Some bag of holding questions

[Halcyon]

As one of the players in this game, I was probably the most vocal in arguing against this ruling. My reasoning was as follows:
1) Even if the bag would produce the wizard instead of the statue despite the giant character not knowing that there was a change, he can feel items before they are retreived so he would know he was not feeling a statue but instead a living being, and could therefore choose not to retrieve the wizard in that case
2) When Stalker0 responded that since the bag was open she could teleport out even if the giant let her go (what ended up happening was because he said this he just ruled that she was taken out of the bag) I argued against this using the example of the rope trick spell. Rope trick also creates an extradimensional space, similar to that of a bag of holding. The text of the spell clearly states

Spells cannot be cast across the extradimensional interface

Clearly you cannot teleport out of an extradimensional space since that spell does not work across planes either in 3.5 or AE. My argument was basically that Stalker0's ruling in effect meant that if one person was inside a rope trick space and someone else climbing up stuck their arm in, suddenly the person in that space would have the ability to teleport out. This makes no sense rules-wise.
In the end everything turned out fine, and it was an on the fly ruling that we did not stop the game for, but I don't feel it was the correct one with regard to the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, it's situational. In this case, the bad guy did some research on the party's typical tactics. Perhaps they were not expecting the contingency because every other opponent stayed a statue. Surely you can think of other scenarios where staying a statue for an hour would be better than returning immediately? Not always, of course, but sometimes.

Of course. My problem is not so much with the Contingency as with the omniscience of the NPC. It happens a lot in games and from what I have read here on the boards, not just games I have played in.

It would pick it up along with the other buff spells that were active, if they thought to use detect magic and try to decipher every existing aura (or all four, or both, or whatever). Don't be too hard on the players for not thinking about it. I'm sure we've all made poor choices as players one time or another and surely our players have done what we would consider bad ideas.

Except that Contigency is Moderate Evocation. Since most Evocation spells are blast spells, that would be a big clue that something unusual is going on.

And, I am not being hard on the players. They played just fine AFAIK.

What I have a problem with is the DM asks if it is fair when he has a basically omniscient NPC who just manages to have all of the right solutions and he has multiple Contigencies.

For example, a Bag of Holding states that a creature inside it can survive. It does not state that the creature can cast spells or do other things. Since it is an nondimensional space (note: nondimensional, not extradimensional), it would have its own laws of physics which apparently does not include dimensions. But, the NPC was able to somehow extend the survival time within the bag, presumably by using magic. And, he was able to stay alert and conscious as well.

Seriously, how many prisoners are constantly alert and ready to take out their jailers immediately? Unless there is noise or some other way to alert them ahead of time, time in a jail cell (or a bag of holding) should be pretty boring and difficult to constantly be on your guard and ready to respond. The NPC was given a normal (to our knowledge) initiative.

The entire scenario appeared to be skewed in favor of the NPC and personally, I do not consider that fair. That's my opinion.

Personally, I think they should have pulled a dead non-statue wizard out of the Bag of Holding (since the Wizard should not have been able to cast spells in a nondimensional space) and said "uh oh". Or, magic should not work in the Bag of Holding and the Contigency should not yet have fired off, etc.

 

[starwed]

since the Wizard should not have been able to cast spells in a nondimensional space

It's kind of silly to castigate a DM for house ruling one way, just because you would house rule another. Perhaps there are official rules for "nondimensional" spaces that I'm unaware of, but you seem to be basing quite a lot off the flavor of the name.

In the end everything turned out fine, and it was an on the fly ruling that we did not stop the game for, but I don't feel it was the correct one with regard to the rules.

Again, I don't understand this. There are no rules covering this situation. It's not even clear that the bag of holding exists in another dimension. (Even using real world physics, a space larger on the inside than the outside could exist.) Rope trick might provide a cue to ruling one way or the other, but it certainly isn't equivalent to a general rule. In other words, the DM gets to decide.

The one unfair part is the giant not realising what he's pulling out of the bag. That one I'd argue about quite a bit, because it defies common sense that you wouldn't notice what you're putting your hand on. Where the rules are silent on "real world" issues, it's unfair to rule against common expectations. (Like being able to feel what you touch.)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Of course. My problem is not so much with the Contingency as with the omniscience of the NPC. It happens a lot in games and from what I have read here on the boards, not just games I have played in.

You can't say that. That's a huge assumption that isn't supported by anything here. I think you're opinion on this point is being colored by something other than what Stalker0 has said in this thread. Your point basically amounts to assuming that if the PCs had decided to destroy the statue, then Stalker0 would suddenly have the contingency take effect--but nothing Stalker0 has said or implied would lead one reasonably to that conclusion. Thus, the wizard took a big risk, but it was a calculated risk.

Fwiw, I agree on the points of fairness as far as the rules are concerned, but I take issue with your badgering Stalker0 about the supposed omniscience of the NPC. Maybe it was, but that accusation is groundless.

 

[KarinsDad]

You can't say that. That's a huge assumption that isn't supported by anything here. I think you're opinion on this point is being colored by something other than what Stalker0 has said in this thread. Your point basically amounts to assuming that if the PCs had decided to destroy the statue, then Stalker0 would suddenly have the contingency take effect--but nothing Stalker0 has said or implied would lead one reasonably to that conclusion. Thus, the wizard took a big risk, but it was a calculated risk.

Fwiw, I agree on the points of fairness as far as the rules are concerned, but I take issue with your badgering Stalker0 about the supposed omniscience of the NPC. Maybe it was, but that accusation is groundless.

It's not an accusation. It's an opinion.

The NPC knew a lot about the PCs. The NPC was able to create a special Delay Contingency that fired off an hour later (typically a Research level of magic). The NPC was (presumably) able to cast spells in a Bag of Holding. The NPC was as or more alert in the Bag of Holding than the PCs were out of it. The DM ruled that the NPC could Teleport across a dimensional space and out of the Bag of Holding (even though this is not what he ruled actually happened). When the players brought up a few rules points that were questionable, the DM still ruled in favor of the NPC.

This comes under the heading of "Where there is smoke, there is fire.". When stating an opinion, I can use that to sway my position. When stating fact, I cannot.

When asked for a fairness opinion, I can use whatever data I am given to come up with my opinion. So, my opinion is that this situation falls under the DM caveat of adjudicating in favor of an NPC both in the arena of knowledge of the PCs (given what little information we have on this which is that the NPC was able to do advanced atypical magical tactics) and the mechanics of how magic works, bending a few rules in the process. Such situations tend to raise red flags for me, but might not for others. YMMV.

So yes, I can say that. I just happen for find more support for this aspect of my opinion than you do.

And btw, the DM can do whatever he wants. It's his game. But, I can still give my opinion of the situation and feel quite comfortable that my opinion is perfectly valid: for me, but not necessarily for anyone else. When it comes to fairness opinions, it's a pretty open-ended spectrum.