nested extradimensional spaces items?

[Saeviomagy]

Sometimes it's hard to tell sarcasm, so maybe you're not being serious when you say that you considering sticking a bag inside a bag ranks up there as a "smart" thing.

As you point out later on, it's a bit dumb to do with normal bags: you don't actually gain anything by it.

But with bags of holding, the outermost bag has a fixed weight, so if you don't open a planar rip, you can effectively carry an infinite amount of weight for a mere 10 (I think) pounds of encumbrance.

Not the pinnacle of intellect, certainly, but definately up there with other things that players would be punished for, like listening at doors or using 10 foot poles.

Anyway, the rule didn't stop people from having lots of bags of holding and carrying all their loot out. It was quite the opposite, it lets players do cool things when the feces hit the fan. Creating rifts and things like breaking staves of power are among the "smart" or at least "posthumously heroic" things that have disappeared.

IIRC, putting a bag of holding in a bag of holding merely destroyed both bags of holding and lost their contents, so the only purpose it served was to stop infinite inventory jiggery-pokery.

Putting a bag of holding in a portable hole (or vice versa, I forget : I think they had different effects) was the one that opened a rift.

For 4E, if there isn't a rule about it, I'd say it works just like sticking a normal sack inside another normal sack... i.e. it doesn't really buy you any weight benefit.

Well, the current rules say that the bag always weighs only 1 pound no matter what it contains, hence the infinite carrying capacity based purely on expenditure scenario.

 

[silverwhisper]

all right, a lot of what's been said here mirrors my own thinking.

i dislike the planar rip, as that seems contrary to the spirit of 4e: more opportunities rather than less. thanks a bunch, guys!

ed