As all the other similar items have the same text I'm not sure its a thing to get hung up on. Especially since its not a magic item, if someone else gets it they can't attune to it. Its more of a focus for your ability.
The quiver of Ehlonna creates an extradimensional space and does not have the text indicating an interaction. This is because there is no interaction. We can assume this because it is from the DMG as well. In general I would argue that since the interaction is not mentioned then there is none.
The quiver of Ehlonna creates an extradimensional space and does not have the text indicating an interaction. This is because there is no interaction. We can assume this because it is from the DMG as well. In general I would argue that since the interaction is not mentioned then there is none.
Then what would the "or similar items" clause be referring too?
The quiver of Ehlonna creates an extradimensional space and does not have the text indicating an interaction. This is because there is no interaction. We can assume this because it is from the DMG as well. In general I would argue that since the interaction is not mentioned then there is none.
Then what would the "or similar items" clause be referring too?
The quiver of Ehlonna creates an extradimensional space and does not have the text indicating an interaction. This is because there is no interaction. We can assume this because it is from the DMG as well. In general I would argue that since the interaction is not mentioned then there is none.
Then what would the "or similar items" clause be referring too?
Other items with similar text.
So like items that have an extradimensional space that you can put stuff in?
I would say that it would apply to reskinned items and similar. I thought I had heard an interview with Crawford where they made the decision to keep the classic interaction, but not make it absolute. The concept being that there is a long history of portable holes and bag of holdings, but forcing the interaction on all extradimensional spaces becomes problematic. First the DM then has to look at every possible interaction and keep track of them. You don't want the players accidentally causing the interaction and running a campaign off the road. So instead you call out a few specific examples and call it out in those items.
This entire conversation is a good example. Why would you want to rule that a player can't take a bag of holding into a genie space. What is the point? How is that fun?
The quiver of Ehlonna creates an extradimensional space and does not have the text indicating an interaction. This is because there is no interaction. We can assume this because it is from the DMG as well. In general I would argue that since the interaction is not mentioned then there is none.
Then what would the "or similar items" clause be referring too?
Other items with similar text.
So like items that have an extradimensional space that you can put stuff in?
No items with a extra-dimensional space that add the line that it interacts with items like the bag of holding by causing a rift to astral space. The general rule is items don't cause a rift, the specific exception is items with the text do. They basically have a rule, these 3 items cause it with a add on line leaving the option open for future items if they choose to add it. Quiver of Ehlona does not have the line, it does not cause it, the genies sanctum does not have the line it does not cause it, bag of holding, portable hole do have the line they do cause it.
The quiver of Ehlonna creates an extradimensional space and does not have the text indicating an interaction. This is because there is no interaction. We can assume this because it is from the DMG as well. In general I would argue that since the interaction is not mentioned then there is none.
Then what would the "or similar items" clause be referring too?
Other items with similar text.
So like items that have an extradimensional space that you can put stuff in?
No items with a extra-dimensional space that add the line that it interacts with items like the bag of holding by causing a rift to astral space. The general rule is items don't cause a rift, the specific exception is items with the text do. They basically have a rule, these 3 items cause it with a add on line leaving the option open for future items if they choose to add it. Quiver of Ehlona does not have the line, it does not cause it, the genies sanctum does not have the line it does not cause it, bag of holding, portable hole do have the line they do cause it.
Then why list those items specifically AND add the term similar items? The way I read and understand it, it is only those three items, that have that phrasing, will interact with items that have an extradimensional space thus would cause the rift. If the quiver went into the portable hole it would cause the rift, but if the quiver went into another quiver (for the sake of the argument) it would not cause a rift.
I already explained how I saw that, they have the similar items line to leave open the option to add more later with a similar line. If they don't add the line it does not happen.
The single biggest relevant difference between a genie warlock's vessel and the bag/hole/haversack trio is that the vessel doesn't have an opening into the extra dimensional space. No one (not even the warlock themself) can reach into the vessel to put things in or pull things out. That is a major difference between the vessel and the trio, and easily enough to justify it not being a "similar item." To enter the vessel, the warlock does not pass through an opening into it. They vanish and appear inside it.
what this seems to boil down to is abusive DM's punishing players for choosing a class and having items while using that class feature it seems like they're trying to bully people or something.
Eh it’s a game mechanic to stop abuse of a mechanic. It stops recursive multiple nesting of items. Quiver can’t have anything but projectiles/ sticky things put in. So does not need regulating and the genie gets only one space so also not open to much abuse.
So from this dms point of view ‘rule of cool’ until it’s not cool. :)
1 . Then why not say “and any other items flagged as interacting this way in their item description “? 2. If text did say (1) then is it really necessary or value added to say so there, when the new item descriptions for the inevitable new items can and will say so as they appear.
I think what the text means “DM will decide what constitutes similar” and that’s part of a Ruling. Items in the future that explicitly state there is an interaction don’t require a Ruling…it is a Rule.
1 . Then why not say “and any other items flagged as interacting this way in their item description “? 2. If text did say (1) then is it really necessary or value added to say so there, when the new item descriptions for the inevitable new items can and will say so as they appear.
I think what the text means “DM will decide what constitutes similar” and that’s part of a Ruling. Items in the future that explicitly state there is an interaction don’t require a Ruling…it is a Rule.
Because they don't like writing clear rules and moved away from a tag system that was prevalent in 3e/4e. I have lost count on the number of times i have said if only they had kept a key word system X rule would be clear.
1 . Then why not say “and any other items flagged as interacting this way in their item description “? 2. If text did say (1) then is it really necessary or value added to say so there, when the new item descriptions for the inevitable new items can and will say so as they appear.
I think what the text means “DM will decide what constitutes similar” and that’s part of a Ruling. Items in the future that explicitly state there is an interaction don’t require a Ruling…it is a Rule.
Because they don't like writing clear rules and moved away from a tag system that was prevalent in 3e/4e. I have lost count on the number of times i have said if only they had kept a key word system X rule would be clear.
Yeah. My conclusions from going round on the subject in a different thread:
"similar" is undefined in the rules text, so there's ultimately no right or wrong ruling
My personal definition of "similar" is "has the boom clause"
If you use a more expansive definition of "similar", you end up with weird asymmetries, where you get an astral rift when you put A into B, but not when you put B into A.
1 . Then why not say “and any other items flagged as interacting this way in their item description “? 2. If text did say (1) then is it really necessary or value added to say so there, when the new item descriptions for the inevitable new items can and will say so as they appear.
I think what the text means “DM will decide what constitutes similar” and that’s part of a Ruling. Items in the future that explicitly state there is an interaction don’t require a Ruling…it is a Rule.
Because they don't like writing clear rules and moved away from a tag system that was prevalent in 3e/4e. I have lost count on the number of times i have said if only they had kept a key word system X rule would be clear.
Yeah. My conclusions from going round on the subject in a different thread:
"similar" is undefined in the rules text, so there's ultimately no right or wrong ruling
My personal definition of "similar" is "has the boom clause"
If you use a more expansive definition of "similar", you end up with weird asymmetries, where you get an astral rift when you put A into B, but not when you put B into A.
That’s a thoughtful approach. I’m new to 5e and for all the things it does better than 1e, there is very careless word choice. Spells especially.
Yeah. My conclusions from going round on the subject in a different thread:
"similar" is undefined in the rules text, so there's ultimately no right or wrong ruling
My personal definition of "similar" is "has the boom clause"
If you use a more expansive definition of "similar", you end up with weird asymmetries, where you get an astral rift when you put A into B, but not when you put B into A.
That’s a thoughtful approach. I’m new to 5e and for all the things it does better than 1e, there is very careless word choice. Spells especially.
To be fair, it's way, way, better than 1e and 2e were. Still sloppy, but sloppy on a much higher base level of rigor.
Regarding the similar item discussion, I think one should look at the function: Portable Holes, Handy Haversack etc. are special storage containers. However, a Genie's Vessel is a special living space, just like Magnificent Mansion. Although all are extra dimensional, they are not all similar items from my point of view.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solum profundum variat" playing since 1986
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As all the other similar items have the same text I'm not sure its a thing to get hung up on. Especially since its not a magic item, if someone else gets it they can't attune to it. Its more of a focus for your ability.
It is a item with a extra dimensional space. It has the key words to qualify.
The quiver of Ehlonna creates an extradimensional space and does not have the text indicating an interaction. This is because there is no interaction. We can assume this because it is from the DMG as well. In general I would argue that since the interaction is not mentioned then there is none.
Then what would the "or similar items" clause be referring too?
Other items with similar text.
So like items that have an extradimensional space that you can put stuff in?
I would say that it would apply to reskinned items and similar. I thought I had heard an interview with Crawford where they made the decision to keep the classic interaction, but not make it absolute. The concept being that there is a long history of portable holes and bag of holdings, but forcing the interaction on all extradimensional spaces becomes problematic. First the DM then has to look at every possible interaction and keep track of them. You don't want the players accidentally causing the interaction and running a campaign off the road. So instead you call out a few specific examples and call it out in those items.
This entire conversation is a good example. Why would you want to rule that a player can't take a bag of holding into a genie space. What is the point? How is that fun?
No items with a extra-dimensional space that add the line that it interacts with items like the bag of holding by causing a rift to astral space. The general rule is items don't cause a rift, the specific exception is items with the text do. They basically have a rule, these 3 items cause it with a add on line leaving the option open for future items if they choose to add it. Quiver of Ehlona does not have the line, it does not cause it, the genies sanctum does not have the line it does not cause it, bag of holding, portable hole do have the line they do cause it.
Then why list those items specifically AND add the term similar items? The way I read and understand it, it is only those three items, that have that phrasing, will interact with items that have an extradimensional space thus would cause the rift. If the quiver went into the portable hole it would cause the rift, but if the quiver went into another quiver (for the sake of the argument) it would not cause a rift.
I already explained how I saw that, they have the similar items line to leave open the option to add more later with a similar line. If they don't add the line it does not happen.
The single biggest relevant difference between a genie warlock's vessel and the bag/hole/haversack trio is that the vessel doesn't have an opening into the extra dimensional space. No one (not even the warlock themself) can reach into the vessel to put things in or pull things out. That is a major difference between the vessel and the trio, and easily enough to justify it not being a "similar item." To enter the vessel, the warlock does not pass through an opening into it. They vanish and appear inside it.
what this seems to boil down to is abusive DM's punishing players for choosing a class and having items while using that class feature it seems like they're trying to bully people or something.
Eh it’s a game mechanic to stop abuse of a mechanic. It stops recursive multiple nesting of items. Quiver can’t have anything but projectiles/ sticky things put in. So does not need regulating and the genie gets only one space so also not open to much abuse.
So from this dms point of view ‘rule of cool’ until it’s not cool. :)
It's not Magic its Science
1 . Then why not say “and any other items flagged as interacting this way in their item description “?
2. If text did say (1) then is it really necessary or value added to say so there, when the new item descriptions for the inevitable new items can and will say so as they appear.
I think what the text means “DM will decide what constitutes similar” and that’s part of a Ruling. Items in the future that explicitly state there is an interaction don’t require a Ruling…it is a Rule.
Because they don't like writing clear rules and moved away from a tag system that was prevalent in 3e/4e. I have lost count on the number of times i have said if only they had kept a key word system X rule would be clear.
Yeah. My conclusions from going round on the subject in a different thread:
That’s a thoughtful approach. I’m new to 5e and for all the things it does better than 1e, there is very careless word choice. Spells especially.
To be fair, it's way, way, better than 1e and 2e were. Still sloppy, but sloppy on a much higher base level of rigor.
As mentioned elsewhere on the forum:
Regarding the similar item discussion, I think one should look at the function:
Portable Holes, Handy Haversack etc. are special storage containers.
However, a Genie's Vessel is a special living space, just like Magnificent Mansion.
Although all are extra dimensional, they are not all similar items from my point of view.
playing since 1986