lbs of lift. If a means was devised to catch all the air from a bag of holding, that could give close to 1000lbs of lift. That's a lot of armour.
If you replaced a waterskin with an empty bag of holding - would that work?
The air inside a bag of holding would be on a different plane of existence so I'd say no. ...
Good point. I'll rephrase, "The air inside a bag of holding is not in the same dimensional context as its outside and, because it does not displace water, I'd say no,"The reason the bag of holding does not provide buoyancy is because doesn't displace a lot of water volume, ...
The question I would have for this is did he have a gambeson under the armor because it looks like he does not. That's what gave the guy in chain that I watched buoyancy. Of course, whether people wore a gambeson under plate also depends on who you ask and may have varied.Full Plate is a different story: