Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaseous Form, Bags of Holding, and Teleport

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:22:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
caster. What they wanted to try was this:

1. Turn three people gaseous
2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
three people in the bag.

The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.

I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.

What do you think?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:22:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
> Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
> Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
> caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>
> 1. Turn three people gaseous
> 2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
> about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
> 3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
> 4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
> three people in the bag.
>
> The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
> the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
>
> I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
> contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
> wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>
> What do you think?

Actually, they don't even need to be gaseous if they aren't going to be
in the bag longer than they can hold their breath. This technique, also
known as the "Go ahead and put all your eggs in one basket, but then you
damn well better watch that basket" technique, is completely legal and
is mentioned in the Epic Level Handbook. Along, of course, with ways to
"challenge" someone who uses it. I leave it to you to extrapolate
similar situations.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 8:47:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>1. Turn three people gaseous
>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>What do you think?

Those three are still creatures, and teleport can transport a set number of
creatures. So the gaseous forms are irrelevant.

A bag of holding or a portable hole, on the other hand, is part of someone's
gear. Why, and how would some of the contents be left behind when
teleporting?

--
Niilo Paasivirta E-mail: np@iki.fi URL: http://www.iki.fi/%7Enp/
Related resources
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 8:47:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Niilo Paasivirta wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>1. Turn three people gaseous
>>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
>>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
>>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>>What do you think?
>
>
> Those three are still creatures, and teleport can transport a set number of
> creatures. So the gaseous forms are irrelevant.

Ordinarily, yes, absolutely.


> A bag of holding or a portable hole, on the other hand, is part of someone's
> gear. Why, and how would some of the contents be left behind when
> teleporting?

I think this is whe hole they were trying to loop.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:21:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
> Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
> caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>
> 1. Turn three people gaseous
> 2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
> about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).

2-3 cubic feet, (I just looked this up recently) It's 1 cubic foot per
64 lbs of human aproximately (so a half-orc is going to be 4). Of
course there's gear too, I couldn't see it going over 6 with gear
though.

> 3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
> 4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
> three people in the bag.
>
> The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
> the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
>
> I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
> contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
> wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>
> What do you think?
>

If they are gear at the time, I'd say they don't count. Do you make
the wizard take 1 person off for his familiar?

- Justisaur
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:27:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:22:39 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>
>1. Turn three people gaseous
>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
>3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
>4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
>three people in the bag.
>
>The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
>the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
>
>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>
>What do you think?

I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
bag brought the passengers.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 5:04:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
>>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
>>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>>
>>1. Turn three people gaseous
>>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
>>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
>
>
> 2-3 cubic feet, (I just looked this up recently) It's 1 cubic foot per
> 64 lbs of human aproximately (so a half-orc is going to be 4). Of
> course there's gear too, I couldn't see it going over 6 with gear
> though.

That seems much too low. Are they not counting inner gasses?


>>3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
>>4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
>>three people in the bag.
>>
>>The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
>>the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
>>
>>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
>>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
>>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>
>
> If they are gear at the time, I'd say they don't count. Do you make
> the wizard take 1 person off for his familiar?

Familiars are a special case and can be taken along "for free", as per
the familiar rules on spell sharing.

I don't think gaseous = gear, as petrified would.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 5:04:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Loren Pechtel wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:22:39 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
>>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
>>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>>
>>1. Turn three people gaseous
>>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
>>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
>>3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
>>4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
>>three people in the bag.
>>
>>The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
>>the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
>>
>>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
>>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
>>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>
> I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
> bag brought the passengers.

So what if you make a gigantic sack full of 1000 people?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 5:46:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@remove.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rfc0j1pgpb6sqhifeido7ohs16q0cv7cnv@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:22:39 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
> >Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
> >caster. What they wanted to try was this:
> >
> >1. Turn three people gaseous
> >2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
> >about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
> >3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
> >4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
> >three people in the bag.
> >
> >The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
> >the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
> >
> >I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
> >contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
> >wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the
bag.
> >
> >What do you think?
>
> I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
> bag brought the passengers.

Well, speaking out of game, one thing I don't much enjoy is telling players
their characters spend X months on the road to Some Distant Location,
especially when under a time crunch, like most adventures seem to operate
under. So I would probably allow them to teleport to their location using
whatever rules chicanery that they wanted to employ. While our current
method usually involves "we go to the wizard's guild, and pay them to
teleport us", if my players tried this bag of holding trick, I would let it
work, mainly because it's *fairly* useless in combat as a tactic, and it
doesn't really pose many problems for me the DM, and in fact, solves one
problem that I don't like dealing with.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 8:38:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> If they are gear at the time, I'd say they don't count. Do you make
> the wizard take 1 person off for his familiar?

People aren't gear! Not even when they're in a bag of holding. As for
the familiar, yes, it counts as another creature unless you have the
spell-sharing ability.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 1:20:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:22:39 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>
>1. Turn three people gaseous
>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
>3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
>4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
>three people in the bag.
>
>The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
>the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
>
>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>
>What do you think?

My first impulse would be to allow it - the players are expending
additional resources to improve the teleport load, so it isn't a
munchkinite "getting something for nothing" scenario.

OTOH, the analogy I thought of was of shrinking passengers so as to
take along more - and when I checked the spell description, I saw that
while Large or bigger passengers mean you can't take as many, Small or
smaller passengers doesn't mean you can take more.

So if going by the RAW I'd disallow it.


--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 5:39:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:04:45 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> scribed
into the ether:

>
>
>Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:22:39 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
>>>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
>>>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>>>
>>>1. Turn three people gaseous
>>>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
>>>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
>>>3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
>>>4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
>>>three people in the bag.
>>>
>>>The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
>>>the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
>>>
>>>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
>>>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
>>>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>
>>
>> I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
>> bag brought the passengers.
>
>So what if you make a gigantic sack full of 1000 people?

Then you better screen them carefully and make sure that none of them has
another bag of holding or a portable hole...cause then it becomes
mass-murder.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 1:45:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
>
> > Werebat wrote:
> >
> >>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
> >>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
> >>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
> >>
> >>1. Turn three people gaseous
> >>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
> >>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
> >
> >
> > 2-3 cubic feet, (I just looked this up recently) It's 1 cubic foot per
> > 64 lbs of human aproximately (so a half-orc is going to be 4). Of
> > course there's gear too, I couldn't see it going over 6 with gear
> > though.
>
> That seems much too low. Are they not counting inner gasses?
>

You can always do an experiment to (dis)prove it if you want.

Make or find something that can hold water that is approximately 1
cubic foot internally (or something else you can measure fairly large
volume with. Then you need a wood chipper and a cadaver. After
liquefying the cadaver you can measure it's volume.

If you don't have those resources, find a bathtub, fill it up just
enough to cover you, mark water levels with and without you (crayon
will probably work), fill up to high mark, bail water into your cube
until it's back to the low mark. If they are correct you should end up
with about 1 cube per 64lbs you weigh.

It sounds reasonable to me. Humans are made up of mostly long thin
cylinders. If you even just think about the bathtub experiment, you'll
see you don't really displace anything like 8 cubic feet of water.

> > If they are gear at the time, I'd say they don't count. Do you make
> > the wizard take 1 person off for his familiar?
>
> Familiars are a special case and can be taken along "for free", as per
> the familiar rules on spell sharing.
>
> I don't think gaseous = gear, as petrified would.
>

No, I'm not saying gaseous = gear, I'm saying carried = gear. If you
stuff someone in a bag, and carry them around they count as gear. It
doesn't matter if they are gaseous or not. although if they need to
breath they'll be real gear pretty soon anyway.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 1:47:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:22:39 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
> >>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
> >>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
> >>
> >>1. Turn three people gaseous
> >>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
> >>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
> >>3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
> >>4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
> >>three people in the bag.
> >>
> >>The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
> >>the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
> >>
> >>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
> >>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
> >>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
> >>
> >>What do you think?
> >
> >
> > I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
> > bag brought the passengers.
>
> So what if you make a gigantic sack full of 1000 people?
>

It'd have to be able to be carried. You'd have a bit of a problem
lifting something that big, let alone carrying it.

> - Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 6:54:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>Justisaur wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Werebat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
>>>>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
>>>>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>>>>
>>>>1. Turn three people gaseous
>>>>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
>>>>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
>>>
>>>
>>>2-3 cubic feet, (I just looked this up recently) It's 1 cubic foot per
>>>64 lbs of human aproximately (so a half-orc is going to be 4). Of
>>>course there's gear too, I couldn't see it going over 6 with gear
>>>though.
>>
>>That seems much too low. Are they not counting inner gasses?
>>
>
>
> You can always do an experiment to (dis)prove it if you want.
>
> Make or find something that can hold water that is approximately 1
> cubic foot internally (or something else you can measure fairly large
> volume with. Then you need a wood chipper and a cadaver. After
> liquefying the cadaver you can measure it's volume.

And this will eliminate the inner gasses from the body, thereby making
the volume smaller.


> If you don't have those resources, find a bathtub, fill it up just
> enough to cover you, mark water levels with and without you (crayon
> will probably work), fill up to high mark, bail water into your cube
> until it's back to the low mark. If they are correct you should end up
> with about 1 cube per 64lbs you weigh.
>
> It sounds reasonable to me. Humans are made up of mostly long thin
> cylinders. If you even just think about the bathtub experiment, you'll
> see you don't really displace anything like 8 cubic feet of water.

It's possible, it just seems low to me. A cubic foot of packed flesh
and bone weighing 64 pounds...?


>>>If they are gear at the time, I'd say they don't count. Do you make
>>>the wizard take 1 person off for his familiar?
>>
>>Familiars are a special case and can be taken along "for free", as per
>>the familiar rules on spell sharing.
>>
>>I don't think gaseous = gear, as petrified would.
>>
>
>
> No, I'm not saying gaseous = gear, I'm saying carried = gear. If you
> stuff someone in a bag, and carry them around they count as gear. It
> doesn't matter if they are gaseous or not. although if they need to
> breath they'll be real gear pretty soon anyway.

No, you're wrong. Living things do not count as gear. If they did,
this whole silly exercise gets much, much easier.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 6:55:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>Loren Pechtel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:22:39 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tonight, my PCs tried to find a loophole around the restrictions the
>>>>Teleport spell puts on how many people can be brought along with the
>>>>caster. What they wanted to try was this:
>>>>
>>>>1. Turn three people gaseous
>>>>2. Put them in a Type I Bag of Holding (we reasoned a human body took up
>>>>about 8 cubic feet, even while gaseous).
>>>>3. Since they're gaseous, they don't breathe and won't suffocate
>>>>4. Teleport normally, caster takes full allotment of passengers PLUS the
>>>>three people in the bag.
>>>>
>>>>The reasoning was that since the bag was an "extra-dimensional space",
>>>>the people in the bag could come out of it wherever it appeared.
>>>>
>>>>I ruled against it because the Teleport spell says you have to be in
>>>>contact with the caster somehow, and it was dropped, but not until I
>>>>wondered what would happen if the caster just reached one arm into the bag.
>>>>
>>>>What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>>I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
>>>bag brought the passengers.
>>
>>So what if you make a gigantic sack full of 1000 people?
>>
>
>
> It'd have to be able to be carried. You'd have a bit of a problem
> lifting something that big, let alone carrying it.

Shrink Object on the bag. It's munchkin, but the way you're thinking,
it just might work.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 7:26:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:04:45 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
wrote:

>> I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
>> bag brought the passengers.
>
>So what if you make a gigantic sack full of 1000 people?

I have no problem with it so long as it's magical storage of some
kind. The people aren't really coming along, they are elsewhere. It's
just their connection to the rest of the world moved.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 10:49:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Loren Pechtel wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:04:45 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
>>>bag brought the passengers.
>>
>>So what if you make a gigantic sack full of 1000 people?
>
>
> I have no problem with it so long as it's magical storage of some
> kind. The people aren't really coming along, they are elsewhere. It's
> just their connection to the rest of the world moved.

You view bags of holding as gateways to alternate dimensions, then.

I can understand this, if your view is the correct one. If I have a
portable portal to another world, send 1000 people through it, and then
teleport away with the portable portal, I should be able to have those
1000 people come back through the portal (assuming it is 2-way) when I
get to where I teleport to.

But is a bag of holding in fact a gateway to another dimension?

Or is it just a bag whose inside is bigger than its outside?

What does the term "non-dimensional space" MEAN?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:20:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FrlYe.49642$Cc5.25736@lakeread06...
>
>
> Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:04:45 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
> >>>bag brought the passengers.
> >>
> >>So what if you make a gigantic sack full of 1000 people?
> >
> >
> > I have no problem with it so long as it's magical storage of some
> > kind. The people aren't really coming along, they are elsewhere. It's
> > just their connection to the rest of the world moved.
>
> You view bags of holding as gateways to alternate dimensions, then.
>
> I can understand this, if your view is the correct one. If I have a
> portable portal to another world, send 1000 people through it, and then
> teleport away with the portable portal, I should be able to have those
> 1000 people come back through the portal (assuming it is 2-way) when I
> get to where I teleport to.
>
> But is a bag of holding in fact a gateway to another dimension?
>
> Or is it just a bag whose inside is bigger than its outside?
>
> What does the term "non-dimensional space" MEAN?
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

Err... why bother even debating it? Does the tactic really buy the PC's
anything? Well, no, not really. Our guys teleport like once in a blue
moon, regardless of price, so it's not like they need to save the money.
Why not allow them to teleport everything at once?

One thing you MIGHT want to remind them of, though, if they teleport, and
the teleport fails catastrophically, it *WILL* be a TPK. The guy gets
teleported into solid rock, the bag of holding ain't coming back out. Dead
teleportee, irretrievable other characters in a dimensional vortex. Nice
was to bookend a campaign, eh? ;) 

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 11:36:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> I kind of wish the penalty for using haste was higher. Age 1 year for every
> haste cast? That means, what, like hundreds of hastes before an elf even
> has to start THINKING about his age? Nice.

In 3.0/3.5 you don't age.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 3:10:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:49:08 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:04:45 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I would have allowed it no problem. They brought the bag along, the
>>>>bag brought the passengers.
>>>
>>>So what if you make a gigantic sack full of 1000 people?
>>
>>
>> I have no problem with it so long as it's magical storage of some
>> kind. The people aren't really coming along, they are elsewhere. It's
>> just their connection to the rest of the world moved.
>
>You view bags of holding as gateways to alternate dimensions, then.
>
>I can understand this, if your view is the correct one. If I have a
>portable portal to another world, send 1000 people through it, and then
>teleport away with the portable portal, I should be able to have those
>1000 people come back through the portal (assuming it is 2-way) when I
>get to where I teleport to.
>
>But is a bag of holding in fact a gateway to another dimension?
>
>Or is it just a bag whose inside is bigger than its outside?
>
>What does the term "non-dimensional space" MEAN?

Yeah, the rules aren't clear about it. I've always pictured it as
being elsewhere. With bags of holding it's not perfectly elsewhere,
some of the weight bleeds through. With portable holes it's perfectly
elsewhere, no weight bleeds through.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 4:05:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Repent Justisaur!" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" Justisaur
replied. Then he added:

> No, I'm not saying gaseous = gear, I'm saying carried = gear. If you
> stuff someone in a bag, and carry them around they count as gear. It
> doesn't matter if they are gaseous or not. although if they need to
> breath they'll be real gear pretty soon anyway.
>

I don't think that's right, since Teleport looks at the mental state of
someone you want to bring along. If you want to pack your friends as gear,
reduce them and petrify them.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 8:04:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:1127399795.057939.44910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > I kind of wish the penalty for using haste was higher. Age 1 year for
every
> > haste cast? That means, what, like hundreds of hastes before an elf
even
> > has to start THINKING about his age? Nice.
>
> In 3.0/3.5 you don't age.

*hangs head*... so... what's to prevent someone from hasting themselves
every combat? Wait, don't tell me, "nothing", right? Well, that figures, I
suppose. 3E is a combat monkey's wet dream, this would fall right in line
with that.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 11:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2-qdnSMI4Mcmk67eRVn-vg@comcast.com:

> "WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
> news:1127399795.057939.44910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> > I kind of wish the penalty for using haste was higher. Age 1 year
>> > for
> every
>> > haste cast? That means, what, like hundreds of hastes before an
>> > elf
> even
>> > has to start THINKING about his age? Nice.
>>
>> In 3.0/3.5 you don't age.
>
> *hangs head*... so... what's to prevent someone from hasting
> themselves every combat? Wait, don't tell me, "nothing", right?
> Well, that figures, I suppose. 3E is a combat monkey's wet dream,
> this would fall right in line with that.
>

They balanced it by making it no longer overpowered in the first place.
Honestly, there's no harm in being ignorant, but spouting out malformed
opinions on subjects you're knowingly ignorant is jackassery of the first
order.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:03:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:04:48 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
>news:1127399795.057939.44910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> > I kind of wish the penalty for using haste was higher. Age 1 year for
>every
>> > haste cast? That means, what, like hundreds of hastes before an elf
>even
>> > has to start THINKING about his age? Nice.
>>
>> In 3.0/3.5 you don't age.
>
>*hangs head*... so... what's to prevent someone from hasting themselves
>every combat? Wait, don't tell me, "nothing", right?

Spellcasters are limited by those pesky "per day" spell limits. Haste is
also a single target spell in 3.x where in 1E (and I presume 2E) it could
hit the entire party in one casting.

> Well, that figures, I
>suppose. 3E is a combat monkey's wet dream, this would fall right in line
>with that.

Except for how you are wrong, especially in 3.5, where Haste severely
weakened.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:05:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Shadow Wolf" <shadowolf3400@NOSPAMyahoo.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96D9A45537B6Dshadowolfsofthome@38.119.71.104...
> Think of it this way - the human body is just about as dense as water on
> average (some people barely float in water, some barely sink). Water is 62
> lbs/cubic foot. Humans are going to be pretty close to that density.

Some humans are denser than others, though. Just ask ANYONE around here,
prevailing thought is that I'm *MUCH* denser than most. Comparable to
mercury, I'd wager...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:19:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:iuq6j11cva4i8qco7gh70h6rhe31nchda0@4ax.com...
> Spellcasters are limited by those pesky "per day" spell limits. Haste is
> also a single target spell in 3.x where in 1E (and I presume 2E) it could
> hit the entire party in one casting.

Yep, in 2E, even a low level spellcaster can hit a whole party without much
trouble. If you get it at 5th level(enough to cast a 3rd level spell), you
can affect 5 creatures(about the typical size of a party for us), for quite
a period of time(7 rounds). During that time, the tin cans cease to be
fighters, and instead become whirling steel dervishes of death.

> Except for how you are wrong, especially in 3.5, where Haste severely
> weakened.

Well, let's just say I find the spell haste in general to be an annoying
spell as a 2E DM. It isn't a "buff" per se, it's a straight up force
multiplier, at least in 2E.

I haven't checked the 3E rules on haste, but I assume if they scaled back
the # of recipients in 3E, they also modified it's effect on number of
attacks. I seem to recall an attack for every +5 "BAB", base attack bonus,
as a basic component of 3E rules. I would assume that haste would do
something like add to that base attack bonus, and if you're over a certain
mark you get more attacks.

In 2E, this one second level spell can literally change the tide of any
combat, in an instant. I *NEVER* give it out as a spell for wizards in my
campaigns to learn. I also never let them buy it from a magic store.
Essentially, with few and rare exceptions, that spell *NEVER* gets used in
our campaigns, because it is *SO* unbalancing. When I do use it, it's most
often used as a form of escape by the bad guys, rather than an attacking
spell.

On the other hand, I will allow PCs to use the spell Slow, which halves the
attacks of monsters. Because it is NOT an offensive spell, it is typically
not taken, in deference to the fireballs and lightning bolts available at
that level to wizards. If they do take it, it's a useful spell, especially
against creatures with many and damaging attacks.

It may seem somewhat strange that I would allow monsters attacks to be
halved but not party attacks to be doubled, but I've seen far too many
combats simply annihilated by the use of the haste spell, in 2E. I'm glad
they scaled it back in 3E.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 11:33:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> I haven't checked the 3E rules on haste, but I assume if they scaled back
> the # of recipients in 3E, they also modified it's effect on number of
> attacks. I seem to recall an attack for every +5 "BAB", base attack
> bonus, as a basic component of 3E rules. I would assume that haste
> would do something like add to that base attack bonus, and if you're
> over a certain mark you get more attacks.

In unrevised Third Edition, Haste is a single-target spell which (basically)
grants a single standard or move or move-equivalent action. The reason it was
changed in revised Third Edition is because this meant you could cast multiple
spells in a round.

The rest of this post is the text of its effects under the revision:

The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed
has several effects.

When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack
with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature’s full base
attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is
not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed,
nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second
spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)

A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC
and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to
Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.

All of the hasted creature’s modes of movement (including land movement, burrow,
climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject’s
normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement
bonus, and it affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for increased
speed.

Multiple haste effects don’t stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.

--
Christopher "No, not including my signature" Adams - Sydney, Australia

SERENITY - The Future Is Worth Fighting For

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:56:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:04:48 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> "WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
> news:1127399795.057939.44910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > > I kind of wish the penalty for using haste was higher. Age 1 year for
> every
> > > haste cast? That means, what, like hundreds of hastes before an elf
> even
> > > has to start THINKING about his age? Nice.
> >
> > In 3.0/3.5 you don't age.
>
> *hangs head*... so... what's to prevent someone from hasting themselves
> every combat? Wait, don't tell me, "nothing", right? Well, that figures, I
> suppose. 3E is a combat monkey's wet dream, this would fall right in line
> with that.

The aging didn't exist in the oldest versions of D&D either. It's a
poorly thought out attempt to balance the spell (as you noted, elves
have little to fear from the 'balancing' mechanism).

V3.5 fixes the spell by making it's effect on a character weaker, but
allowing it to affect multiple characters. This also has the nice
effect of making it mirror Slow.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:58:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
>
> > No, I'm not saying gaseous = gear, I'm saying carried = gear. If you
> > stuff someone in a bag, and carry them around they count as gear. It
> > doesn't matter if they are gaseous or not. although if they need to
> > breath they'll be real gear pretty soon anyway.
>
> No, you're wrong. Living things do not count as gear. If they did,
> this whole silly exercise gets much, much easier.

Why not? There's nothing say I can't stuff someone in a bag and carry
them around. Especially if I'm a strong Orc, and I like to carry fresh
meals with me. Mmm. Donner trail rations.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:03:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news:iuq6j11cva4i8qco7gh70h6rhe31nchda0@4ax.com...
>
>>Spellcasters are limited by those pesky "per day" spell limits. Haste is
>>also a single target spell in 3.x where in 1E (and I presume 2E) it could
>>hit the entire party in one casting.
>
>
> Yep, in 2E, even a low level spellcaster can hit a whole party without much
> trouble. If you get it at 5th level(enough to cast a 3rd level spell), you
> can affect 5 creatures(about the typical size of a party for us), for quite
> a period of time(7 rounds). During that time, the tin cans cease to be
> fighters, and instead become whirling steel dervishes of death.
>
>
>>Except for how you are wrong, especially in 3.5, where Haste severely
>>weakened.
>
>
> Well, let's just say I find the spell haste in general to be an annoying
> spell as a 2E DM. It isn't a "buff" per se, it's a straight up force
> multiplier, at least in 2E.
>
> I haven't checked the 3E rules on haste, but I assume if they scaled back
> the # of recipients in 3E, they also modified it's effect on number of
> attacks. I seem to recall an attack for every +5 "BAB", base attack bonus,
> as a basic component of 3E rules. I would assume that haste would do
> something like add to that base attack bonus, and if you're over a certain
> mark you get more attacks.
>
> In 2E, this one second level spell can literally change the tide of any
> combat, in an instant. I *NEVER* give it out as a spell for wizards in my
> campaigns to learn. I also never let them buy it from a magic store.
> Essentially, with few and rare exceptions, that spell *NEVER* gets used in
> our campaigns, because it is *SO* unbalancing. When I do use it, it's most
> often used as a form of escape by the bad guys, rather than an attacking
> spell.
>
> On the other hand, I will allow PCs to use the spell Slow, which halves the
> attacks of monsters. Because it is NOT an offensive spell, it is typically
> not taken, in deference to the fireballs and lightning bolts available at
> that level to wizards. If they do take it, it's a useful spell, especially
> against creatures with many and damaging attacks.
>
> It may seem somewhat strange that I would allow monsters attacks to be
> halved but not party attacks to be doubled, but I've seen far too many
> combats simply annihilated by the use of the haste spell, in 2E. I'm glad
> they scaled it back in 3E.

Haste is a good example of a spell that 3E "fixed". Other good examples
include Stoneskin, Blink, and Phantasmal Killer. Slow, too, which was
as overpowered as Haste in 2E (that -4 penalty to saves was a killer).

3E also made the various Fog Clouds useful, as well as Darkness (more or
less).

It did overpower a small number of spells, though, such as Web.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:58:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
news:akYYe.6278$GK2.5525@lakeread07:

> It did overpower a small number of spells, though, such as Web.
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

Are you still anchoring Web to dragon wings?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 9:06:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>> No, you're wrong. Living things do not count as gear. If they did,
>> this whole silly exercise gets much, much easier.

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not? There's nothing say I can't stuff someone in a bag and carry
> them around.

How does that make them gear instead of characters?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 10:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 03:03:43 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Spellcasters are limited by those pesky "per day" spell limits. Haste is
> also a single target spell in 3.x where in 1E (and I presume 2E) it could
> hit the entire party in one casting.

Nope. in 3.0 it's a one target spell, in v3.5 it's a whole party spell
(but not so powerful in its enhancement).


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 11:27:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chipacabra wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
> news:akYYe.6278$GK2.5525@lakeread07:
>
>
>>It did overpower a small number of spells, though, such as Web.
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>>
>
>
> Are you still anchoring Web to dragon wings?

LOL no need to, it's overpowered as is.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 8:21:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Haste is a good example of a spell that 3E "fixed". Other good examples
> include Stoneskin, Blink, and Phantasmal Killer. Slow, too, which was
> as overpowered as Haste in 2E (that -4 penalty to saves was a killer).

A minor correction. :) 

>From the 2E PHB Slow spell description:

"Saving Throw: Neg."

"Saving throws against the spell suffer a -4 penalty."

The -4 penalty was only to the targets' saving throw against the Slow
spell, not to their saving throws while affected by it.


Arivne
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 2:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

arivne@cox.net wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Haste is a good example of a spell that 3E "fixed". Other good examples
>>include Stoneskin, Blink, and Phantasmal Killer. Slow, too, which was
>>as overpowered as Haste in 2E (that -4 penalty to saves was a killer).
>
>
> A minor correction. :) 
>
>>From the 2E PHB Slow spell description:
>
> "Saving Throw: Neg."
>
> "Saving throws against the spell suffer a -4 penalty."
>
> The -4 penalty was only to the targets' saving throw against the Slow
> spell, not to their saving throws while affected by it.

I know -- that's what I was talking about. It was a killer.

- Ron ^*^
Related resources
!