Aren't you arguing that the Bottle is not similar? That seems to have been your argument for the past few comments.
You are correct regarding the Efficient Quiver, I missed that one. Interestingly enough, you could place the EQ into any of the others without it going boom as it is missing that clause (intentionally or not). However, it is still an item that creates and extradimensional space, so putting the PH into the EQ would cause the boom.
I said "clearly" because they specified "item". I would say that makes it pretty clear. Or would you argue that Paladin's could smite on spell attacks since it doesn't explicitly say they cannot?
Terrible example. Spell attacks aren't melee weapon attacks, so it actually does explicitly say they can't by specifying every type of attack that qualifies and leaving it out. Meanwhile, arguments are still being made that every item with an extradimensional space automatically qualifies as similar by intent when you don't know if the intent was only items with the same property that prevents nesting.
But doesn't this do the same thing by stating it can't go inside an item that creates an extradimensional space? It is stating every type of item that it cannot enter. I really don't see the difference.
That's basically what the entire debate has been: What qualifies as "similar" for the sake of the condition on Bag of Holding?
Is it any item with an extradimensional space?
Or is it any item with an extradimensional space that also mandates it can't safely be stored inside another?
The RAW is this: There isn't a clear answer, ask your DM.
Aren't you arguing that the Bottle is not similar? That seems to have been your argument for the past few comments.
Literally no, that is not what I'm arguing.
I am arguing that the definition of "similar item" is not written in the rules.
No definition of "similar item" is RAW. They are all interpretation.
I've also said what my interpretation is and why. Were I the official D&D Rules Interpretation Person, and I had to make a canonical ruling, it's the way I'd rule it. Been there, done that, for a game where there had to be canonical rulings. D&D is not such a game.
You are correct regarding the Efficient Quiver, I missed that one. Interestingly enough, you could place the EQ into any of the others without it going boom as it is missing that clause (intentionally or not). However, it is still an item that creates and extradimensional space, so putting the PH into the EQ would cause the boom.
I said "clearly" because they specified "item". I would say that makes it pretty clear.
You can think that, and play it at your table, and you're not wrong. Still ain't RAW.
i think all of you are both wrong and right at the same time, while one of you is being obtuse on top of that.
clearly the properties 'item' and 'creates an extradimensional space' are referred to (RAI) when it says 'similar', because those are the only properties mentioned. The obtuse one is already going to disagree now, because that's what their case hinges on.
the next misconception both of you seem to have is that the list is or ever was exhaustive. It never was. This is supported by the fact that these lists don't even mention the identical item itself and end on that 'or a similar item' part. RAW you can absolutely put a bag of holding into another bag of holding without anything happening, other than providing endlessly complex storage. Meaning a consistent RAW reading of the entire rule cannot logically lead you to believe this rule was meant to prevent that. You have to think RAI.
The comparison to Magnificent Mansion is just you being obtuse again, because that extradimensional space clearly isn't created by an item. It's created by a spell. The extradimensional space on Genie's Vessel is the exact opposite. It's a bad comparison made in bad faith to support an obtuse RAW reading, that ignores some RAW parts in favor of others.
Ofc this arguing doesn't accomplish anything, I just can't ignore a bad argument when I see one. This whole 'what do words even mean' while ignoring the given points of reference.
I see the rule as being about preventing the use of these items to create infinite storage by nesting them. And also because it's funny.
The Genie's Vessel is similar in that it is an object with an extradimensional space, but it is different in that it creates a space meant for creatures to inhabit for a long term (ie there's comfortable furniture). There's only limited air in the portable hole, and the other two are definitely not meant for creatures. From my point of view, when you're going into an extradimensional space that's meant for people, whatever is in your inventory can go with you. If you're selling bags of holding and you've got a dozen on you, I'm fine with that too. It's convenient and it makes sense.
im just going to say- if they wanted the Genie Bottle to have this interaction, they would have stated that it kersplodes when interacting with other extradimensional things. they state the interaction on the BoH, portable hole, and haversack. if the bottle was intended to go boom, they would have said it in the bottle's description and by rule of thumb, it only does what they said it does, and bottle does not say it has negative interactions..
That's basically what the entire debate has been: What qualifies as "similar" for the sake of the condition on Bag of Holding?
Is it any item with an extradimensional space?
Or is it any item with an extradimensional space that also mandates it can't safely be stored inside another?
The RAW is this: There isn't a clear answer, ask your DM.
Literally no, that is not what I'm arguing.
I am arguing that the definition of "similar item" is not written in the rules.
No definition of "similar item" is RAW. They are all interpretation.
I've also said what my interpretation is and why. Were I the official D&D Rules Interpretation Person, and I had to make a canonical ruling, it's the way I'd rule it. Been there, done that, for a game where there had to be canonical rulings. D&D is not such a game.
You can think that, and play it at your table, and you're not wrong. Still ain't RAW.
i think all of you are both wrong and right at the same time, while one of you is being obtuse on top of that.
clearly the properties 'item' and 'creates an extradimensional space' are referred to (RAI) when it says 'similar', because those are the only properties mentioned. The obtuse one is already going to disagree now, because that's what their case hinges on.
the next misconception both of you seem to have is that the list is or ever was exhaustive. It never was. This is supported by the fact that these lists don't even mention the identical item itself and end on that 'or a similar item' part. RAW you can absolutely put a bag of holding into another bag of holding without anything happening, other than providing endlessly complex storage. Meaning a consistent RAW reading of the entire rule cannot logically lead you to believe this rule was meant to prevent that. You have to think RAI.
The comparison to Magnificent Mansion is just you being obtuse again, because that extradimensional space clearly isn't created by an item. It's created by a spell. The extradimensional space on Genie's Vessel is the exact opposite. It's a bad comparison made in bad faith to support an obtuse RAW reading, that ignores some RAW parts in favor of others.
Ofc this arguing doesn't accomplish anything, I just can't ignore a bad argument when I see one. This whole 'what do words even mean' while ignoring the given points of reference.
I see the rule as being about preventing the use of these items to create infinite storage by nesting them. And also because it's funny.
The Genie's Vessel is similar in that it is an object with an extradimensional space, but it is different in that it creates a space meant for creatures to inhabit for a long term (ie there's comfortable furniture). There's only limited air in the portable hole, and the other two are definitely not meant for creatures. From my point of view, when you're going into an extradimensional space that's meant for people, whatever is in your inventory can go with you. If you're selling bags of holding and you've got a dozen on you, I'm fine with that too. It's convenient and it makes sense.
im just going to say- if they wanted the Genie Bottle to have this interaction, they would have stated that it kersplodes when interacting with other extradimensional things. they state the interaction on the BoH, portable hole, and haversack. if the bottle was intended to go boom, they would have said it in the bottle's description and by rule of thumb, it only does what they said it does, and bottle does not say it has negative interactions..