About a year ago one of campaigns I am in had a situation that I didn't really understand mechanically. One of the characters cast a 2nd level Invisibility spell on him self, than walked up on a high level Wizard boss and placed a part of him in a Bag of Devouring, the Boss failed his Strength save and one of his guards also failed to help him. With the Boss in the bag of devouring another character used a summoned crocodile to rip apart the Bag destroying it but some of the players said this was not possible as the bag was still invisible. I tried to put all the pieces together to understand, but I am still struggling.
Would the attacking Bag of Devouring not be considered an attack? thus triggering the Invisibility spell to end.
How could a the Bag be Devouring the Bad guy and still be worn or carried at the same time?
Wouldn't all the failed saves by both the Bad guy and his guard trigger the spell to end?
Wouldn't using the Bag to trap a live creature be considered a Improvised weapon? thus triggering the Invisibility spell to end.
Am I the only one who thinks this a bit of a stretch???
Where was the DM when this was going down? I wouldn't have personally allowed it at my table, but sometimes people like the more....zany approaches to problems.
What roll did the invisible player make to put the bag onto the boss? Did it just happen? It could be a case of new players + new DM not fully grasping rules and just performing something they saw online without looking at whether it's actually do-able.
I agree with you that it's for sure a stretch. If the PC can sneak up and snuff someone out with a Bag of Devouring, who's to say the bad guys can't do the same thing while the party is asleep? That's the easiest and laziest tpk I've ever heard of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
So I was the player with the bag of devouring. This is how it played out:
1. Cast invisibility on myself
2. Stealthily walked up from behind on the seated wizard while in his battle encampment tent (Successful stealth check as foot falls may be heard).
3. Assessed a portion of his body readily accessible and put it in the bag.
4. This triggered the Wizard to have to make a 50/50 roll. We rolled a d100 for this and he failed with 4 (1-50 being a fail, 51-100 a success).
5. RAW he was then pulled into the bag. He then failed a DC 15 strength check to get himself out of the bag. As this is now his turn his body was completely destroyed. Dead, dead, dead.
6. Celebration ensues. Amidst the chaos TTfT then summons his crocs to eat the bag. Despite my protests that he should not. Bag is eaten and destroyed. Its not until after the session, the next day in fact that I put it together and realized that in fact the myself and the bag would have still been invisible hence the crocs should not have been able to attack the bag.
Zany, absolutely. Within the rules, I would say completely. Should this be able to happen? The joy and sheer thrill that the players felt in that moment would say yes. Why do items such as the bag of devouring exist if not for zany crazy plans that hinge on several great dice rolls and unexpected outcomes? Makes DnD amazing. If DnD only let players defeat equal or lower CR rated baddies then it would get boring. Well maybe not that bad but you get my point. I'm glad there is a chance and randomness to be able to pull something like this off. DnD is amazing. We did not retcon the bag getting eaten or anything like that. Chalked it up to an epic night of roleplaying. All good.
P.S. TTfT, I listened to your argument as you know. We went step by step through the RAW and determined no rules were broken. Now whether or not it "seems" like it should or "feels" OP is a matter of personal opinion and ultimately up to the DM. When you DM our next session I know not to try anything zany ;)
In my defense, its not my place to question a Zany DM's rules- He allowed me to destroy the bag so I did. I cant really but faulted for this- I was role playing what my character would do!
Unfortunately for my best buddy RedFurious he pulled of an amazing move and the DM dropped the ball at the critical moment and he lost a magical item.
In my eyes this is the quandary between ZANY(sandbox rules) and RAW(by the book). I love both versions- but it can get confusing when both are used at the same time.
Just my opinion.
What does everyone think? Should players have to remind the DM in game about rules?? or just go with what they come up with and react accordingly?
Sometimes the cost of zany is a heavy price to pay.
loss of a very valuable item stings like hell, but was it worth it for the ability to creatively think outside the box, sounds like it was.
fair trade, dice gods lets your bag snack on bad guy, dice gods kill bag for bad meal. At least there was a discussion afterward, and all’s well that ended well I think?
Welcome to D&D, where zany things can happen and fun can be found in finding balance in the craziness about.
So I was the player with the bag of devouring. This is how it played out:
1. Cast invisibility on myself
2. Stealthily walked up from behind on the seated wizard while in his battle encampment tent (Successful stealth check as foot falls may be heard).
3. Assessed a portion of his body readily accessible and put it in the bag.
4. This triggered the Wizard to have to make a 50/50 roll. We rolled a d100 for this and he failed with 4 (1-50 being a fail, 51-100 a success).
5. RAW he was then pulled into the bag. He then failed a DC 15 strength check to get himself out of the bag. As this is now his turn his body was completely destroyed. Dead, dead, dead.
6. Celebration ensues. Amidst the chaos TTfT then summons his crocs to eat the bag. Despite my protests that he should not. Bag is eaten and destroyed. Its not until after the session, the next day in fact that I put it together and realized that in fact the myself and the bag would have still been invisible hence the crocs should not have been able to attack the bag.
Zany, absolutely. Within the rules, I would say completely. Should this be able to happen? The joy and sheer thrill that the players felt in that moment would say yes. Why do items such as the bag of devouring exist if not for zany crazy plans that hinge on several great dice rolls and unexpected outcomes? Makes DnD amazing. If DnD only let players defeat equal or lower CR rated baddies then it would get boring. Well maybe not that bad but you get my point. I'm glad there is a chance and randomness to be able to pull something like this off. DnD is amazing. We did not retcon the bag getting eaten or anything like that. Chalked it up to an epic night of roleplaying. All good.
P.S. TTfT, I listened to your argument as you know. We went step by step through the RAW and determined no rules were broken. Now whether or not it "seems" like it should or "feels" OP is a matter of personal opinion and ultimately up to the DM. When you DM our next session I know not to try anything zany ;)
So, not a particularly powerful or smart wizard then if a) he doesn't have a way to see invisible creatures sneaking up on him, or b) a better way to get out of the bag than a STR check, like any teleport spell
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The Invisible Bag of Devouring is truly a legendary maneuver and full props goes to RedFurious for pulling it off RAW.
But in the true sense of this incredibly Zany campaign (which has also used the Deck of Many Things to kill off Player Characters) I found it ironic and hilarious that I could summon a Crocodile to destroy an Invisible Bag and the DM allowed it.
Its not until after the session, the next day in fact that I put it together and realized that in fact the myself and the bag would have still been invisible hence the crocs should not have been able to attack the bag.
If you weren't still holding the bag, it would no longer be invisible
Even if you were still holding the bag, invisible things can be attacked. The attacks are just normally at disadvantage
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There are a lot of DM rulings in the situation described. Some of which may have just been rule of cool, homebrew, or just the DM decision in the moment.
So I was the player with the bag of devouring. This is how it played out:
1. Cast invisibility on myself
2. Stealthily walked up from behind on the seated wizard while in his battle encampment tent (Successful stealth check as foot falls may be heard).
3. Assessed a portion of his body readily accessible and put it in the bag.
4. This triggered the Wizard to have to make a 50/50 roll. We rolled a d100 for this and he failed with 4 (1-50 being a fail, 51-100 a success).
5. RAW he was then pulled into the bag. He then failed a DC 15 strength check to get himself out of the bag. As this is now his turn his body was completely destroyed. Dead, dead, dead.
6. Celebration ensues. Amidst the chaos TTfT then summons his crocs to eat the bag. Despite my protests that he should not. Bag is eaten and destroyed. Its not until after the session, the next day in fact that I put it together and realized that in fact the myself and the bag would have still been invisible hence the crocs should not have been able to attack the bag.
Zany, absolutely. Within the rules, I would say completely. Should this be able to happen? The joy and sheer thrill that the players felt in that moment would say yes. Why do items such as the bag of devouring exist if not for zany crazy plans that hinge on several great dice rolls and unexpected outcomes? Makes DnD amazing. If DnD only let players defeat equal or lower CR rated baddies then it would get boring. Well maybe not that bad but you get my point. I'm glad there is a chance and randomness to be able to pull something like this off. DnD is amazing. We did not retcon the bag getting eaten or anything like that. Chalked it up to an epic night of roleplaying. All good.
P.S. TTfT, I listened to your argument as you know. We went step by step through the RAW and determined no rules were broken. Now whether or not it "seems" like it should or "feels" OP is a matter of personal opinion and ultimately up to the DM. When you DM our next session I know not to try anything zany ;)
1. Casting invisibility on yourself and the bag then making a stealth check to approach the wizard is all good assuming the wizard can't see invisible. As a level 18-20 wizard, I'd have See Invisible on all the time, I'd have the Alarm spell set up in my tent and I'd have the contingency spell cast triggering the use of teleport or dimension door if I was attacked.
For a high level opponent, the DM was being generous allowing the plan a chance of success.
2. "Assessed a portion of his body readily accessible and put it in the bag."
Did the wizard voluntarily put the body part in the bag? I would assume not. In which case, this would likely constitute an attack and the invisibility would end.
"A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell."
Personally, I really can't see forcing the body part of another creature into a bag as anything other than an attack. Did the DM have you make an attack roll for the success of the maneuver? I'm assuming that placing a body part in the bag wasn't automatically successful? (If it was, the DM was being even more generous).
3. Did you continue to hold onto the bag after putting part of the wizard in it? If you let go of the bag at any point it will become visible since items remain invisible only while they are worn or carried. They don't turn invisible again when you pick them up.
4. If you manage to get the bag over a body part of the wizard (and I think this would require more than a finger (or a hair for that matter, though it would be up to the DM), then the rest of the scenario is consistent with the magic item. The wizard is sucked into the bag and they basically have one action to attempt to escape before being eaten.
Assuming that the Wizard did not have a contingency spell active that would have extracted them when initially attacked then the wizard has one chance to make a DC15 strength check OR cast a spell.
The challenge with escaping using a spell would be that they need to use Planeshift since the Bag of Devouring is an extra dimensional space. A character can't teleport between planes. However, a level 18-20 wizard might well have Planeshift prepared for emergencies allowing escape to a different plane or perhaps their own demiplane. The interesting thing in this case is that the players would never know if the wizard escaped using a Planeshift spell since whether they are eaten or escape the bag will be empty. If the characters find the wizard's spellbook with the Planeshift spell then they should be suspicious that the Bag of Devouring wasn't as successful as they might have imagined.
5. "Celebration ensues".
It is hard to celebrate when you are invisible and no one can see you celebrating. Would the character really have maintained concentration on invisibility after the apparently successful defeat of the wizard and their minions? (The scenario is a bit unclear).
However, for some reason, folks seem to think that they can't attack something that is invisible. That is completely incorrect. From the PHB:
"Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly."
The crocodiles would have had disadvantage on attack rolls against the invisible bag (if it is still actually invisible). In order to be invisible, the bag needs to STILL be held by the character who cast the invisibility spell. (I'm not sure how the minion managed to try to drag the boss out of the bag while the character was still holding it ... did the character hold it out so that the minion could access it?). Keep in mind, that if the bag was still invisible then from the perspective of the minion, the wizard just vanished. The minion can likely hear the character since the attack would make noise but they still can't see them (though in my opinion, the attempt to put a part of the wizard into the bag was an attack and would have caused the spell to end ... unless they were casting Greater Invisibility but this wasn't mentioned by either of the posts on the subject).
Anyway, IF the bag was somehow still invisible, as long as the player holding it wasn't hidden, then their location was known and the player could be attacked at disadvantage. Allowing the targeting of items that are help or worn by a creature is a house rule but if it is allowed then the crocodiles would have no problem attacking the bag though it should have been at disadvantage.
-------------------------
TL;DR It was fun, the group had fun, it was epic :) ... which is really what matters. Did it follow RAW, absolutely not.
- trying to put a part of the wizard in the bag is an attack (I'm not sure what else it could be considered trying to do something to another creature without their consent) - this should have caused the invisibility to end
- if attacking held objects is allowed, then there is no issue with the crocodiles attacking the bag, the invisibility just imposes disadvantage.
Since the invisibility spell is the central question, in my opinion, it would likely have ended due to various occurrences in the encounter. However, the cool part is having the bag eat the wizard and that works fine given the described scenario. Whether the wizard was actually eaten depends on whether they had the Planeshift spell prepared (or some other means of escape) and were able to cast it from inside the bag. Also, keep in mind that at that level, the clone spell is another option, so the chances are good that the wizard has a back up copy ready to go and they could come back and will be quite irritated when they do.
About a year ago one of campaigns I am in had a situation that I didn't really understand mechanically. One of the characters cast a 2nd level Invisibility spell on him self, than walked up on a high level Wizard boss and placed a part of him in a Bag of Devouring, the Boss failed his Strength save and one of his guards also failed to help him. With the Boss in the bag of devouring another character used a summoned crocodile to rip apart the Bag destroying it but some of the players said this was not possible as the bag was still invisible. I tried to put all the pieces together to understand, but I am still struggling.
Am I the only one who thinks this a bit of a stretch???
Where was the DM when this was going down? I wouldn't have personally allowed it at my table, but sometimes people like the more....zany approaches to problems.
What roll did the invisible player make to put the bag onto the boss? Did it just happen? It could be a case of new players + new DM not fully grasping rules and just performing something they saw online without looking at whether it's actually do-able.
I agree with you that it's for sure a stretch. If the PC can sneak up and snuff someone out with a Bag of Devouring, who's to say the bad guys can't do the same thing while the party is asleep? That's the easiest and laziest tpk I've ever heard of.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Thanks, I thought I was going insane!!
My main point to the group was how could the Invisibility Spell staying in place through all that? not one of the group would even hear my discussion.
I try not to be a stickler when it comes to exact rules especially in Zany campaigns but I thought that was definitely a reach.
Still get burned when I mention the "Invisible Bag of Devouring" LoL!!!!
So I was the player with the bag of devouring. This is how it played out:
1. Cast invisibility on myself
2. Stealthily walked up from behind on the seated wizard while in his battle encampment tent (Successful stealth check as foot falls may be heard).
3. Assessed a portion of his body readily accessible and put it in the bag.
4. This triggered the Wizard to have to make a 50/50 roll. We rolled a d100 for this and he failed with 4 (1-50 being a fail, 51-100 a success).
5. RAW he was then pulled into the bag. He then failed a DC 15 strength check to get himself out of the bag. As this is now his turn his body was completely destroyed. Dead, dead, dead.
6. Celebration ensues. Amidst the chaos TTfT then summons his crocs to eat the bag. Despite my protests that he should not. Bag is eaten and destroyed. Its not until after the session, the next day in fact that I put it together and realized that in fact the myself and the bag would have still been invisible hence the crocs should not have been able to attack the bag.
Zany, absolutely. Within the rules, I would say completely. Should this be able to happen? The joy and sheer thrill that the players felt in that moment would say yes. Why do items such as the bag of devouring exist if not for zany crazy plans that hinge on several great dice rolls and unexpected outcomes? Makes DnD amazing. If DnD only let players defeat equal or lower CR rated baddies then it would get boring. Well maybe not that bad but you get my point. I'm glad there is a chance and randomness to be able to pull something like this off. DnD is amazing. We did not retcon the bag getting eaten or anything like that. Chalked it up to an epic night of roleplaying. All good.
P.S. TTfT, I listened to your argument as you know. We went step by step through the RAW and determined no rules were broken. Now whether or not it "seems" like it should or "feels" OP is a matter of personal opinion and ultimately up to the DM. When you DM our next session I know not to try anything zany ;)
In my defense, its not my place to question a Zany DM's rules- He allowed me to destroy the bag so I did. I cant really but faulted for this- I was role playing what my character would do!
Unfortunately for my best buddy RedFurious he pulled of an amazing move and the DM dropped the ball at the critical moment and he lost a magical item.
In my eyes this is the quandary between ZANY(sandbox rules) and RAW(by the book). I love both versions- but it can get confusing when both are used at the same time.
Just my opinion.
What does everyone think? Should players have to remind the DM in game about rules?? or just go with what they come up with and react accordingly?
Sometimes the cost of zany is a heavy price to pay.
loss of a very valuable item stings like hell, but was it worth it for the ability to creatively think outside the box, sounds like it was.
fair trade, dice gods lets your bag snack on bad guy, dice gods kill bag for bad meal. At least there was a discussion afterward, and all’s well that ended well I think?
Welcome to D&D, where zany things can happen and fun can be found in finding balance in the craziness about.
So, not a particularly powerful or smart wizard then if a) he doesn't have a way to see invisible creatures sneaking up on him, or b) a better way to get out of the bag than a STR check, like any teleport spell
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I agree 100% - finding the balance is key.
The Invisible Bag of Devouring is truly a legendary maneuver and full props goes to RedFurious for pulling it off RAW.
But in the true sense of this incredibly Zany campaign (which has also used the Deck of Many Things to kill off Player Characters) I found it ironic and hilarious that I could summon a Crocodile to destroy an Invisible Bag and the DM allowed it.
Supposedly this was a 18-20 level Wizard in which the 2 year campaign was build around- I guess he was having a bad day!! LoL
If you weren't still holding the bag, it would no longer be invisible
Even if you were still holding the bag, invisible things can be attacked. The attacks are just normally at disadvantage
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There are a lot of DM rulings in the situation described. Some of which may have just been rule of cool, homebrew, or just the DM decision in the moment.
1. Casting invisibility on yourself and the bag then making a stealth check to approach the wizard is all good assuming the wizard can't see invisible. As a level 18-20 wizard, I'd have See Invisible on all the time, I'd have the Alarm spell set up in my tent and I'd have the contingency spell cast triggering the use of teleport or dimension door if I was attacked.
For a high level opponent, the DM was being generous allowing the plan a chance of success.
2. "Assessed a portion of his body readily accessible and put it in the bag."
Did the wizard voluntarily put the body part in the bag? I would assume not. In which case, this would likely constitute an attack and the invisibility would end.
"A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell."
Personally, I really can't see forcing the body part of another creature into a bag as anything other than an attack. Did the DM have you make an attack roll for the success of the maneuver? I'm assuming that placing a body part in the bag wasn't automatically successful? (If it was, the DM was being even more generous).
3. Did you continue to hold onto the bag after putting part of the wizard in it? If you let go of the bag at any point it will become visible since items remain invisible only while they are worn or carried. They don't turn invisible again when you pick them up.
4. If you manage to get the bag over a body part of the wizard (and I think this would require more than a finger (or a hair for that matter, though it would be up to the DM), then the rest of the scenario is consistent with the magic item. The wizard is sucked into the bag and they basically have one action to attempt to escape before being eaten.
Assuming that the Wizard did not have a contingency spell active that would have extracted them when initially attacked then the wizard has one chance to make a DC15 strength check OR cast a spell.
The challenge with escaping using a spell would be that they need to use Planeshift since the Bag of Devouring is an extra dimensional space. A character can't teleport between planes. However, a level 18-20 wizard might well have Planeshift prepared for emergencies allowing escape to a different plane or perhaps their own demiplane. The interesting thing in this case is that the players would never know if the wizard escaped using a Planeshift spell since whether they are eaten or escape the bag will be empty. If the characters find the wizard's spellbook with the Planeshift spell then they should be suspicious that the Bag of Devouring wasn't as successful as they might have imagined.
5. "Celebration ensues".
It is hard to celebrate when you are invisible and no one can see you celebrating. Would the character really have maintained concentration on invisibility after the apparently successful defeat of the wizard and their minions? (The scenario is a bit unclear).
However, for some reason, folks seem to think that they can't attack something that is invisible. That is completely incorrect. From the PHB:
"Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly."
The crocodiles would have had disadvantage on attack rolls against the invisible bag (if it is still actually invisible). In order to be invisible, the bag needs to STILL be held by the character who cast the invisibility spell. (I'm not sure how the minion managed to try to drag the boss out of the bag while the character was still holding it ... did the character hold it out so that the minion could access it?). Keep in mind, that if the bag was still invisible then from the perspective of the minion, the wizard just vanished. The minion can likely hear the character since the attack would make noise but they still can't see them (though in my opinion, the attempt to put a part of the wizard into the bag was an attack and would have caused the spell to end ... unless they were casting Greater Invisibility but this wasn't mentioned by either of the posts on the subject).
Anyway, IF the bag was somehow still invisible, as long as the player holding it wasn't hidden, then their location was known and the player could be attacked at disadvantage. Allowing the targeting of items that are help or worn by a creature is a house rule but if it is allowed then the crocodiles would have no problem attacking the bag though it should have been at disadvantage.
-------------------------
TL;DR It was fun, the group had fun, it was epic :) ... which is really what matters. Did it follow RAW, absolutely not.
- trying to put a part of the wizard in the bag is an attack (I'm not sure what else it could be considered trying to do something to another creature without their consent) - this should have caused the invisibility to end
- if attacking held objects is allowed, then there is no issue with the crocodiles attacking the bag, the invisibility just imposes disadvantage.
Since the invisibility spell is the central question, in my opinion, it would likely have ended due to various occurrences in the encounter. However, the cool part is having the bag eat the wizard and that works fine given the described scenario. Whether the wizard was actually eaten depends on whether they had the Planeshift spell prepared (or some other means of escape) and were able to cast it from inside the bag. Also, keep in mind that at that level, the clone spell is another option, so the chances are good that the wizard has a back up copy ready to go and they could come back and will be quite irritated when they do.