Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6222641" data-attributes="member: 6681948">"Why wouldn't it" and "why would it" are very similar questions, though.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!Kind of like how we agree normal bags interact with air and water, but not that this is definitive of how magical bags leading to extradimensional space interact with air and water?But they do not address the bag flooding with water, hence the discussion. Your physicsy answer is one possible answer, no less legitimate than many others, but also no more so.Air fills no more, and no less, than 2.5 cubic feet, by your own math above, regardless of the other contents of the bag. Why would that be different for water?Some will, some won't. Greenfield would at least warn the players of his ruling, so the issue could be discussed, and his interpretation is valid, just not the sole valid interpretation, so I would have no issue accepting, at his table, that Bags of Holding flood if opened underwater. However, I also have no difficulty envisioning equally valid rulings that it will not flood and burst. The only approach I would consider truly "bad" would be the "hahaha it opens floods and bursts" approach, and I think Greenfield agrees that a "gotcha" would be poor GMing.Emphasis added. This limit is not noted - if it were, we should have a page reference by now, I would think. We know it will be destroyed if overloaded. We do not know that opening it underwater overloads it.This assumes an accepted standard of when, or even whether, they are likely to overload on their own.koff koff <a href="http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/health-myths/swimming-after-eating.htm" target="_blank">http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/health-myths/swimming-after-eating.htm</a> koff koffNot everything we think is "common sense" is correct - even without adding magic to the equation.If its spandex volume shrinks down to the size of "contents + 2.5 cuFt, this will result in wet stuff, but will not necessarily overload the bag.Do reasonable minds come to differing interpretations? I believe the 1e DMG sees EGG suggest a Bag of Holding in a second Bag of Holding leaves sufficient room for only a single extra coin or ring. The 3.5 rules say placing one ED space in another is hazardous. SKR felt there was no harm eliminating that hazard, and Pathfinder adopted that approach, with a ruling that an ED space becomes inaccessible while in a second ED space. Was one of them clearly right, and the others wholly wrong? I think different interpretations can be equally valid myself.</blockquote>

Verification