Item question regarding Bags of Holding

[Greenfield]

"Why wouldn't it" and "why would it" are very similar questions, though.

So your point is, nothing? Other than a similarity of wording, the questions aren't similar at all. They are exact opposites.

But I've noticed that you argue nothing, at least in this thread, just to have something to argue about.

So why will the bag stop at 2.5 cubic feet of air, a twelfth of the capacity of the smallest bag and a mere 1% of the capacity of the largest, but keep taking on water until it bursts? That same 2.5 cubic feet weights 156 lb or so, not enough to burst even the smallest capacity bag. Did you not just ask why air and water would behave differently in regards to a Bag of Holding? Your premise seems to rely on it!

Because the rules ay it's limited to 10 minutes of air, and unlike water there's no pressure differential to say otherwise.

You know, I think I'm going to stop reading the rest of your post right now. You are arguing nothing, and you're wasting a lot of everyone's time doing it. I've met other "Endless rebutter" types on the web before, people who argue over whether or not 1+1 is always 2 (I'm citing an actual example there). They're trolls.

 

[Vegepygmy]

As for the weight of air: Wasn't asking whether air gets more dense with temperature or humidity. Just wondering why you're arguing about it. (Of course, I've been wondering why you're arguing about any of this, but that point is of particular lack-of-interest.)

I know your question was directed at N'raac, but...you're the one who started this thread, saying: "I know that there aren't any hard and fast answers in the rules. I'm just trying to stimulate some thoughtful discussion."

So, to answer your question, the only reason any of us are arguing about any of this is that you asked us to!

Vegepygmy, there is no explicit rule on how much a Gelatinous Cube weighs. Does that mean that it's weightless?

No. It means that there is no one, single, correct answer to the question: "How much does a gelatinous cube weigh?" The answer will be: "Whatever the DM decides it weighs." Just as there is no one, single, correct answer to your question: "Does immersion in water result in the automatic destruction of a bag of holding, and the loss of any gear stored inside?"

It does if your DM says that's how a bag of holding works, and doesn't if he doesn't.

Air and goods pass in and out of the magic bag without resistance.

That is an unproven assumption.

(There's no Strength check needed to access the bag.)

Just because the amount of resistance is slight enough that no Strength check is required to overcome it, doesn't mean there is no resistance. There is no Strength check required to push a dinner plate across a table, but if there was no resistance, the plate wouldn't stop moving once you stopped pushing it.

And the bag's resistance doesn't even have to be constant or consistent, because Magic.

So why would there be a special exception for water?

Assuming there is, in fact, a "special exception" for water or anything else, the first, most obvious answer is: Because Magic.

 

[Greenfield]

Thoughtful discussion is fine.

Saying, "Well, the rules don't say it *doesn't* turn you into a paisley dragon" is another. And there's been a lot of the paisley dragon in this thread.

 

[N'raac]

So your point is, nothing? Other than a similarity of wording, the questions aren't similar at all. They are exact opposites.

But I've noticed that you argue nothing, at least in this thread, just to have something to argue about.

Because the rules ay it's limited to 10 minutes of air, and unlike water there's no pressure differential to say otherwise.

Air pressure varies at different altitudes and different temperatures. Why is it wrongbadfun to ignore water pressure (or assume magic takes care of it) but not to ignore air pressure?

You've done plenty of analysis as to how much air weights, how much volume is needed to sustain a human, etc. Which rule should override? "The bag contains 10 minutes of air" or "this is how much volume the bag can hold, this amount is displaced by the contents so this is left for air, and it can sustain the individual for this long"?

As Vegepygmy notes, the thread asked for discussion, however it seems any discussion which disagrees with your viewpoint is dismissed as ill conceived "paisley dragons". So why ask in the first place?

You want the physics of water pressure, but you accept the lack of physics for air pressure.

You assume the bag expands enough to take on more water and burst, but not to take on more air than that 10 minute supply. "Because the rules say so" is really just "because magic", since there is no other basis offered for the constant supply of air, regardless of whether the creature inside exerts itself or relaxes to change air usage, regardless of the size of the bag and regardless of its other contents.

You assume that the normal rules of physics will apply to the magical bag unless explicitly overridden by the rules, and this is a fine basis to proceed on. But magic, defying physics by definition, means assuming normal physics is not the only reasonable approach for interpretation. "How would the spellcaster want this to function?" is also a valid interpretation, incorporated by one prior poster. The prerequisite spell for item crafting could also be relevant, but this one seems to have effects very different from the Bag of Holding, in that the spell actually sends the chest in question to another plane. Are there really two containers, one here (the bag) and the other elsewhere (the storage space)? If so, we still have no info in the spell for how that interface works - the spell contemplates no such interface, so it provides no guidance to assess how that interface functions.

Your interpretation is valid and, as noted before, your position that the typical PC would know about this before opening the bag underwater, so maybe the player should be reminded, as also valid. But then, would a reminder that stuffing a lance into the Bag is a dicy proposition not also be knowledge a PC would have? Should the implications of dropping a dagger point first have been canvassed by a knowledge check (or by another PC being able to speak while the dagger was being drawn, the bag opened and the dagger positioned)? Those can also be viewed as "gotchas" or as perfectly legitimate consequences of PC/player error. I might very well respond to the comment that a Bag of Holding is destroyed if pierced, with "my PC knows little of matters arcane, so he will proceed to drop the dagger/shove the lances in unless someone else does something to stop him", depending on the character.

 

[Greenfield]

I had a long and detailed reply to your post. I deleted it. You're still arguing nothing.

You accuse me of arguing physics, of saying that water pressure doesn't count but air pressure does. Check the thread. That was you. I said that water pressure does count, and I've discounted air pressure every time you've brought it up.

 

[N'raac]

I had a long and detailed reply to your post. I deleted it. You're still arguing nothing.

You accuse me of arguing physics, of saying that water pressure doesn't count but air pressure does. Check the thread. That was you. I said that water pressure does count, and I've discounted air pressure every time you've brought it up.

????

Why is it wrongbadfun to ignore water pressure (or assume magic takes care of it) but not to ignore air pressure?

Perhaps the air pressure here is thinner than I thought, but I believe, rephrased, the above asks why it is bad to consider water pressure but wrong to dismiss air pressure (which is what you have been doing).

You want the physics of water pressure, but you accept the lack of physics for air pressure.

Maybe I'm sleep deprived, but that seems to indicate you say water pressure should count and air pressure should not.

Perhaps you are referring to my comment that

You've done plenty of analysis as to how much air weights, how much volume is needed to sustain a human, etc. Which rule should override? "The bag contains 10 minutes of air" or "this is how much volume the bag can hold, this amount is displaced by the contents so this is left for air, and it can sustain the individual for this long"?

in which I was alluding to your analysis here:

But since you can't let it go, air at sea level weighs about 0.08 lbs per cubic foot. A person goes through about one cubic foot of air every four minutes, so two and a half cubic feet will last ten minutes. So the answer is that the ten minute air supply the bag holds is about ten gold pieces in weight (GP being 1/50th, or 0.02 pounds.)

***

Are you referencing something else I said? I don't see where I suggested you were arguing that water pressure doesn't count but air pressure does.

***So, why does the bag stop with precisely 10 minutes of air, every time, but expand to accept its maximum volume of water, and burst? It seems reasonable to consider the possibility that it also caps the amount of water it lets flood in, given that we accept it always takes in the precise amount of air required to sustain whatever living creature is placed within - be it a full sized human or a tiny little mouse - for precisely 10 minutes.

And I suppose we may as well dismiss air pressure. It doesn't really do anything, does it? Certainly the airlines don't use it for anything, right? It's not like heating the air in a container to make it expand could allow weights to be raised above the ground, is it? There's certainly no real productive use anyone could make out of air pressure in the real world, so why should it matter in game, I suppose.

 

[Vegepygmy]

You accuse me of arguing physics, of saying that water pressure doesn't count but air pressure does. Check the thread. That was you. I said that water pressure does count, and I've discounted air pressure every time you've brought it up.

You blew your Reading Comprehension check. He said exactly that: you do want to count water pressure, but don't want to count air pressure...which is an inconsistent position to take, regardless of how consistently you've taken it.

But as I've been saying, it's magic, so logical consistency isn't required. Your preferred ruling is as valid as any other. Water yes, air no? Fantastic; game on!

 

[Greenfield]

Guilty as charged. I blew that one.

What, pray tell, will be the effect of air pressure that I'm ignoring? And why shouldn't we ignore it?

Or more to the point, why should it be such a big deal that it's being dragged out this way? The difference between 20 gp weight on average at sea level an 18 gp weight at altitude? Or was he worried about the fractions of a gp weight variance that comes from weather fronts?

Or was he perhaps worried that air pressure would over inflate the bag, like a balloon, and ensure that the item can't actually exist at all?

He's been arguing paisley dragons and nothing, just to keep arguing.

 

[MarkB]

Guilty as charged. I blew that one.

What, pray tell, will be the effect of air pressure that I'm ignoring? And why shouldn't we ignore it?

Or more to the point, why should it be such a big deal that it's being dragged out this way? The difference between 20 gp weight on average at sea level an 18 gp weight at altitude? Or was he worried about the fractions of a gp weight variance that comes from weather fronts?

Or was he perhaps worried that air pressure would over inflate the bag, like a balloon, and ensure that the item can't actually exist at all?

He's been arguing paisley dragons and nothing, just to keep arguing.

I believe his point was that if the bag doesn't behave predictably and rationally in respect to air content and pressure, there's no basis for assuming that it will do so in respect to water pressure.

In fact, since the bag is noted as containing enough air to sustain a creature for 10 minutes, regardless of its size or other current contents, it would be quite valid to conclude that it retains that air content even when immersed in water.

 

[Greenfield]

What is "rational and predictable" about a magic item doing what the rules say it won't? That is, the Bag of Holding has a specific amount of air that the rules say it holds. Somehow we're supposed to ignore this and conclude that"rationally and predictably it should take in more, as the result of air pressure, and burst?

His argument has been largely, "Well, the rules don't say that it doesn't..." (fill in the action of your choice).

And what's sad is that, for the air pressure argument, they actually do.

So he's arguing nothing.