NNCHRIS: SOUL THIEF, MASTER OF THE ARCANE, AND KING OF NEW YORKNN Gdl Creator of Ilheia and her Knights of the Fallen Stars ldG Lesser Student of Technomancy [undergrad student in computer science] Supporter of the 2014 rules, and a MASSIVE Homebrewer. Come to me all ye who seek salvation in wording thy brews! Open to homebrew trades at any time!! Or feel free to request HB, and Ill see if I can get it done for ya! Characters (Outdated)
Can a ranger take a bag of holding into the extradimensional space used in the rope trick spell, or does all hell break loose?
Nah, that's perfectly fine.
Placing a bag of holding inside an extradimensional space created by a handy haversack, portable hole, or similar item instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The gate originates where the one item was placed inside the other. Any creature within 10 feet of the gate is sucked through it to a random location on the Astral Plane. The gate then closes. The gate is one-way only and can't be reopened.
The interaction only happens between items that create extradimensional spaces.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
oh, yeah didn't notice that wording at first, sigred is correct
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
NNCHRIS: SOUL THIEF, MASTER OF THE ARCANE, AND KING OF NEW YORKNN Gdl Creator of Ilheia and her Knights of the Fallen Stars ldG Lesser Student of Technomancy [undergrad student in computer science] Supporter of the 2014 rules, and a MASSIVE Homebrewer. Come to me all ye who seek salvation in wording thy brews! Open to homebrew trades at any time!! Or feel free to request HB, and Ill see if I can get it done for ya! Characters (Outdated)
What about the Genie's Vessel? I would think the hell would break loose since it is an object.
DM's discretion, but I'd say "no" simply because it doesn't function as the same kind of storage item as the other listed examples. Plus you just don't want to make a subclass feature and extremely common magic item clash like that.
What about the Genie's Vessel? I would think the hell would break loose since it is an object.
DM's discretion, but I'd say "no" simply because it doesn't function as the same kind of storage item as the other listed examples. Plus you just don't want to make a subclass feature and extremely common magic item clash like that.
I really want to agree on the grounds that negating a subclass feature sucks, yet... I was curious and wanted to double-check how the feature specifically classifies the vessel.
Genie’s Vessel
1st-level Genie feature
Your patron gifts you a magical vessel that grants you a measure of the genie’s power. The vessel is a Tiny object, and you can use it as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. You decide what the object is, or you can determine what it is randomly by rolling on the Genie’s Vessel table.
Bottled Respite. As an action, you can magically vanish and enter your vessel, which remains in the space you left. The interior of the vessel is an extradimensional space in the shape of a 20-foot-radius cylinder, 20 feet high, and resembles your vessel. The interior is appointed with cushions and low tables and is a comfortable temperature. While inside, you can hear the area around your vessel as if you were in its space. You can remain inside the vessel up to a number of hours equal to twice your proficiency bonus. You exit the vessel early if you use a bonus action to leave, if you die, or if the vessel is destroyed. When you exit the vessel, you appear in the unoccupied space closest to it. Any objects left in the vessel remain there until carried out, and if the vessel is destroyed, every object stored there harmlessly appears in the unoccupied spaces closest to the vessel’s former space. Once you enter the vessel, you can’t enter again until you finish a long rest.
Turns out, you absolutely can destroy a genie warlock's class feature vessel. It is in fact classified as an item, and it creates an extradimensional space... all hell does break loose. That's hilarious to me as I can just imagine how often a warlock might accidentally bring a bag of holding into their vessel without thinking about it. Kaboom! 😂
It's not a big deal, though.
If the vessel is destroyed or you lose it, you can perform a 1-hour ceremony to receive a replacement from your patron. This ceremony can be performed during a short or long rest, and the previous vessel is destroyed if it still exists. The vessel vanishes in a flare of elemental power when you die.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Turns out, you absolutely can destroy a genie warlock's class feature vessel. It is in fact classified as an item, and it creates an extradimensional space... all hell does break loose. That's hilarious to me as I can just imagine how often a warlock might accidentally bring a bag of holding into their vessel without thinking about it. Kaboom! 😂
This doesn't follow. It's an item, but it's not an item with the "this goes boom in a bag of holding" property. If you bring a genie vessel into another genie vessel, nothing unusual happens. If you put it in a bag of holding, nothing unusual happens. But if you bring a bag of holding into it, it goes boom? The definition of "similar item" ought to be "item with a clause like this one". (They can't just list them all because people keep making more variations on the theme.)
At the metagame level, the genie vessel is not an unrestricted-use storage expander, which all the items with that rule are, and the rule's purpose is to prevent massively-nested storage solutions.
Turns out, you absolutely can destroy a genie warlock's class feature vessel. It is in fact classified as an item, and it creates an extradimensional space... all hell does break loose. That's hilarious to me as I can just imagine how often a warlock might accidentally bring a bag of holding into their vessel without thinking about it. Kaboom! 😂
This doesn't follow. It's an item, but it's not an item with the "this goes boom in a bag of holding" property. If you bring a genie vessel into another genie vessel, nothing unusual happens. If you put it in a bag of holding, nothing unusual happens. But if you bring a bag of holding into it, it goes boom? The definition of "similar item" ought to be "item with a clause like this one". (They can't just list them all because people keep making more variations on the theme.)
At the metagame level, the genie vessel is not an unrestricted-use storage expander, which all the items with that rule are, and the rule's purpose is to prevent massively-nested storage solutions.
Except that's not what the rule is.
Placing a bag of holding inside an extradimensional space created by a handy haversack, portable hole, or similar item instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The gate originates where the one item was placed inside the other. Any creature within 10 feet of the gate is sucked through it to a random location on the Astral Plane. The gate then closes. The gate is one-way only and can't be reopened.
The rule is an item that creates an extradimensional space cannot safely go into another item that creates an extradimensional space. The genie vessel is an item that creates an extradimensional space. It meets the qualifications. It cannot safely go into a bag of holding, nor can a bag of holding safely go into it. It's very straight-forward.
To be more specific, the genie vessel is more similar to a portable hole in that it explicitly allows creatures and objects to enter it, but if you will go look at the feature again, you will see the line "Any objects left in the vessel remain there until carried out" in its description. It is, in fact, an unrestricted-use storage expander just like all those other items are. Kaboom! 🤯
I agree that it would have been better if they used something clear like an item property called "Extradimensional Space" with a description as "Placing an item with this property inside another item with this property instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The gate originates where the one item was placed inside the other. Any creature within 10 feet of the gate is sucked through it to a random location on the Astral Plane. The gate then closes. The gate is one-way only and can't be reopened."
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This doesn't follow. It's an item, but it's not an item with the "this goes boom in a bag of holding" property. If you bring a genie vessel into another genie vessel, nothing unusual happens. If you put it in a bag of holding, nothing unusual happens. But if you bring a bag of holding into it, it goes boom? The definition of "similar item" ought to be "item with a clause like this one". (They can't just list them all because people keep making more variations on the theme.)
At the metagame level, the genie vessel is not an unrestricted-use storage expander, which all the items with that rule are, and the rule's purpose is to prevent massively-nested storage solutions.
Except that's not what the rule is.
That's the purpose of the rule, which is useful for figuring out edge cases.
Placing a bag of holding inside an extradimensional space created by a handy haversack, portable hole, or similar item instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The gate originates where the one item was placed inside the other. Any creature within 10 feet of the gate is sucked through it to a random location on the Astral Plane. The gate then closes. The gate is one-way only and can't be reopened.
The rule is an item that creates an extradimensional space cannot safely go into another item that creates an extradimensional space. The genie vessel is an item that creates an extradimensional space. It meets the qualifications. It cannot safely go into a bag of holding, nor can a bag of holding safely go into it. It's very straight-forward.
You are literally quoting the rule, then asserting that it's far broader than it is. The rule is what it says it is. If you put the bag into a portable hole, handy haversack, or "similar item" it goes boom. What is a similar item? That is the question. It does not say "placing the bag in the extradimensional space of an item that contains one". It is more restricted than that. It is also not a general rule; it is a specific property of the bag, the hole, and the haversack. (and all similar items, though arguably not of all "similar items")
And it's not commutative, either. Even if "similar items" does mean "all items that contain extradimensional spaces", if you put such an item into a bag of holding, there's only an explosion if the other item also has the clause. The genie vessel does not have the clause. Therefore, you can put the vessel into a bag of holding, or another genie vessel, and absolutely nothing happens. Bag of holding into genie vessel is the only one that can go boom, if and only if the vessel is a "similar item".
You assert it is, because it contains an extradimensional space.
I assert it is not, both because it lacks the boom clause, and because I think these things should behave consistently -- that the boom interaction should be commutative, because it's confusing if it isn't.
The actual rules as written are silent on which of us is correct in this specific case. They agree with me in the other interactions. Are the 5e rules frequently sloppy and imprecise? Very much so, but we work with what we've got.
To be more specific, the genie vessel is more similar to a portable hole in that it explicitly allows creatures and objects to enter it, but if you will go look at the feature again, you will see the line "Any objects left in the vessel remain there until carried out" in its description. It is, in fact, an unrestricted-use storage expander just like all those other items are. Kaboom! 🤯
Entry to the genie vessel is not unrestricted. It's once per long rest.
Stuff like this is why I would just do away with the astral boom thing and let them stack bags and holes inside each other as they want. Not exactly a problem given that I have complete control over how many such things they will have access to. Also because I'm not a fan of Backpack Simulator. Less headaches for me, less confusing rules, easy inventory for players. Wins all round. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think by a very strict reading of the RAW, they would go boom. The bottle is an item, and it creates an extradimensional space, which qualifies under the BoH boom.
It's not possible to rule on this by strict reading of the RAW, because the required knowledge (what is a "similar item") isn't written; it's only inferred, and there are multiple ways to interpret it.
The "bag of holding in a genie vessel goes boom" reading isn't wrong, it's just no more authoritative than "it doesn't". I prefer the latter, both due to the inconsistencies described above, and because I don't like the consequence that characters in a party with a Genie Warlock can't safely use bags of holding.
Basically: "What qualifies as a similar item" is the correct question.
The only correct answer: Ask your DM. You can talk with them about both sides of what it could be and come to a conclusion. Once you've decided, be consistent.
The rule is an item that creates an extradimensional space cannot safely go into another item that creates an extradimensional space. The genie vessel is an item that creates an extradimensional space. It meets the qualifications. It cannot safely go into a bag of holding,nor can a bag of holding safely go into it. It's very straight-forward.
Here I have to disagree. The Bag of Holding has no rule that limits what gets put INTO it, it just limits what it can be put inside. And the same goes for a Handy Haversack and a Portable Hole. So a Genie's Vessel should be able to be put into these items without issue.
I would agree that a RAW reading of the rules would mean that taking one of these items into the vessel should result in a kaboom. That said it is also a ruling that I would ignore where I get to choose.
I think by a very strict reading of the RAW, they would go boom. The bottle is an item, and it creates an extradimensional space, which qualifies under the BoH boom.
It's not possible to rule on this by strict reading of the RAW, because the required knowledge (what is a "similar item") isn't written; it's only inferred, and there are multiple ways to interpret it.
The "bag of holding in a genie vessel goes boom" reading isn't wrong, it's just no more authoritative than "it doesn't". I prefer the latter, both due to the inconsistencies described above, and because I don't like the consequence that characters in a party with a Genie Warlock can't safely use bags of holding.
Considering you're bending over backwards trying to cherry pick a definition of "similar item" that somehow excludes an item that is pretty clearly gosh-darn similar, I'd say you're not exactly presenting a logical argument in good faith. Put as bluntly as possible, "similar" does not mean "identical". It means "resembling without being identical", or "producing effects resembling the effects of another thing".
Does a bag of holding produce an extradimensional space? Yes. Is it an item? Yes.
Does a genie's vessel produce an extradimensional space? Yes. Is it an item? Yes.
Does the rule care about any other premises? No. They are similar items.
Just because you prefer a different interpretation doesn't make it correct. It's okay to admit a rule is what it is even if you don't plan on ever using it as designed. Beyond the humorous thought experiment, I don't like it either, but it is what it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As a player I use the genie vessel just like any other portable hole or bag of holding. I do not cross the streams.
I reasoned this as a character by the fact that nothing in the warlock description tells me i can place one inside the other. So my character just does not know and is not willing to test any other theory. My DM agreed and said well we will find out when it gets tested.
As for the game. I would like to see a simple rule enacted. You can not have or create similar spaces inside each other. No extra dimensional space inside of extra dimensional space. No astal portholes inside other astral portholes and so on. Basically no stacking. Really what would that effect in the game?
I think by a very strict reading of the RAW, they would go boom. The bottle is an item, and it creates an extradimensional space, which qualifies under the BoH boom.
It's not possible to rule on this by strict reading of the RAW, because the required knowledge (what is a "similar item") isn't written; it's only inferred, and there are multiple ways to interpret it.
The "bag of holding in a genie vessel goes boom" reading isn't wrong, it's just no more authoritative than "it doesn't". I prefer the latter, both due to the inconsistencies described above, and because I don't like the consequence that characters in a party with a Genie Warlock can't safely use bags of holding.
Considering you're bending over backwards trying to cherry pick a definition of "similar item" that somehow excludes an item that is pretty clearly gosh-darn similar, I'd say you're not exactly presenting a logical argument in good faith.
I broke down my reasoning in previous posts, so I'm not going to repeat it. "Similar" is inherently a subjective word. In game rules, it's a terrible word to use.
I don't think you're arguing in bad faith; you just seem to be too attached to the way you interpreted it to admit to the possibility of alternate ones. My reading is far from unique. Neither is yours. Neither is "all extradimensional spaces are incompatible".
Put as bluntly as possible, "similar" does not mean "identical". It means "resembling without being identical", or "producing effects resembling the effects of another thing".
I could list all the ways the genie vessel is more like magnificent mansion than bag of holding, but it's pointless. Still subjective. The only truly pertinent difference IMO is the fact that you can, RAW, put the genie vessel in a bag of holding safely. That seems to me to be a big difference, but your mileage varies.
Does a bag of holding produce an extradimensional space? Yes. Is it an item? Yes.
Does a genie's vessel produce an extradimensional space? Yes. Is it an item? Yes.
Does the rule care about any other premises? No. They are similar items.
I've got to ask: does your interpretation allow for dissimilar items? Items that contain an extradimensional space that you can put the bag in and it doesn't go boom? Because if they can't exist, then we don't need the list. They could've said "in the extradimensional space of another item" and been done. If, on the other hand, they mean to restrict it to items that are "bag of holding in a different hat", then they do need the list, and to make it open-ended. (Or they need to give all the items a specific property, but they may not have come up with that idea.)
Does that reasoning mean they definitely meant to keep it narrow? No. (If I'd written it, it would, but I like to think I wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave the potential ambiguity.)
They're frequently sloppy about rules wording, preferring to write casual rather than be precise. This sometimes makes it impossible to break the rules down and definitely determine how it works, much less how it was supposed to work. This is one of those cases.
I really don't think it is as sloppy as you think.
I know what sloppy rules-writing looks like. D&D 5 does it a lot, sacrificing clarity in the name of theoretical accessibility.
It's actually fairly impressive how few problems it causes. There were probably painstaking rounds of editing behind that. But they're still often sloppy.
The text says:
"Placing a bag of holding inside an extradimensional space created by a handy haversack, portable hole, or similar item instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane."
At the time of release, there were no other items that created extradimensional spaces
Efficient Quiver (And yes, you can get at least a portable hole into the quiver)
(Genie Lock was released in Tasha's), so they listed those that existed, but left in "or similar item" to future-proof. Other than the Genie Lock bottle, I don't think there are still any others. Because by your very strict reading, you could place a BoH into another BoH and not go boom since BoH is not listed.
Maybe. It comes down to whether the Bag is a similar item to the hole or the haversack. Nobody would actually argue it's not, but it is, in fact, sloppy. (Also irrelevant, as its similarity in no way proves anything about the genie vessel.)
You could cut out the examples to make it super duper clear:
Placing a bag of holding inside an extradimensional space created by a (...) item instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane.
They clearly didn't want it to completely explode in ANY extradimensional space (i.e. Rope Trick), but only those made by an item.
That "clearly" is unwarranted. It's your belief that's what they meant, and you could easily be correct, but that belief is not actually in the text.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can a ranger take a bag of holding into the extradimensional space used in the rope trick spell, or does all hell break loose?
I would rule it as astral plane time
NNCHRIS: SOUL THIEF, MASTER OF THE ARCANE, AND KING OF NEW YORKNN
Gdl Creator of Ilheia and her Knights of the Fallen Stars ldG
Lesser Student of Technomancy [undergrad student in computer science]
Supporter of the 2014 rules, and a MASSIVE Homebrewer. Come to me all ye who seek salvation in wording thy brews!
Open to homebrew trades at any time!! Or feel free to request HB, and Ill see if I can get it done for ya!
Characters (Outdated)
Nah, that's perfectly fine.
The interaction only happens between items that create extradimensional spaces.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
oh, yeah didn't notice that wording at first, sigred is correct
NNCHRIS: SOUL THIEF, MASTER OF THE ARCANE, AND KING OF NEW YORKNN
Gdl Creator of Ilheia and her Knights of the Fallen Stars ldG
Lesser Student of Technomancy [undergrad student in computer science]
Supporter of the 2014 rules, and a MASSIVE Homebrewer. Come to me all ye who seek salvation in wording thy brews!
Open to homebrew trades at any time!! Or feel free to request HB, and Ill see if I can get it done for ya!
Characters (Outdated)
thanks, I was hoping that was the answer
What about the Genie's Vessel? I would think the hell would break loose since it is an object.
DM's discretion, but I'd say "no" simply because it doesn't function as the same kind of storage item as the other listed examples. Plus you just don't want to make a subclass feature and extremely common magic item clash like that.
I really want to agree on the grounds that negating a subclass feature sucks, yet... I was curious and wanted to double-check how the feature specifically classifies the vessel.
Turns out, you absolutely can destroy a genie warlock's class feature vessel. It is in fact classified as an item, and it creates an extradimensional space... all hell does break loose. That's hilarious to me as I can just imagine how often a warlock might accidentally bring a bag of holding into their vessel without thinking about it. Kaboom! 😂
It's not a big deal, though.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This doesn't follow. It's an item, but it's not an item with the "this goes boom in a bag of holding" property. If you bring a genie vessel into another genie vessel, nothing unusual happens. If you put it in a bag of holding, nothing unusual happens. But if you bring a bag of holding into it, it goes boom? The definition of "similar item" ought to be "item with a clause like this one". (They can't just list them all because people keep making more variations on the theme.)
At the metagame level, the genie vessel is not an unrestricted-use storage expander, which all the items with that rule are, and the rule's purpose is to prevent massively-nested storage solutions.
Except that's not what the rule is.
The rule is an item that creates an extradimensional space cannot safely go into another item that creates an extradimensional space. The genie vessel is an item that creates an extradimensional space. It meets the qualifications. It cannot safely go into a bag of holding, nor can a bag of holding safely go into it. It's very straight-forward.
To be more specific, the genie vessel is more similar to a portable hole in that it explicitly allows creatures and objects to enter it, but if you will go look at the feature again, you will see the line "Any objects left in the vessel remain there until carried out" in its description. It is, in fact, an unrestricted-use storage expander just like all those other items are. Kaboom! 🤯
I agree that it would have been better if they used something clear like an item property called "Extradimensional Space" with a description as "Placing an item with this property inside another item with this property instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The gate originates where the one item was placed inside the other. Any creature within 10 feet of the gate is sucked through it to a random location on the Astral Plane. The gate then closes. The gate is one-way only and can't be reopened."
They wrote what they wrote instead. 🤷
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That's the purpose of the rule, which is useful for figuring out edge cases.
You are literally quoting the rule, then asserting that it's far broader than it is. The rule is what it says it is. If you put the bag into a portable hole, handy haversack, or "similar item" it goes boom. What is a similar item? That is the question. It does not say "placing the bag in the extradimensional space of an item that contains one". It is more restricted than that. It is also not a general rule; it is a specific property of the bag, the hole, and the haversack. (and all similar items, though arguably not of all "similar items")
And it's not commutative, either. Even if "similar items" does mean "all items that contain extradimensional spaces", if you put such an item into a bag of holding, there's only an explosion if the other item also has the clause. The genie vessel does not have the clause. Therefore, you can put the vessel into a bag of holding, or another genie vessel, and absolutely nothing happens. Bag of holding into genie vessel is the only one that can go boom, if and only if the vessel is a "similar item".
You assert it is, because it contains an extradimensional space.
I assert it is not, both because it lacks the boom clause, and because I think these things should behave consistently -- that the boom interaction should be commutative, because it's confusing if it isn't.
The actual rules as written are silent on which of us is correct in this specific case. They agree with me in the other interactions. Are the 5e rules frequently sloppy and imprecise? Very much so, but we work with what we've got.
Entry to the genie vessel is not unrestricted. It's once per long rest.
Stuff like this is why I would just do away with the astral boom thing and let them stack bags and holes inside each other as they want. Not exactly a problem given that I have complete control over how many such things they will have access to. Also because I'm not a fan of Backpack Simulator. Less headaches for me, less confusing rules, easy inventory for players. Wins all round. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It's not possible to rule on this by strict reading of the RAW, because the required knowledge (what is a "similar item") isn't written; it's only inferred, and there are multiple ways to interpret it.
The "bag of holding in a genie vessel goes boom" reading isn't wrong, it's just no more authoritative than "it doesn't". I prefer the latter, both due to the inconsistencies described above, and because I don't like the consequence that characters in a party with a Genie Warlock can't safely use bags of holding.
Basically: "What qualifies as a similar item" is the correct question.
The only correct answer: Ask your DM. You can talk with them about both sides of what it could be and come to a conclusion. Once you've decided, be consistent.
Here I have to disagree. The Bag of Holding has no rule that limits what gets put INTO it, it just limits what it can be put inside. And the same goes for a Handy Haversack and a Portable Hole. So a Genie's Vessel should be able to be put into these items without issue.
I would agree that a RAW reading of the rules would mean that taking one of these items into the vessel should result in a kaboom. That said it is also a ruling that I would ignore where I get to choose.
Considering you're bending over backwards trying to cherry pick a definition of "similar item" that somehow excludes an item that is pretty clearly gosh-darn similar, I'd say you're not exactly presenting a logical argument in good faith. Put as bluntly as possible, "similar" does not mean "identical". It means "resembling without being identical", or "producing effects resembling the effects of another thing".
Does a bag of holding produce an extradimensional space? Yes. Is it an item? Yes.
Does a genie's vessel produce an extradimensional space? Yes. Is it an item? Yes.
Does the rule care about any other premises? No. They are similar items.
Just because you prefer a different interpretation doesn't make it correct. It's okay to admit a rule is what it is even if you don't plan on ever using it as designed. Beyond the humorous thought experiment, I don't like it either, but it is what it is.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As a player I use the genie vessel just like any other portable hole or bag of holding. I do not cross the streams.
I reasoned this as a character by the fact that nothing in the warlock description tells me i can place one inside the other. So my character just does not know and is not willing to test any other theory. My DM agreed and said well we will find out when it gets tested.
As for the game. I would like to see a simple rule enacted. You can not have or create similar spaces inside each other. No extra dimensional space inside of extra dimensional space. No astal portholes inside other astral portholes and so on. Basically no stacking.
Really what would that effect in the game?
I broke down my reasoning in previous posts, so I'm not going to repeat it. "Similar" is inherently a subjective word. In game rules, it's a terrible word to use.
I don't think you're arguing in bad faith; you just seem to be too attached to the way you interpreted it to admit to the possibility of alternate ones. My reading is far from unique. Neither is yours. Neither is "all extradimensional spaces are incompatible".
I could list all the ways the genie vessel is more like magnificent mansion than bag of holding, but it's pointless. Still subjective. The only truly pertinent difference IMO is the fact that you can, RAW, put the genie vessel in a bag of holding safely. That seems to me to be a big difference, but your mileage varies.
I've got to ask: does your interpretation allow for dissimilar items? Items that contain an extradimensional space that you can put the bag in and it doesn't go boom? Because if they can't exist, then we don't need the list. They could've said "in the extradimensional space of another item" and been done. If, on the other hand, they mean to restrict it to items that are "bag of holding in a different hat", then they do need the list, and to make it open-ended. (Or they need to give all the items a specific property, but they may not have come up with that idea.)
Does that reasoning mean they definitely meant to keep it narrow? No. (If I'd written it, it would, but I like to think I wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave the potential ambiguity.)
They're frequently sloppy about rules wording, preferring to write casual rather than be precise. This sometimes makes it impossible to break the rules down and definitely determine how it works, much less how it was supposed to work. This is one of those cases.
I know what sloppy rules-writing looks like. D&D 5 does it a lot, sacrificing clarity in the name of theoretical accessibility.
It's actually fairly impressive how few problems it causes. There were probably painstaking rounds of editing behind that. But they're still often sloppy.
Efficient Quiver (And yes, you can get at least a portable hole into the quiver)
Maybe. It comes down to whether the Bag is a similar item to the hole or the haversack. Nobody would actually argue it's not, but it is, in fact, sloppy. (Also irrelevant, as its similarity in no way proves anything about the genie vessel.)
That "clearly" is unwarranted. It's your belief that's what they meant, and you could easily be correct, but that belief is not actually in the text.
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.