D&D 3.x [3.5] - Hewards Handy Haversack to be toned down.

[Coredump]

It doesn't need to be padded. You're not dropping a bag full of items - you're dropping a portal to a non-dimensional space.

Moving the opening doesn't move the items inside..

If the outside world has no effect on the inside, then why are the contents given a +2 resistance bonus?



According to this Google search
http://images.google.com/images?q=haversack&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

most haversacks are like purses, but some are for the back. (Some seem to do both.)
Oh, a trip to Dictionary.com gets similar results.

 

[AuraSeer]

If the outside world has no effect on the inside, then why are the contents given a +2 resistance bonus?

Some outside effects can get in when the haversack is open. For instance, if you attempt to retrieve an object while sumberged in acid, the acid may flood the extradimensional space, forcing the contents to make saves.

A creature who climbs or reaches into the sack could affect the contents normally.

Also, there are some magical effects that can cross planar boundaries. Someone might try to scry on a creature hiding in the sack, or use the Transdimensional Spell metamagic from this wizards.com article, or some such.

 

[Coredump]

But the description doesn't say anything about "if open", they always get the saves. Why would that happen unless they actually need to make saves. I can't see WotC meaning that items in an unopened HHH are invulnerable, and not mentioning that, while saying that they get a +2 bonus, and not mentioning that if only applies when the sack is open.

.

 

[AuraSeer]

The contents of the sack are not invulnerable, they're just elsewhere. Many attacks and effects do not work across planar boundaries, so they simply cannot reach the contents. Anything that can reach them affects them normally, and that's when the +2 save bonus comes in.

You can think of the sack as containing a special transport gizmo. Anything going into the sack gets teleported to a hidden storage area somewhere else in the universe; when you reach into the sack for a specific item, it is automatically retrieved.

Since the "contents" are stored elsewhere, the sack is empty except for the magic gizmo. That's why it weighs so little. If you carry the thing on your back, you're lugging the gizmo around, but the storage area doesn't move; it stays put, because the transporter gizmo can retrieve its contents from anywhere.

Since the storage area never moves, its contents never feel any impact. You could drop the sack off a cliff, but nothing in the storage area would know the difference. The impact might break the gizmo and stop the transport effect, but it wouldn't harm even the most fragile item in the storage area.

Now, if you open the sack and pour acid into it, the gizmo will treat it like any other incoming object. The acid will be shunted off to the storage area, and anything already there will have to make saving throws. In such a situation, everything inside gets a +2 resistance bonus on its save, by virtue of the storage area's magic.

Do you get it now?

 

[Coredump]

I appreciate your taking the time to re-explain it, but I 'got it' the first time. I just don't agree.

It doesn't say anything about the +2 only being important if the sack is open, nor anything about it only being important for certain 'extraplanar' effects. While I understand the concept you are asserting, I believe that would make the description regarding the saving throw bonus to be fairly non-sensical.

I realize you like the 'transport gizmo' concept, but it is a theory, and not stated in the rules. In fact, the bit about a BoH being dumping everything when turned inside out, seems to go opposite of your supposition. The description states a non-dimensional space, not teleported to another dimension.

It is my assertion that the items are in the bag, the bag is just able to hold much more than is readily apparent. I have seen women with purses like that...

.

 

[kreynolds]

I gotta go with Coredump on this one.

 

[RigaMortus]

Excellent news IMO, since the current one completely negates the Quickdraw feat for a relatively cheap cost.

How does the current HHH negate Quickdraw? All Quickdraw does is allow you to draw a WEAPON asa Free Action. HHH allows you to draw items out of it as a Free Action. IIRC, if you put a sharp weapon into the HHH it runs the chance of piercing the bag and ruining it, doesn't it? I guess a Mace would be fine in there, but a Longsword or Rapier or other "bladed" weapon with a pointy end would pierce the bag.

 

[AuraSeer]

You can't have it both ways. If something is physically inside the sack, it's in the Prime Material Plane-- in our normal three-dimensional space. If it's in a nondimensional or extradimensional space, it's not physically inside the sack. (Perhaps my classes in higher-dimensional geometry have made me overly picky about this.)

If the description simply said that the sack were bigger inside than outside, or that stuff going in is shrunk, your explanation would be the correct one. It does not say that.

It's clear that you won't be convinced, though. ::shrug:: Whatever.

 

[drnuncheon]

You can't have it both ways. If something is physically inside the sack, it's in the Prime Material Plane-- in our normal three-dimensional space. If it's in a nondimensional or extradimensional space, it's not physically inside the sack. (Perhaps my classes in higher-dimensional geometry have made me overly picky about this.)

Has it occurred to you that maybe the sack does not discriminate about what it transfers inside of itself? A potion, your hand - or the flames from a fireball.

In other words, the gateway may not close even when the sack is closed, thus allowing outside effects to "get in" to the extradimensional space.

Also, clearly, the physical world can have an effect on the extradimensional space - after all, you're able to pick up and move the entrance around. Who knows what kind of turbulence that causes?

Finally, using real-world math and physics just doesn't work well to explain D&D magic, and really shouldn't be used to justify a ruling one way or the other.

J

 

[Storm Raven]

IIRC the designers had come out in favour of the "accepts freely |= costs nothing": as opposed to the FAQ.

It has never been discussed in the FAQ.

The "original intent" is the intent ascribed to it by the person who wrote the description: Monte Cook.

I "freely" admit I could be wrong about this - do you have any direct information about it?

Direct remarks by the person who wrote the passage is not evidence of the "original intent" of the text?