D&D 5E Scabbard of... Silence?

[Shadowdweller00]

You have no physical way of doing that. However if you're outside the bag, and you damage it to the point where the rule you quoted would come into effect, the items inside would be dropped into another plane of existence, so even then, the sword isn't drawing itself out or whatever you claimed. It would be found again, as per the rule you quoted, eventually since sentient items are never truly lost per the general idea.

ARTIFACTS are never truly "lost" if that's what you mean. (Sentient items are frequently Artifacts, but not always). But almost certainly not found or recovered by the previous owner.

 

[SkidAce]

Not to mention one or multiple checks for the sentient weapon dominating the person trying to put it in the sheathe or whatever. However, only do that if it's actually fun for the party. If the group just wants to get rid of it or get on with things, you should let them.

I dont think the sword would know it was going in a silence sheathe until after the first time.

 

[Unwise]

Just remember that when sheathing a sword, an experienced warrior is generally doing it quickly and easily without looking. Also remember that that brings the point of the sword 2" from their kidney or at least love-handle. One little tiny spark of domination or distraction at the right time could end in a humiliating injury.

Out of interest, why is this sword evil? Is it just a weapon, or is there a person or demon bound to it?

Also, would it be appropriate to give a PC disadvantage on a mind control effect if they are asleep at the time? What if it were pretty subtle, like nightmares, or making them loath a certain person subconsciously?

Not that we need to find ways to screw over the PC with the sword, just thinking for fun.

 

[Morlock]

The players in my Tiranny of Dragons campaign acquired the intelligent sword Hazirawn and decided to use it. The sword is evil and it is currently held by a paladin, so it has been unable to charm him, but it started to complain and speak out in very bad moments. For example, it got the party into a fight the dragon at the end of HotDQ, while the players were trying dupe him. I thought it was very clever on my part, but one of the players almost rage-quit . Go figure.

I know you weren't asking, but, I think it's good DM-ing, at least. It's good to throw twists and turns at the players, keeps 'em on their toes. Assuming you foreshadowed. You know, "showed the gun" in a previous scene to establish it. If you made it clear that the sword is hostile and a blabbermouth, the PCs should have expected it to do something like that at some point. Heck, even as a true surprise, reveal-it-at-the-worst-possible moment thing, it's not necessarily out of line (though I'd use this kind of thing sparingly).

Wait, your party is carrying around an evil talking sword, and they get upset when this leads to the evil talking sword trying to get them killed?!

I don't get that. That sounds like a classic game moment, not something to rage-quit over.

Yeah, I liked it, too. Maybe if you're taking flak, you know you're over the target.

A Paladin using an evil sword in a silenced scabbard is effing hilarious, btw. That definitely belongs in a good fantasy novel.

"Falsetto Jones"? This thread keeps gettin funnier.

I tend to the opinion that incredibly powerful magical weapons should NOT have their inherent weaknesses taken away. The party is generally capable of destroying or at least throwing such things away if they become a problem.

But, it's a Paladin with an evil talking sword that he keeps shut up in a silenced scabbard!

*Drunken Jim Belushi* "Awww c'mooon!!! Tell me you don't love that!"

ETA: this has to result in the sword going Tourette's (sic) every time it's drawn, leading to many opportunities for a mortified Paladin.

 

[Noctem]

I dont think the sword would know it was going in a silence sheathe until after the first time.

This is ambiguous. It's a sentient artifact without much background information (per WOTC) so as to allow the DM some creative freedom for RP and whatever. I think that a sentient artifact would be able to at least understand what's going on around it. From what I understand it might have even overheard the party discussing the plan for example. Not saying the DM can't have it go down as the artifact has no idea what's about to happen, to be clear.

 

[Noctem]

No, that is a presumption you are making without any sort of rules or flavor support.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that is no longer the case. That extradimensional space IS the bag...outside normal dimensions. The (5e) description repeatedly refers to contents, items CONTAINED within something else.

Well in regards to the first sentence and second sentence, it's actually you who's making a claim without any sort of rules or flavor support since you're resorting to quoting rules from 2 editions ago. If the rule isn't found in 5e, it has no relevance for this discussion. That's simply not how it works in this edition. Rules change over time. If you can quote me a rule from 5e that says that putting a sharp object inside a bag of holding can cause it to get damaged (from the inside) and your contents are then lost to the Astral Plane, I'll reconsider what I've said and admit I was wrong. Or tweet Jeremy Crawford on twitter, he can give us the RAI for 5e.

The 5e rules don't say what you're claiming though, that's why you had to quote 3.5e. However, what the 3.5e rules were in regards to something has no bearing on what 5e says about something. So no, a sentient weapon can't draw itself out of a scabbard or bag of holding. Putting sharp items inside a bag of holding will not damage, destroy or cause the contents to be lost to the Astral Plane. Items inside the bag can't damage the bag itself since they are on two different planes of existence, there's simply no physical way for that to happen and the rules don't give a way for that to happen in 5e.

Time to let go of previous editions and get with the times

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Well in regards to the first sentence and second sentence, it's actually you who's making a claim without any sort of rules or flavor support since you're resorting to quoting rules from 2 editions ago.

Wrong. I made no fewer than three references to the 5e text in post #30.

If the rule isn't found in 5e, it has no relevance for this discussion. That's simply not how it works in this edition. Rules change over time.

Wrong. Many editions contain slightly different wording to describe concepts that are consistent between them. That is why examination of previous editions is worthwhile.

If you can quote me a rule from 5e that says that putting a sharp object inside a bag of holding can cause it to get damaged (from the inside) and your contents are then lost to the Astral Plane, I'll reconsider what I've said and admit I was wrong. Or tweet Jeremy Crawford on twitter, he can give us the RAI for 5e.

The relevant passage has been quoted many times now. "Pierced or torn" has no explicit or implied qualifier that would keep it from applying to the bag's interior. Your counterassertion is a straight up fabrication; which you continue to refuse any substantiation of.

You did manage one previous reference to the HHH description regarding artifacts turning up again, but you got the meaning of that statement wrong as well.

Items inside the bag can't damage the bag itself since they are on two different planes of existence, there's simply no physical way for that to happen and the rules don't give a way for that to happen in 5e.

Wrong. There are many examples (well...several anyway) of objects, creatures, and effects spanning or affecting different planes of existence at the same time. Bags of Devouring can literally pull a creature from one dimension into another. Other examples include Ghosts (creature) - albeit only visually, Force Cage (spell), Astral Projection (Spell). The 5e description of both the Bag of Holding and Heward's Handy Haversack both directly contradict your assertion that the interior is not really part of the bag. Neither mention being merely a portal.

This bag has an interior space considerably larger than its outside dimensions, roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and four feet deep.

This backpack has a central pouch and two side pouches, each of which is an extradimensional space.

The descriptions do NOT say that the respective bags connect to an extradimensional space, let alone some impenetrable internal vault. The interior space OF THE BAG is larger than its exterior. The haversack's pouches ARE extradimensional spaces.

Since I have witnessed little understanding of my arguments, no understanding of the text, and no willingness to substantiate your claims, I see little point to continuing discussion with you. Probably to the intense cheering of those innocent bystanders forced to endure this excessively snarky tangent.

 

[MrZeddaPiras]

Out of interest, why is this sword evil? Is it just a weapon, or is there a person or demon bound to it?

Also, would it be appropriate to give a PC disadvantage on a mind control effect if they are asleep at the time? What if it were pretty subtle, like nightmares, or making them loath a certain person subconsciously?

It is an intelligent sword, so there's no demon bound to it as far as I know. It's neutral evil and devoted to blind destruction. It's got Intelligence and Charisma 11, Wisdom 10.

I know you weren't asking, but, I think it's good DM-ing, at least. It's good to throw twists and turns at the players, keeps 'em on their toes. Assuming you foreshadowed. You know, "showed the gun" in a previous scene to establish it. If you made it clear that the sword is hostile and a blabbermouth, the PCs should have expected it to do something like that at some point. Heck, even as a true surprise, reveal-it-at-the-worst-possible moment thing, it's not necessarily out of line (though I'd use this kind of thing sparingly).

Yea, I just gave you the short version. The players knew the sword was intelligent and evil. They acquired it at the end of one session, and before the next one the player of the paladin character asked if he could keep the sword and basically try to to reason with it. I was vague and I said I needed to look up better how intelligent swords worked (which was true). I forgot to talk to the player before the next session, when the incident with the dragon happened, hence all the rage. So it was my fault for mismanaging the players, though I don't believe I should have to manage the players at all.

 

[SkidAce]

This is ambiguous. It's a sentient artifact without much background information (per WOTC) so as to allow the DM some creative freedom for RP and whatever. I think that a sentient artifact would be able to at least understand what's going on around it. From what I understand it might have even overheard the party discussing the plan for example. Not saying the DM can't have it go down as the artifact has no idea what's about to happen, to be clear.

Fair enough. Lots of variables.

 

[Noctem]

Wrong. I made no fewer than three references to the 5e text in post #30.

Wrong. Many editions contain slightly different wording to describe concepts that are consistent between them. That is why examination of previous editions is worthwhile.

And nothing you quoted says that the bag can be damaged from the inside or that you would need to do what you describe. So although it's good that you're quoting rules text, you're not actually reading what you're quoting...

The relevant passage has been quoted many times now. "Pierced or torn" has no explicit or implied qualifier that would keep it from applying to the bag's interior. Your counterassertion is a straight up fabrication; which you continue to refuse any substantiation of.

Well agree to disagree I guess?

You did manage one previous reference to the HHH description regarding artifacts turning up again, but you got the meaning of that statement wrong as well.
Wrong. There are many examples (well...several anyway) of objects, creatures, and effects spanning or affecting different planes of existence at the same time. Bags of Devouring can literally pull a creature from one dimension into another. Other examples include Ghosts (creature) - albeit only visually, Force Cage (spell), Astral Projection (Spell). The 5e description of both the Bag of Holding and Heward's Handy Haversack both directly contradict your assertion that the interior is not really part of the bag. Neither mention being merely a portal.

Again agree to disagree on everything you're saying

The descriptions do NOT say that the respective bags connect to an extradimensional space, let alone some impenetrable internal vault. The interior space OF THE BAG is larger than its exterior. The haversack's pouches ARE extradimensional spaces.

Agree to disagree again, you're using rules text from 2 editions ago to justify your claim. I disagree that rules text from previous editions should have any relevance when it comes to a discussion about 5e rules.

Since I have witnessed little understanding of my arguments, no understanding of the text, and no willingness to substantiate your claims, I see little point to continuing discussion with you. Probably to the intense cheering of those innocent bystanders forced to endure this excessively snarky tangent.

uh-huh. Ok. Good talking to you!

REplies in bold. You have a good one buddy! And I'll add that the only who has been snarky and rude has been you. I've made efforts to ignore it but it gets annoying to try and talk to someone who's acting this way.