# Can you place living creatures in a bag of holding



## Neverwinter Knight (Aug 13, 2002)

For purposes of Teleportation, it is necessary to reduce the weight of other party members for my wizard. We have a Bag of Holding available, but I don't know, if you can place living creatures in it. Is it safe?


----------



## Brekki (Aug 13, 2002)

It's save:



> If living creatures are placed within the bag, they can survive for up to 10 minutes, after which time they suffocate.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 13, 2002)

In fact, that problem was brought up somewhere in a book (ELH I believe): many parties abuse that rule to greatly reduce their travelling costs. 
As an advice to DM's, they wrote that they should be surprised by a powerful enemy (e.g, a dragon) right after they teleportet, who does away with the carrier quickly and takes the sack to a more convinient place to open it. Like the bottom of a lake....


----------



## Belares (Aug 13, 2002)

*logic and the bag of holding (even in DnD)*



> As an advice to DM's, they wrote that they should be surprised by a powerful enemy (e.g, a dragon) right after they teleportet, who does away with the carrier quickly and takes the sack to a more convinient place to open it. Like the bottom of a lake....




Hey good idea lets abuse the players for thinking and acting smart.

My question is...how do you fit a party member in the bag? Do you reduce them? Do you Polymorph them? If you did that you would not need to put them in the bag. I can see putting some creatures in the bag, but even a halfing may be a tight fit around the mouth of the bag, unless of course there is a rule stating...the diameter the mouth of a bag of holding is..and and if so I would like to see it.


----------



## rushlight (Aug 13, 2002)

"My question is...how do you fit a party member in the bag? Do you reduce them? Do you Polymorph them? If you did that you would not need to put them in the bag. I can see putting some creatures in the bag, but even a halfing may be a tight fit around the mouth of the bag, unless of course there is a rule stating...the diameter the mouth of a bag of holding is..and and if so I would like to see it."

From the description of Bag of Holding:
"This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size."

Two feet is wide enough for most medium size creatures to fit through.  

"Hey good idea lets abuse the players for thinking and acting smart."

Sure, this tactic is legal and solves some problems.  But it is risky, as it is a shortcut around the limitations of Teleport.  Occationally it's good for a GM to keep his (or her) players on their toes.  Now, you shouldn't ambush them everytime they try this, but once will usually do...  

It's the same as if the players constantly sleep in the woods, while never setting a watch.  They shouldn't be attacked every night, but occationally their actions should have results.


----------



## Grundle (Aug 13, 2002)

Brekki said:
			
		

> *It's save:
> 
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




Its safe - but very risky.  Suppose the bagholder fails his save on a hold person, or is panicked, or any other of a host of conditions which would prevent them from opening that bag within 10 minutes.  

TPK.   

Besides, as Grundle would say, "No dwarf worthy of his race trusts his life to a fool wizard!!!"


----------



## Wolf72 (Aug 13, 2002)

*memoreis of MiB II go thru wolf's head* ... Oh! J Can you see!


----------



## Gaiden (Aug 13, 2002)

I fail to see the connection between sleeping in a forest without a watch posted (something moronically unwise) and having someone jump in a bag of holding to reduce the weight for an instantaneous journey (teleportation) (a very ingenuitive use of items and spells).

Even more importantly, a theme I see running through the thread as well as others is:  DM vs. players, an idealogy that having experienced first hand results in a net of no fun for the players and what's worse, discontent.  

(Gaiden dusts off his soap box with a newly cleaned dust broom.  Looking rather thoughtfully at the surrounding crowd, he debates the best manner of speaking to the audience.  Using his young disciple as support he creakily steps onto the old (from much use) wooden box).

Hhhm,  When I was a lad, a did me some gamin'...much like the rest of ye' I would imagine.  I had me some fun...fun lasting for hours and hours.  Of course, there were always the sessions where the DM was out to git us.  Those were never fun -

--SHUT UP OLD MAN!--

Hrumph, as I was sayin':  I have learned in my aged wisdom (at the age of 22) that DM's running a game with neutral tendencies adjusted by slightly "for-party" inclinations tends to cause the players to have the most fun and consequently foster the best gaming sessions.  Rather than taking the philosophy of punishing the characters for sleeping on watch simply respond as if that did not matter - i.e. don't change any of your random encounters - just have them occur while the party sleeps.  If random encounters occur with X frequency at night then see what happens when one of the resultant encounters occurs while the party sleeps.  Suddenly causing an encounter every time the party sleeps (that sometimes be more challenging then what would occur normally) and then not having any encounters while the party keeps watch simply does not make sense, but more importantly will result in players not enjoying the game.

With regards to the ingenuitive use of teleportation and a bag of holding, apply the same philosophy that the DM is a neutral arbiter.  The only real way a DM could have an ambush waiting for a party who practiced this teleportation/bag of hoding technique is if the ambushers had previously known about the tactic, knew it was going to happen in this case, knew the location that the party would teleport to, had time to set up the ambush before the part arrived, etc.  Moreover, each of the previous requirements are no simple matter.  For one, the ambusher would have to see the person get into the bag of holding, then know that the teleportation spell was cast (and not say invisibility, or any other manner of spells that would cause the party to disappear).  Moreover, they would then have to realize that the party was doing this to evade the weight limit of the spell.  Also, they would have to realize that the bag was a bag of holding out of all the possible magic items that could cause a person to disappear inside.  Next, they would have to know the party was going to use the tactic.  By knowing I do not mean seeing the person jump in the bag of holding and then seeing the party cast the spell because that would not give them enough time to prepare for an ambush.  Most importantly, the ambushers would have to know where the party was going to teleport and know it before the spellcaster cast teleport (so that an ambush could be set up).

With all of the above in mind, if a villian did figure all of that info out, then first off, you have a very dedicated villian who has spent many days, weeks, and perhaps months, viewing the party in secret (either by scrying or as a party member) and secondly someone who is smart enough to not use this tactic until it really matters.  AKA set up a fight and once the party needs to leave because they are out of spells, HPs, etc. then the ambush is sprung.

In other words, you have completely left the idealogy of punishing the characters and are simply creating a game environment where the villians play up to their potential.


----------



## 0-hr (Aug 13, 2002)

> If the bag is overloaded, or if sharp objects pierce it (from
> inside or outside), the bag ruptures and is ruined. All contents
> are lost forever.




DM: "Hey Grond, you carry a great axe right?
Grond: "Yea"
DM: "And it's just hanging over your back like it usually is?"
Grond: "Umm, I guess so..."
DM: <chuckles evily>


----------



## Grundle (Aug 13, 2002)

Gaiden said:
			
		

> [With regards to the ingenuitive use of teleportation and a bag of holding, apply the same philosophy that the DM is a neutral arbiter.  The only real way a DM could have an ambush waiting for a party who practiced this teleportation/bag of hoding technique is if the ambushers had previously known about the tactic, knew it was going to happen in this case, knew the location that the party would teleport to, had time to set up the ambush before the part arrived, etc.  Moreover, each of the previous requirements are no simple matter.  For one, the ambusher would have to see the person get into the bag of holding, then know that the teleportation spell was cast (and not say invisibility, or any other manner of spells that would cause the party to disappear).  Moreover, they would then have to realize that the party was doing this to evade the weight limit of the spell.  Also, they would have to realize that the bag was a bag of holding out of all the possible magic items that could cause a person to disappear inside.  Next, they would have to know the party was going to use the tactic.  By knowing I do not mean seeing the person jump in the bag of holding and then seeing the party cast the spell because that would not give them enough time to prepare for an ambush.  Most importantly, the ambushers would have to know where the party was going to teleport and know it before the spellcaster cast teleport (so that an ambush could be set up).
> [/B]




I agree with you that DM shouldn't be out to burn the PC's.  It's a game and games are supposed to be fun for all.

However, I disagree with you about the likelihood problems arising from the Bag-of-Holding-Teleport manuever.  In my experience, a party will often teleport into dangerous areas, often times without scrying beforehand.  Dungeons and Evil Temples are dangerous areas with dangerous foes.  There is often a very real possibility of combat ensuing immediately when a group teleports into such a location.  A DM should not pull punches in such a situation.

I would be loathe to routinely risk my character's life by climbing into a bag of holding.  The Bag-of-Holding-Teleport manuever is sometimes warranted, but only in the most dire of circumstances.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 13, 2002)

Don't get me wrong. I'm both against DM's who are trying to kill the players by playing to much by the rule (or are ignorant of the party's needs and play a module just as it is written) and against punishing players to be smart.

But there's a difference between smart and smart-ass: there's a line between acting smart and trying to abuse the letter of the rules to get rather more advantages that you are due. Sometimes smart players approach that line, and maybe even cross it for a couple of inches, and the DM should tell them. But sometimes charakters start several leagues beyond that line, and won't listen to the DM because it's in the rules, and then you should teach them a more practical lesson by doing the same as them. I've seen that and I know what I'm talking about, believe me that! (and on the forums we also have sometimes people like that, like the one who wanted to play the gold halfdragon troll with the ring of acid resistance, so noone could kill him)

Of course, the DM shouldn't make it to obvious and absurd: Just letting some beasts attack only because they didn't set watches is stupid, but If they're bandits who watched them for some time and saw that they don't guard themselves properly is logical. He should remind them about setting up guards "normally", though.

In the case of the "travelling bag" (and I think that it can really piss off the DM if he needed the party to travel by foot to find something, being sure they can't use magic travel yet because of party size, and they are putting someeone into their back of holding!): If adventurers advance in level, they tend to achieve greater goals. If they operate in the same area most of the time, they are due to become heroes (or, in the case of evil parties, the bounty for them rises to five-digit-numbers). And the very definition of hero is that they step on some big time villain's toes for a living.
So it is only sensible that he sets an assassin (or a group of assassins) on their heels, which doesn't have to confront them on the city square, but much rather shadow them and learn about their habits, doings and plans. And if you happen to know that the party wizard tends to put his friends into a bag before he teleports, you know that a) he is to weak to teleport them properly and b) he will be alone when he arrives at his destination. So you only have to know where there are going (you could even assure that you know by telling them - posing as a noble or something, sending them somewhere and even providing them with descriptions for his teleportation.....


Usually, those lessons shouldn't be fatal, but they should put the players on edge and make them clear that they have to behave sensible (would YOU travel in a luggage to save the ticket?).


----------



## rushlight (Aug 14, 2002)

"I fail to see the connection between sleeping in a forest without a watch posted (something moronically unwise) and having someone jump in a bag of holding to reduce the weight for an instantaneous journey (teleportation) (a very ingenuitive use of items and spells)."

Both are dangerous.  Both are simple ways to handle potentially complicated situations.  

"Rather than taking the philosophy of punishing the characters for sleeping on watch simply respond as if that did not matter - i.e. don't change any of your random encounters - just have them occur while the party sleeps."

I never advocted that...  I just suggested that when the party acts in potentially reckless ways, occationially you should remind them that their actions are in fact dangerous.  

I don't think that a DM should try and kill the players intenionally.  It's a DMs job to provide fun for the players.  This is usually accomplished by providing a good story to involve your players along with appropriate challenges for them to overcome.  If you constantly let your players take the shortcut with no challenges they will eventually get bored and quit playing.  If you kill them with glee everytime they try to get creative they will get mad and quit playing.  

There is however, a middle ground.  Let your players get creative.  That's fine, let them teleport with the party in the bag several times.  Then give them a close call to remind them that the actions they are taking have repurcussions.  Let them be worried that the next time they are going to teleport into a dungeon something worse might happen.  

It's good for them to stress about it a bit.  Face it, would YOU jump into a bag from which you cannot leave and are at the mercy of someone else?  Even knowing that that person is leaping into an unknown situation?  I can tell you I sure wouldn't.  Your player's characters probably wouldn't either, if not for the fact that the players figure you won't ambush them like that.  Then they can forgo doing any real investigation into the situation they are leaping into, since they figure you won't do anything to them.  So they have used metagame knowledge to make in game decisions, based on your previous history of letting them get away with stuff without ever shaking them up.

So you SHOULD occationally shake them up.  It keeps them on their toes, and makes them think.  They will consider their actions more carefully from their character's point of view.  Unless your players are strict Hack 'n Slash rules laywers, they will probably appreciate the challenge of outthinking the dangerous situations you have presented them.  And in the end, I can assure you the players get more satisfaction from defeating a difficult challenge than just letting them walk all over whatever situation is at hand.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 14, 2002)

Rushlight - do you hitch a lift with your mate in his car?

I agree that if the players are teleporting into a potential hostile situation without scoping it out first, they're in for trouble, but most of the time, that's not what it's used for.


----------



## Corwin (Aug 14, 2002)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *Rushlight - do you hitch a lift with your mate in his car?
> *




I'm not Rushlight (obviously), but I have a question for you, Saeviomagy:

When your buddy gives you a ride in his car, do you climb in the trunk?


----------



## Numion (Aug 14, 2002)

*Re: logic and the bag of holding (even in DnD)*



			
				Belares said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey good idea lets abuse the players for thinking and acting smart.*




Well, if you consider storing party members inside an extradimensional _sack_ smart, then yes. Of course, if the enemy is intelligent, he'll realize that the party is at their most vulnerable during their bag of holding teleport. 

Why shouldn't he strike then? Some great voice booms from the sky "That's not fair, the puny humans are  _smart_ for being in the sack!"?

whatever.


----------



## laiyna (Aug 14, 2002)

hmmmmmm....

there is 10 minutes of air for 1 creature
that makes 5 minuts of air for 2
that makes 2.5 minutes for 4

this could easly go wrong


----------



## Caliber (Aug 14, 2002)

If a friend asked me to get in his car to go the gaming store and pick up Big Scary Monsters (tm) I would do it without thinking otherwise (well, okay, maybe I would wonder about what shows I would miss on tv.)

If my same friend happened to be a Wizard and he said that he had a magic bag that he could put me in and take me out of that would let him teleport both of us, and oh, you only have enough air for 10 minutes, but I am sure I will let you out, let me tell you I wouldn't touch that bag with a 10' pole. 

Would you get into your friends car if you knew it was going to explode in 10 minutes and the doors could only be opened with your friend's key?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 14, 2002)

It is not that big a deal.  If you feel yourself starting to lose consciousness, just slash the side of the bad with your sword.  That will spill the contents into the Prime.


----------



## Caliber (Aug 14, 2002)

Actually, you are wrong Ridley's Cohort. If you pierce the bag from the inside the bag is ruined and all contents inside are lost forever.  

Not a good idea for someone who is inside ...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 14, 2002)

Caliber said:
			
		

> *Actually, you are wrong Ridley's Cohort. If you pierce the bag from the inside the bag is ruined and all contents inside are lost forever.
> 
> Not a good idea for someone who is inside ... *




_Heyyyy!!!  I am going to have to have a word with Ridley about that._


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 15, 2002)

Caliber said:
			
		

> *Actually, you are wrong Ridley's Cohort. If you pierce the bag from the inside the bag is ruined and all contents inside are lost forever.
> 
> Not a good idea for someone who is inside ... *




I think with "lost forever" they merely mean that it is expelled into limbo. The chance that someone stumbles across them should be one in a million (and we know that one-in-a-million-chances come true nine out of ten times  ), but the chance that it happens before the "passenger" runs out of air surely aren't so good


----------



## Caliber (Aug 15, 2002)

Well, while not really on topic for this thread ...

I think having a campaign devoted to characters being "Lost in Limbo" because of a bad Bag of Holding experience would be pretty cool. Of course if I was the Wizard waiting back on the Prime for my friends, it wouldn't be too entertaining.


----------



## Grundle (Aug 15, 2002)

Caliber said:
			
		

> *Well, while not really on topic for this thread ...
> 
> I think having a campaign devoted to characters being "Lost in Limbo" because of a bad Bag of Holding experience would be pretty cool. Of course if I was the Wizard waiting back on the Prime for my friends, it wouldn't be too entertaining. *




I can see it now...

Four fateful (if foolhardy) compatriots floating helplessly in the chaos storms of Limbo.  Will a Gizitheri happen by and save their 1st level newbie asses before they are ripped to shreds and incinerated in the raw Chaos!

Obviously 1st level PCs wouldn't work (for long), but it does sound like a pretty cool beginning for a campaign!


----------



## Belares (Aug 16, 2002)

> Well, if you consider storing party members inside an extradimensional sack smart, then yes. Of course, if the enemy is intelligent, he'll realize that the party is at their most vulnerable during their bag of holding teleport.




I stated that you should not abuse your players for coming up with a smart idea..not that it is smart to store them in a bag of holding



> Why shouldn't he strike then? Some great voice booms from the sky "That's not fair, the puny humans are smart for being in the sack!"?




If you have had a villian wait that long to be able  to punish your players then that is good calculating evil genuis. Of course none of the players ever had a chance to spot the person(s) watching/scrying them, or do you allow that?



> whatever.




Think before you post


----------



## Caliban (Aug 16, 2002)

laiyna said:
			
		

> *hmmmmmm....
> 
> there is 10 minutes of air for 1 creature
> that makes 5 minuts of air for 2
> ...




Just make sure the creatures inside have a Bottle of Air to pass around, and a Murlynd's spoon.   Now you can carry them around indefinitely.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 16, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just make sure the creatures inside have a Bottle of Air to pass around, and a Murlynd's spoon.   Now you can carry them around indefinitely.    *




Reminds me of a classic KotDT where they had left forgotten about a few hundred mercenaries they have left in the bag with a mountain of supplies.  Had to fight a pitched battle to regain control of their Bag of Holding!


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 16, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just make sure the creatures inside have a Bottle of Air to pass around, and a Murlynd's spoon.   Now you can carry them around indefinitely.    *




Are these published items?  We use a portable hole to teleport our whole group - I'm always worried about something going horribly wrong and having half the party stuck in the hole, suffocating.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Aug 16, 2002)

You can do it, but more than likely you'll have dead bodies floating around in it after about 10 minutes.  Isn't there a spell that allows a character to go without breathing for an extended period of time?


----------



## Caliban (Aug 16, 2002)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Are these published items?  We use a portable hole to teleport our whole group - I'm always worried about something going horribly wrong and having half the party stuck in the hole, suffocating. *




They're both in the DMG, last I checked.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 16, 2002)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Are these published items? *




How long have you been DM'ing, dude!?  I'm just kiddin'.  There's a lot of stuff in the DMG, and I've overlooked a few of the items myself.

Player: "I'd like to purchase an Effreti Bottle."
Me: "You wanna purchase a *what*? What the hell is that!? Some kinda' *MUNCHKIN* item that you made up!?!"
Player: "KR. It's right here."
Me: "Oh......sorry."


----------



## Artoomis (Aug 16, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Their both in the DMG, last I checked. *




Oh.

*sheepish grin*

There they are.  20,000 gp for both.


----------



## Jello2424 (Sep 10, 2017)

When my players try this, when they get back they have disadvantage on everything for 1 day, due to the trauma of being in a void of darkness


----------



## Greenfield (Sep 12, 2017)

I like to keep certain things in mind.

1) Teleportation has a limit on weight, based on what the person/people going can carry.  People aren't weight, they're the other limit:  One creature per 3 caster levels, large, small, fat or thin.
2) Bags of Holding have weight limits.  Exceed the limit and the bag bursts, scattering the contents across the Ethereal plane, "forever lost".  
3) Bags of Holding are subject to damage if sharp objects are stored in them.  Are any of the PCs wearing Spiked armor, or carrying unbated spears or pole arms?

Number one is the big one.  If your caster is, say, 10th level, they can take themselves and three other creatures.  Doesn't matter if they're under Reduce Person, stored in a Bag of Holding or riding on someone else's shoulders.  Creatures never count as weight, and weight never counts as creatures.

Point two may or may not be a problem.  In 3.5, a Type I bag has a weight limit of 250 lbs. and itself weighs 15 lbs.  That's one hefty fighter, with gear.  

A Type II has a 500 lb limit, and weighs 25 lbs.  That's two fighters or three moderate weight people without geat (166 pounds each).
A Type III has a 1,000 lb limit, and weighs 35 lbs.  That's most of a party.
A Type IV has a 1,500 lb limit, and weighs 60 lbs.

I ran a game once where the party found a magic bag.  Rather than cast Identify, one of the players picked up his dice bag and a pencil.  He explained, "I take my dagger and... he illustrated what he was doing to test the bag:  He dropped the pencil in, point first.  

I tried very hard to keep a straight face while I asked him what happens to a Bag of Holding when you drop a dagger in, point first.  

What, you thought I was going to ignore my third point?


----------

