D&D 5E Would placing a weapon in a bag of holding break/block Eldritch Knights bond?

[LordStradhsBatman]

Why, exactly, would the character agree to this?
What, exactly, is the player going to think if you pressure him to give up his cool stuff, and you replace it with cursed crap?
Actively working to screw over the player may not be a good move here.

Yea I get that on the surface it seems in a dm tryin to screw over the players.

Honestly I could try to explain it but I think actually getting the mechanics of us (it’s a family game) and how we are operating in this game would make less sense than not.

All I can say I guess is he’s aware of it and on board with me trying, he’s gonna get it back within an hour. It’s more so he has one encounter he can’t summon it and that’s it.

 

[LordStradhsBatman]

I disagree.

I don't think that an extra dimensional space counts as a different plane of existence. It's extra dimensional, which to me means that it's a fold in space (like a tesseract). If you rule otherwise, beware. There are abilities (such as divination spells) that only function on the same plane. If the players can become immune to them by climbing into a portable hole (because you rule that it counts as its own plane), then that becomes an easy way to become immune to those abilities (for example, everyone hops into the Portable Hole before discussing secret information).

With regard to the Bag of Devouring, that might work, but given that this is Ravenloft it will only work if the Dark Powers allow it.

IMO, the most straightforward way to deal with the sword would be to deal with the fighter. Dominate him, imprison him, or whatever. If he can't summon the sword then it's no threat to Strahd.

That said though, is this actually going to be fun for the players? I don't know the players, so I don't know the answer. However, I have seen DM shenanigans of this sort cause (sometimes campaign ending) problems at the table. Before you figure out how you can, be certain to consider whether you should.

Yea I wasn’t sure about how the extra dimensional stuff worked and if it works legitimately.

This isn’t me trying to ruin the game, it’s honestly hard to explain in text why this is okay, but all I can say is the player is on board. It’s more of a actual challenge between him as a rules buff and me as the DM to try and legit find a work around. He’s getting it back IF I can take it off him.

 

[LordStradhsBatman]

After re-reading how extradimensional space items work, as well as how magic works in Barovia (per CoS), I can see lots of room for rules lawyers to argue either way.

I can only think of one way to definitely get the sword onto another plane free of RAW questions: Strahd could give the sword to a Vistani ally of his and send them through the Mists to somewhere else. But how to accomplish that before the EK can re-summon the sword? No idea... maybe dominate the EK for the time it takes to somehow teleport the Vistana to the edge of the Mists where they can step through. Or something?

Yea this was another option to have it given to the vistani and create a side quest where they have to track down the vistani carrying it.
They’ve not really explored them much. Despite going to madam Eva and saving the girl, they kind dumped her and went so it would be good to reuse them a bit more.

As you say, if there’s room to argue he can just summon it back.

 

[LordStradhsBatman]

N

Leomund's Secret Chest seems more like Strahd's style, and explicitly goes to the ethereal plane, which is less problematic in terms of Ravenloft rules about planar travel, rather than some sort of pocket dimension. This would mean that the EK could eventually get it back by themself getting onto the ethereal plane, which probably makes for a more interesting adventure than just loosing the sword.

Never heard of this one but you’re right it seems more his style.

He will eventually get it back. They have “an ally” in ravenloft in the form of Gertruda who I’ve adapted to be a Margery Tyrell esc character but who thinks she’s playing Stradh for the betterment of the people, but he’s onto her and it’s part of his game. Her other purpose is to be the plot hook for a bit EK wants to explore his characters personality.

The main purpose of the encounter is to reveal Bards warlock patron (magic initiate warlock feat) is Stradh. Which I know isn’t canonically possible, but Bard really wanted it and it seemed like a fun idea so i went with it.

They wanted the reveal to be a mad hatter esc picnic in the woods, which I’ve done and while it’s going on he’s going to try and trade them for their magic items.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, sounds like a bag of holding or portable hole would do the trick, though a bag of devouring would do it even better.

Like @Fanaelialae, I disagree here - extradimensional is not the same as extra-planar. YMMV, of course.

Strahd is a genius though, and may very well understand that there is bond between the Knight and the weapon, and as part of the trade may require a ceremony of the Knight that ensures that bond is broken before agreeing.

I'd actually go further than this, and rule that if the EK formally gives up ownership of the weapon like this, doing so automatically breaks the bond. I would, of course, let the player know well before they make that decision, so they know the consequences.

And on the other other hand, @LordStradhsBatman, I would be extremely wary of doing something like this, and especially having Strahd offer cursed goods in trade. IME, there is very little that players like less than feeling they've been victimised - in days gone past removing valued gear was their #2 hate; now that energy drain is two editions in the past it is now #1. (Yes, even worse than killing a character!)

 

[ad_hoc]

Some people complain that Strahd is too easy to face but the key to running him is that he knows everything and uses every trick he has.

That's why there is a destined place he gets defeated. The players must make it there to beat him.

All that said I think this is a but much. The character has a special ability that lets them shine. Let them have it.

Now if Strahd dominates them that might be another matter...

 

[NotAYakk]

I'd actually go further than this, and rule that if the EK formally gives up ownership of the weapon like this, doing so automatically breaks the bond. I would, of course, let the player know well before they make that decision, so they know the consequences.

I like that much better than bag of holding tricks.

Intention matters in magic.

Maybe include stuff like "Do you hand possession of this blade, and all it entails, to me, of your own free will, without reservation or exception, to keep for as long as I will?"
"Do you affirm this again?"
"Say it 3 times and it is true:"

and the bond breaks.

 

[LordStradhsBatman]

Update post

Thank you to everyone for their feedback and advice, really appreciate it. It’s been really interesting and useful to see the different interpretations of the different scenarios, as well as the other options.

Due to the mix of cautionary advice, to the point comments about how this would impact players and some outright hostile comments on Reddit where I posted before here (i should have expect those tbh), I ended up ditching the idea to actually take it away at all and scrap the encounter.

As previously mentioned this was mainly a “to see if I can” thing so I saw player/BiL Wednesday night and just told him how I’d have done it, via a bag of holding or portable hole to which he conceded that would have worked so case closed I guess.

Thanks again for your feedback.