Gaseous Form, Bags of Holding, and Teleport

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 ^*^
36 answers Last reply
More about gaseous form bags holding teleport
  1. 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.
  2. 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/
  3. 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 ^*^
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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 ^*^
  7. 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 ^*^
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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 ^*^
  14. 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 ^*^
  15. 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 ^*^
  16. 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.
  17. 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 ^*^
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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/
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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/prestigeclasslist.html
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
  28. 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."
  29. 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
  30. 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 ^*^
  31. 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?
  32. 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
  33. 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."
  34. 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 ^*^
  35. 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
  36. 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 ^*^
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games