Heward's Handy Haversacks in Haversacks

[galaga88]

I just recently discovered a player in my campaign had been keeping his HHH in another HHH. I immediately told him he couldn't do that any more because he'd suffer total protonic inversion or whatever, but he pointed out that the only mention in the rules involves bags of holding in portable holes (or vice versa).

I'm still not going to allow it, but is there any mention in the rules I'm missing to disallow this?

 

[Jack Simth]

There's a brief mention under the Rope Trick spell you may want to look at; but it doesn't give specifics.

 

[Corsair]

This is why being the DM is fun. You get to make things up!

One of the downsides of the "rule-ification" present in 3rd edition / 3.5 edition is it seems there are many more rules lawyers. Now I like rules as much as the next guy, but its annoying as heck when a player tries to overrule a DM saying "it doesn't say that in the book!"

Well guess what, you're not playing with the books, you're playing with me!

----------

I'd say next time he does it, tell him smoke starts seeping out of his haversack. If he does it another time, in addition to the smoke, he smells ozone... On the 3rd time, the bags fuse into each other, causing a planar rift, sending anything within 30 feet to the astral plane, as well as dealing 10d6 damage to them. (No save, no SR, untyped magical damage) Creatures between 30' and 60' away get a DC 20 reflex save for half and to avoid being sucked in.

If he complains saying "The books don't say that!" just say "you're right they don't. Too bad the books aren't running the game."

 

[Jack Simth]

... and if you don't want to seem quite so arbitrary, you can point him to the line under Rope Trick where it specifies that such is "dangerous", then point out the Portable Hole / Bag of Holding as an example, and mention that you are simply patterning a section of the rules that isn't covered based on a section of the rules that is ... in such a way as to give his character some warning, rather than just having things go "bang" on him.

 

[Zaister]

Remember that the Haversack is not bigger from the inside than from the outside. It's main feature is to elimiate encumbrance. The description of the item specifies exactly what's size it is and what fits in. In the optimal circumstance, haversack A is full when it contains haversack B. I'd even rule that a full haversack would not even fit intoi another haversack, as the item is divided up into several compartments.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Remember that the Haversack is not bigger from the inside than from the outside.

Uh? The side pouches look big enough to hold a quart, and can hold two cubic feet.

One quart is about 0.03 cubic feet. The side pouches are sixty times as large as they look.

-Hyp.

 

[Zaister]

Uh? The side pouches look big enough to hold a quart, and can hold two cubic feet.

One quart is about 0.03 cubic feet. The side pouches are sixty times as large as they look.

Oops. You're right of course. My memory was playing tricks on me, obviously. Sorry.

 

[jinx crossbow]

keeping his HHH in another HHH

I hadled it this ways.
HHH1(HHH2(content ist changed into demons))
If he opens the HHH2 he wil be attacked.

Means fun for the GM and XP for the players.
And the world is as it should be.

 

[Ahrimon]

Next time he does it you should beat him with a baseball bat. When he recovers just tell him that the rules don't say you can't.

Cut the guy some slack. Maybe he never played from AD&D 2e back. If he started with third edition, then there wouldn't really be any reason for him to know about anything other than the BoH(and HHH) and the PHole problem.

Most of us have been around a while and know better. But there are newer players around that only have the 3e rules to go by.

Just sticking up for someone who may have honestly thought he wasn't doing anything wrong.

 

[andargor]

Or a nastier result would be that everything in the HHH inside the other HHH is destroyed as a bag of devouring...

Andargor