D&D 5E Scabbard of... Silence?
Noctem
Explorer
Kid? lol... Is age supposed to have some kind of relevance here?
What you quoted doesn't even have anything to do with what you first stated. Double drawing and sheathing + the weapon being able to draw itself or come out of the bag on its own. Thanks for quoting something irrelevant I guess? This isn't first edition, this is fifth. Rules change from edition to edition, nevermind 4 editions later. But the bag being possible to destroy or damage doesn't have relevance for an item inside the bag being to get out on its own.
So to recap, no the weapon can't draw itself or get out of the bag on its own. There's also no need to double draw and double sheathe the weapon.
Last edited:
Shadowdweller00
Adventurer
So you don't actually have the faintest clue as to what you're reading, writing, or responding to, kid? Unsurprising. The need to "double-sheathe" has nothing at all to do with the ability of the blade to draw itself - or lack thereof. The need to "double-sheathe" arises because either a) you drop a sharp or pointy object into an extradimensional space and risk losing everything inside or b) put the magic sword in a scabbard (1 object interaction) and THEN put it into the extradimensional container (2 object interactions). This is, again, the way extradimensional containers of this sort have always worked.
There is no possible circumstance in which that concept might conceivably have been linked to the capacity (or lack thereof) of a sentient magical item to draw itself. Because IF such an item was capable of drawing itself...there would be no protection gained at all by placing it within a scabbard in the first place.
Noctem
Explorer
You don't need to belittle the person you speak with btw. You're being condescending as well imo and I would like you to stop. I am not a kid or child. I'm an adult, just like you are (presumably). So let's stop that now k?
I never said that your claims were related, you just invented that. I said that they, as a whole, didn't make sense. The more you explain though, the more it seems that you have certain beliefs that aren't compatible with the rules you quoted. For example, the bag being damaged by putting an item inside of it (an extra-dimensional space). You're belief that the bag can be damaged from the inside is incorrect. You can't damage the bag from the inside with a sharp weapon. The physical bag is outside of the extra-dimensional space, it serves as a link or portal to said space. If you're inside, you can't harm the bag. You have no physical way of doing that. However if you're outside the bag, and you damage it to the point where the rule you quoted would come into effect, the items inside would be dropped into another plane of existence, so even then, the sword isn't drawing itself out or whatever you claimed. It would be found again, as per the rule you quoted, eventually since sentient items are never truly lost per the general idea.
Also note that the rule you quoted doesn't talk about something inside the bag causing damage, it talks about the physical bag itself being damaged.
So yeah, the idea that by dropping a unsheathed sword into a bag of holding is going to rip or damage the actual physical bag causing you to lose everything inside it, though funny is complete nonsense. Saying "it's always worked this way" is also complete nonsense. Maybe it "always worked this way" for your group or you specifically, but that's not the case anywhere else AFAIK. Not the games using the DnD rules, not the editions I've played.. I've also played Adventure League which is official organized play and I've never heard of the claims you're making here.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
This. A powerful, intelligent item can refuse serving its' bearer and possibly do other impeding things. Not sure why the party thinks they can compel the sword to serve them on their terms, because it won't.
As always, the Golden Rule applies.
We expect our users to show each other a modicum of respect. In this post you are abjectly failing to do so. Please don't continue in this manner - if you cannot find it in yourself to treat the other poster well, you probably shouldn't be responding to them at all, and should instead find a thread where you can contribute constructively, rather than by tearing people down.
MrZeddaPiras
[insert something clever]
The scabbard was delivered during last night session. I warned the player that the sword would have considered that an insult, but the player did not put it in the scabbard right away. We'll see how it plays out...
I'm thinking it should play out like stuffing an unhappy cat in a carrier.
Noctem
Explorer
Not to mention one or multiple checks for the sentient weapon dominating the person trying to put it in the sheathe or whatever. However, only do that if it's actually fun for the party. If the group just wants to get rid of it or get on with things, you should let them.
Shadowdweller00
Adventurer
The second sentence is -how- you described my claims not making sense.
No, that is a presumption you are making without any sort of rules or flavor support.
There is not a single passage anywhere within the rules that states or even remotely implies that extradimensional spaces are somehow invulnerable; nor, in this case, that they should somehow be separate from, unattached to, and/or unbounded by the bag itself. The fact that rupture of the bag causes loss of the contents NECESSITATES that this is not, in fact, true. The paragraph describes SEVERAL methods of destruction, such as overloading, that MUST take place inside the bag (i.e. within the extradimensional space). And there are clear (if general) rules for how magic items react to damage. It was stated EXPLICITLY in previous editions that bags of holding could be pierced and/or destroyed from the inside. The descriptions are virtually unchanged:
5e DMG said:
There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that is no longer the case. That extradimensional space IS the bag...outside normal dimensions. The (5e) description repeatedly refers to contents, items CONTAINED within something else.3.5 DMG said:
In contrast - the ONLY relevance the possible capacity of the sword to draw itself has with this FACT is that sentient weapons often have ill-defined means of interacting with their environment. And dropping an irate sentient magical weapon with ill-defined abilities into another VULNERABLE and valuable magic item is a recipe for sorrow.
(EDIT: Clarity, to remove some superfluous snark)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
