Item question regarding Bags of Holding

[N'raac]

So, to be clear, you're in favor of using physics in the game world?

Sorry if I'm misreading, but that sounds like your conclusion.

Stepping back a point, I'll argue that we do know exactly how a Bag of Holding works: The rules say exactly what it does, and how to use it.

OK, since the rules say exactly what it does, where do they define what happens when we carry the Bag into an extradimensional space, such as placing one BoH in another or taking one into a Rope Trick? As Umbran notes, if the rules said exactly what it did, we would not have a multi-page discussion.

You started the discussion, asking:

So is immersion in water the automatic destruction of a Bag of Holding, and the loss of all your gear?

The rules say that a living thing placed inside will suffocate after 10 minutes, which implies an airtight closure. Is the bag safe under water if left closed? Is the inside somehow protected from unwanted entry, even when opened?

I know that there aren't any hard and fast answers in the rules. I'm just trying to stimulate some thoughtful discussion.

This seems less than consistent with your statement that the rules tell us exactly how the Bag works. Were you actually sincere in your original post, or were you just fishing for people to agree with your interpretation and tell you how smart you are?

We have some basic rules on how the Bag works, from which we interpret or extrapolate the rest. Can I cause lots of hand losses by casting Dispel Magic as people put items in/out of the bag? We don't know. How does the interface work? We don't know. Does everything fall out if we flip it upside down? The rules don't say. How do we actually CLOSE a sack, making it airtight? Again, we don't know.

Speculation of special, unmentioned properties may be entertaining, but ultimately speculation is all it is.

One such speculation is that opening it underwater destroys it.

My "spandex lining" interpretation? Pure speculation, an attempt to rationalize why the air supply is fixed, and why even the largest capacity bag can be accessed as a move action, if there isn't too much stuff in it.

Arguments over gravity inside? Pure speculation, also as a way of explaining how someone could access what's inside easily.

Yet no explanation why we can access any item in the fullest bag in only 6 seconds. And "the medium outside only fills a specific, limited portion of the bag's capacity" is an alternate explanation for why the air supply is fixed, one which says the bag will not overfill if opened underwater.

Special dimensional thresholds to keep water from entering? 100% speculation. But this speculation isn't being done to explain a documented feature. It seems to be embraced to explain a feature that the Bag isn't listed as having.

Seems to me it's a speculation Greenfield does not embrace, so that makes it a bad speculation.

So, leaving the physics out of it for the moment, the "why wouldn't it protect itself" argument sounds very weak to me simply because there's nothing to even hint that it can or does protect itself. In fact, the rules say exactly what we have to look out for because it doesn't protect itself.

It doesn't? It limits the air that will fill it up. That seems like it's protecting itself. But it doesn't protect itself from someone doing something foolish and overstuffing it.

You see the difference? Rationalizing a documented feature is one thing. Rationalizing a feature into existence is something else, and has nothing to do with physics v magic. This is poorly defined (i.e. game world) physics v undefined and undocumented magical properties.

I see that you consider your speculations inherently superior to those made by anyone else. Let me speculate a bit here. I speculate that, in your game, you ruled the bag would flood and be destroyed. Someone in your group disagreed. So you came here looking for support for your ruling but, rather than say so, you asked for discussion about all the myriad possibilities, secure in your belief no one would come to any conclusion other than the one you had reached, and you would have ammunition for the fight with that foolish player who disagreed. Only it turned out your way was not seen as The One True Way after all, so now you're on the defensive.

You argue that having bags burst from air pressure adds nothing to the game? I'll argue that "just because" adds even less.

Having them burst from water pressure also adds nothing. Were I playing in your game, I would be fine with your ruling. I would not be fine with your view that no other ruling could be reasonable or valid. It seems a lot of people on this thread have a similar viewpoint. Screaming "Paisley Dragon! Paisley Dragon!" won't change the fact that there are viewpoints other than your own, and they are no less valid simply because you disagree.

 

[Greenfield]

The part where I said I withdraw? I meant it.

If you want to continue, take it to PM.

 

[Umbran]

Alternately, you could re-think your approach to rules interpretation. Your choice.

Hey, all I'm saying is that there is more than one answer consistent with the description of the item - that there is no clear "wrong" other than "I want this to happen in my game". That does not sound to me like it needs to be re-thought. Since your original post asked for intelligent discussion, the observation seemed apropos. I didn't think it was about being right or wrong - I don't believe there is one.

Beyond that, as you will, of course.

 

[Greenfield]

Umbran, while my post was more than a bit snarky (I really have to watch that), and was all but begging for a rebuttal, I really have withdrawn. PMs are welcome, but I won't engage here.

You see, for all the snark I used, I was biting my tongue to keep from typing things that would have gotten me banned. I need to step back from this. The good people of this form deserve better than to witness what I'd probably end up posting.

As for your point about lack of reading comprehension, I already copped to that one. Guilty as charged.