Who can explain why the bag of holding seems to be better than the handy haversack? The haversack seems like it should be better due to it's rarity, but it holds vastly less (100lbs total between all three compartments vs. The BoH's 500lbs). Otherwise, it follows all the same rules; takes an action to retrieve something from it, self destructs when combined with other space bending items, the works. The only mechanical benefit I can see is the haverack weighs 5lbs compared to the BoH's 15, but that's hardly a trade off when looking at capacity. What am I missing here?
There is another mechanical difference between the two in so far that the Haversack allows: if you think of the item you're searching for it is magically on top, where as the bag of holding simply is the equivalent of rummaging through all the stuff to find what you're looking for.
In the grand scheme of things that means not having to pull off the container and open it up to start digging through it, you can place the haversack on your back, reach into the appropriate pocket, think of the item and retrieve it without ever looking. This can play into recon, spell casting, sleight of hand, and other types of things where you don't want to take your eyes off a target. At least, that's my take on it.
I hear yah, but it doesn't seem enough of an edge to make the haversack more rare. Sure it's always sticking what you need at the top, but you still need to use an action just the same so mechanically it still seems inferior.
You have a rogue that is attacking the group, you have spotted said rogue. You take the bag of holding off your belt loop, open it up, rummage through it and find that alchemist's flask you need to grenade the rogue's location. You look up...and the rogue is gone.
or
You spot the rogue, you keep an eye on him as you reach over your shoulder, into the pouch, thinking about the alchemist's flask. You pull out the alchemist's flask, all the while tracking the movements of the rogue, and on your next turn, light him up like a turkey dinner.
Sure there are pros and cons to each, but the crux of the problem lie in how those mechanical differences can be utilized.
It comes down to an issue with how the Bag of Holding is described, in that it does not give any indication how long it takes to pull items out of the bag. Many people thus assume it follows the usual interaction rules; however, the subtext is that it's supposed to take minutes rather than seconds to find something in the bag, or potentially requires dumping the contents out. The Handy Haversack is supposed to be exactly that - handier. The Bag of Holding is an ex machina to carry around all the junk you find; the Haversack is a backpack replacement that puts all your important gear close at hand. But as written, Bags of Holding remain the go-to item for storage because their implied drawback is not listed.
A Bag of Holding is 4 foot deep and 2 foot wide. Not something that can be carried in a fight. Think if it more as something you'd put in a cart or on a horse.
A Bag of Holding is 4 foot deep and 2 foot wide. Not something that can be carried in a fight. Think if it more as something you'd put in a cart or on a horse.
Those are the interior dimensions. The external dimensions are of a rather simple small bag. See the image of it.
A Bag of Holding is 4 foot deep and 2 foot wide. Not something that can be carried in a fight. Think if it more as something you'd put in a cart or on a horse.
Those are the interior dimensions. The external dimensions are of a rather simple small bag. See the image of it.
That is inaccurate. The "interior dimensions" are essentially unlimited, as it's an extradimensional space. The outer dimensions are "roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep", and the interior space is "considerably larger". The illustration is interesting, but not drawn to scale based on the item description. I'm guessing the artist either wasn't given the exact dimensions or chose to take some artistic license with it.
bags of holding have been a staple of DND and the image does represent the "canonical" depiction. a bag of external dimensions of 4ft and diameter 2ft is basically a barrel. A bag of holding is not a barrel. it can be carried easily. only the chunkiest men would consider a barrel easy to carry.
edit: further, with a volume of 64 cubic ft., this translates to a 4x4x4 cube. the stated dimensions for the depth and opening size are appropriate to this internal volume.
A Bag of Holding is 4 foot deep and 2 foot wide. Not something that can be carried in a fight. Think if it more as something you'd put in a cart or on a horse.
"This bag has an interior space considerably larger than its outside dimensions, roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep. The bag can hold up to 500 pounds, not exceeding a volume of 64 cubic feet."
It clearly states the interior has a 2 foot opening and is 4 feet deep (4x4x4 cube based on volume). Its outside dimensions are that of a bag, probably around 3.14 feet wide and 2 feet deep in order to have the opening dimensions it has. The subject of the first sentence in the interior of the bag.
A Bag of Holding is 4 foot deep and 2 foot wide. Not something that can be carried in a fight. Think if it more as something you'd put in a cart or on a horse.
"This bag has an interior space considerably larger than its outside dimensions, roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep. The bag can hold up to 500 pounds, not exceeding a volume of 64 cubic feet."
It clearly states the interior has a 2 foot opening and is 4 feet deep (4x4x4 cube based on volume). Its outside dimensions are that of a bag, probably around 3.14 feet wide and 2 feet deep in order to have the opening dimensions it has. The subject of the first sentence in the interior of the bag.
Why would they describe a volume limit for the space inside if the bag's inside dimensions were 2 feet in diameter and 4 feet tall? The volume of a cylinder of that size would be 12.57 cubic feet... which would be pointlessly tiny for a Bag of Holding, and also far less than the specified volume limit of 64 cubic feet.
Even setting logic aside, if you look at the 3.5e SRD entry for the Bag of Holding, it has the exact same outside dimensions, and clearly distinguishes the fixed outside dimensions from the variable weight and volume limits (3.5e had a few different versions of the item):
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space: Its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed amount. This weight, and the limits in weight and volume of the bag’s contents, depend on the bag’s type, as shown on the table below.
It's clear from the 3.5e version (which the 5e version is based on and very similar to) that the 2-foot diameter and 4-foot depth refer to the outside dimensions, not the inside ones.
I'm pretty sure it's a trivial distinction. I've never heard of anyone not being able to operate as normal due to the floppiness of their bag of holding.
1) 5e is not 3.5e. 3.5e is useful as a guide, but cannot be relied upon for a direct correlation to 5e.
2) Having said that, note that it says "depth". Not height or width. My regular bag's depth happens to equal its height, because its just a regular bag made of some sort of polyester. But the Bag of Holding is like the TARDIS - it's bigger on the inside. Also note that it never says that the opening width is equal to the width or breadth of the inside. Put simply, you've been conflating its opening width with both its internal dimensions and its folded/closed external dimensions, and its depth for its external height.
"This bag has an interior space considerably larger than its outside dimensions, roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep."
The above sentence is ambiguous. There's no way to tell if "..., roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep." is referring to the interior or outside dimension.
I have always taken the "2 feet diameter and 4 feet deep" to be the size limit for objects that can be put into it. Otherwise someone could put a 500lb log into the bag of holding, in one piece. Handy if you need to cross a river...
Ok played back in 2e time frame the bag itself has an opening about 2 feet outside is about 1 foot depth. inside is bigger. What yall are missing is the inside depths 2 by 4 is to limit the size of objects being put in, if the object is to large the bag won't close and send the item to the extra dimensional space. But once it's sent max load is 500lbs max space is 64 cubic feet. Hope this helps clarify some things. And before ya try to clap back 2e said outside dimensions and inside. And the 5e ones hold way more. It also does make sense that you gotta dig through or dump to get what your looking for seeming how most like item specify that the item your looking for is always on top or appears.
I always looked at a bag of holding as exactly that. Just a large bag, not some handbag. That thing looks like some starving artist created it on their off time. Plus why would they have to look any different than any other simple bag? Just so some passing thief would notice it and try to steal it?
I also miss different sized bags of holding along with pouches of accessibility.
And why is there no spell that would make a container have extra-dimensional space? Something that scales up with the casters level.
Just for convenience you could place the current bag of holding inside a normal backpack and then the backpack could hold more and the bulk could be more conveniently carried. Though it would be a pain to get things in and out it would carry a lot of gold.
Two bags of holding would make in interesting trap. One falls into the other and boom, a 10 foot area gets sucked into nothingness.
Exactly! People make assumptions about the bag of holding based on the picture and lack of description. In earlier editions it was explicitly described to be a sack. No convenient shoulder straps. Either it's tucked away in a pack or pouch, or it's occupying one of your character's free hands. So now you're looking at at least two object interactions. One to fish the bag out of your backpack or belt pouch, and another to dig the item you want out of your bag of holding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Who can explain why the bag of holding seems to be better than the handy haversack? The haversack seems like it should be better due to it's rarity, but it holds vastly less (100lbs total between all three compartments vs. The BoH's 500lbs). Otherwise, it follows all the same rules; takes an action to retrieve something from it, self destructs when combined with other space bending items, the works. The only mechanical benefit I can see is the haverack weighs 5lbs compared to the BoH's 15, but that's hardly a trade off when looking at capacity. What am I missing here?
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
There is another mechanical difference between the two in so far that the Haversack allows: if you think of the item you're searching for it is magically on top, where as the bag of holding simply is the equivalent of rummaging through all the stuff to find what you're looking for.
In the grand scheme of things that means not having to pull off the container and open it up to start digging through it, you can place the haversack on your back, reach into the appropriate pocket, think of the item and retrieve it without ever looking. This can play into recon, spell casting, sleight of hand, and other types of things where you don't want to take your eyes off a target. At least, that's my take on it.
This.
Haversacks are better for character stuff. BoH and Portable Holes are for when you absolutely positively must take all the gold from a Dragon's Hoard.
I hear yah, but it doesn't seem enough of an edge to make the haversack more rare. Sure it's always sticking what you need at the top, but you still need to use an action just the same so mechanically it still seems inferior.
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
Consider then:
You have a rogue that is attacking the group, you have spotted said rogue. You take the bag of holding off your belt loop, open it up, rummage through it and find that alchemist's flask you need to grenade the rogue's location. You look up...and the rogue is gone.
or
You spot the rogue, you keep an eye on him as you reach over your shoulder, into the pouch, thinking about the alchemist's flask. You pull out the alchemist's flask, all the while tracking the movements of the rogue, and on your next turn, light him up like a turkey dinner.
Sure there are pros and cons to each, but the crux of the problem lie in how those mechanical differences can be utilized.
Put a deck of many things in the Haversack, say you want to pull one card, tell the sack you want the card of the moon. BLAM wishes lol
It comes down to an issue with how the Bag of Holding is described, in that it does not give any indication how long it takes to pull items out of the bag. Many people thus assume it follows the usual interaction rules; however, the subtext is that it's supposed to take minutes rather than seconds to find something in the bag, or potentially requires dumping the contents out. The Handy Haversack is supposed to be exactly that - handier. The Bag of Holding is an ex machina to carry around all the junk you find; the Haversack is a backpack replacement that puts all your important gear close at hand. But as written, Bags of Holding remain the go-to item for storage because their implied drawback is not listed.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
A Bag of Holding is 4 foot deep and 2 foot wide. Not something that can be carried in a fight. Think if it more as something you'd put in a cart or on a horse.
Those are the interior dimensions. The external dimensions are of a rather simple small bag. See the image of it.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
I'm really surprised I haven't seen anybody at a convention carrying around such a satchel. It has a pretty distinctive look.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That is inaccurate. The "interior dimensions" are essentially unlimited, as it's an extradimensional space. The outer dimensions are "roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep", and the interior space is "considerably larger". The illustration is interesting, but not drawn to scale based on the item description. I'm guessing the artist either wasn't given the exact dimensions or chose to take some artistic license with it.
bags of holding have been a staple of DND and the image does represent the "canonical" depiction. a bag of external dimensions of 4ft and diameter 2ft is basically a barrel. A bag of holding is not a barrel. it can be carried easily. only the chunkiest men would consider a barrel easy to carry.
edit: further, with a volume of 64 cubic ft., this translates to a 4x4x4 cube. the stated dimensions for the depth and opening size are appropriate to this internal volume.
It clearly states the interior has a 2 foot opening and is 4 feet deep (4x4x4 cube based on volume). Its outside dimensions are that of a bag, probably around 3.14 feet wide and 2 feet deep in order to have the opening dimensions it has. The subject of the first sentence in the interior of the bag.
Why would they describe a volume limit for the space inside if the bag's inside dimensions were 2 feet in diameter and 4 feet tall? The volume of a cylinder of that size would be 12.57 cubic feet... which would be pointlessly tiny for a Bag of Holding, and also far less than the specified volume limit of 64 cubic feet.
Even setting logic aside, if you look at the 3.5e SRD entry for the Bag of Holding, it has the exact same outside dimensions, and clearly distinguishes the fixed outside dimensions from the variable weight and volume limits (3.5e had a few different versions of the item):
It's clear from the 3.5e version (which the 5e version is based on and very similar to) that the 2-foot diameter and 4-foot depth refer to the outside dimensions, not the inside ones.
I'm pretty sure it's a trivial distinction. I've never heard of anyone not being able to operate as normal due to the floppiness of their bag of holding.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
1) 5e is not 3.5e. 3.5e is useful as a guide, but cannot be relied upon for a direct correlation to 5e.
2) Having said that, note that it says "depth". Not height or width. My regular bag's depth happens to equal its height, because its just a regular bag made of some sort of polyester. But the Bag of Holding is like the TARDIS - it's bigger on the inside. Also note that it never says that the opening width is equal to the width or breadth of the inside. Put simply, you've been conflating its opening width with both its internal dimensions and its folded/closed external dimensions, and its depth for its external height.
"This bag has an interior space considerably larger than its outside dimensions, roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep."
The above sentence is ambiguous. There's no way to tell if "..., roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep." is referring to the interior or outside dimension.
I have always taken the "2 feet diameter and 4 feet deep" to be the size limit for objects that can be put into it. Otherwise someone could put a 500lb log into the bag of holding, in one piece. Handy if you need to cross a river...
Ok played back in 2e time frame the bag itself has an opening about 2 feet outside is about 1 foot depth. inside is bigger. What yall are missing is the inside depths 2 by 4 is to limit the size of objects being put in, if the object is to large the bag won't close and send the item to the extra dimensional space. But once it's sent max load is 500lbs max space is 64 cubic feet. Hope this helps clarify some things. And before ya try to clap back 2e said outside dimensions and inside. And the 5e ones hold way more. It also does make sense that you gotta dig through or dump to get what your looking for seeming how most like item specify that the item your looking for is always on top or appears.
I always looked at a bag of holding as exactly that. Just a large bag, not some handbag. That thing looks like some starving artist created it on their off time. Plus why would they have to look any different than any other simple bag? Just so some passing thief would notice it and try to steal it?
I also miss different sized bags of holding along with pouches of accessibility.
And why is there no spell that would make a container have extra-dimensional space? Something that scales up with the casters level.
Just for convenience you could place the current bag of holding inside a normal backpack and then the backpack could hold more and the bulk could be more conveniently carried. Though it would be a pain to get things in and out it would carry a lot of gold.
Two bags of holding would make in interesting trap. One falls into the other and boom, a 10 foot area gets sucked into nothingness.
Exactly! People make assumptions about the bag of holding based on the picture and lack of description. In earlier editions it was explicitly described to be a sack. No convenient shoulder straps. Either it's tucked away in a pack or pouch, or it's occupying one of your character's free hands. So now you're looking at at least two object interactions. One to fish the bag out of your backpack or belt pouch, and another to dig the item you want out of your bag of holding.