Protecting items (particularly a handy haversack) from destruction

[Frostthehero]

My DM has planned an encounter for us wherein enemies will definitely attempt to sunder worn magic items such as the handy haversack (where I keep most of my other magic items). Is there any way to protect against this?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

That's honestly a bit of an un-fun thing for a DM to do to players. Regardless, there may be a few things you can do to protect your items.

Get someone to cast magic aura on it ahead of time so it appears to be nonmagical and it would be pure metagaming for the opponents to target it, unless they'd scouted your party ahead of time.

Cast Secret Chest or similar to hide it away for a few days.

Things that aren't equipped in an item slot, such as a handy haversack or a bag of holding, can be put into a nonmagical container. Get a tough leather backpack, put your handy haversack in four normal sacks each one over the last one, and then stuff that into the backpack. The haversack will be out of line of sight and out of line of effect five times over. They'll need to make a sunder attack on the backpack, then a separate one for each sack, before they have any chance of targeting the haversack.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'd suggest the next time you purchase a handy haversack, commission one out of riverine, then have it enhanced to act as a +1 spellblade, with disintegrate and Mordenkainen's/mage's disjunction as the spells you choose. Alternately, have a +1 riverine spellblade/spellblade weapon that acts as a handy haversack. Perhaps a gauntlet that also doubles as a glove of the master strategist so you can shrink, then store?

In fact, this item also has a built-in 'possum pouch that acts as a handy haversack, with the gloves storing stuff you touch in it after shrinking them. And it's kind of hard to sunder someone's skin, since it just damages you, which can then be healed up.

But if you want to protect a preexisting haversack? Commission a riverine sleeve that slides right over the whole haversack but still allows you to access the bag when you need to? The sleeve (and thus the haversack) will be immune to almost all damage, and even if the sleeve does get disintegrated, it'll leave the haversack itself intact.

[aglondier]

Sounds like you have a serious case of Hostile-DM-itis...

Some groups in this situation have found that a quiet word with their DM can go a long way to solving it. Others have needed the whole group to stage an 'intervention'. Most, however, have noted that threatening physical violence to the hostile DM has been necessary, suggesting that just passively bringing chains and crowbars to rattle meaningfully when the DM goes off the reservation can help keep them in check...

I am joking of course. Don't do this.

If you are having difficulties with a hostile DM and talking with them doesn't help, then vote with your feet and find a game without a hostile DM. If you are not enjoying the game, why are you playing. If someone is making the game experience unenjoyable, stop playing with them. Life is too short to tolerate an unpleasant or antagonistic game environment.

[JNAProductions]

My DM has planned an encounter for us wherein enemies will definitely attempt to sunder worn magic items such as the handy haversack (where I keep most of my other magic items). Is there any way to protect against this?

Sounds like you have a serious case of Hostile-DM-itis...

Some groups in this situation have found that a quiet word with their DM can go a long way to solving it. Others have needed the whole group to stage an 'intervention'. Most, however, have noted that threatening physical violence to the hostile DM has been necessary, suggesting that just passively bringing chains and crowbars to rattle meaningfully when the DM goes off the reservation can help keep them in check...

I am joking of course. Don't do this.

If you are having difficulties with a hostile DM and talking with them doesn't help, then vote with your feet and find a game without a hostile DM. If you are not enjoying the game, why are you playing. If someone is making the game experience unenjoyable, stop playing with them. Life is too short to tolerate an unpleasant or antagonistic game environment.

That sounds like it COULD be hostile DMing... Or a change of pace, to encourage different tactics from the party.
The fact that the player has warning of this makes me believe it could easily be the latter.

[Daisy]

A lead-lined backpack (CSco) costs 12gp and weighs 2.2lbs. Put the handy haversack in the backpack, rendering it undetectable. A cheap and mundane solution (thus difficult for "problem" DMs to stop you being able to commission one in any reasonably-sized town).

[Pezzo]

Just to be safe, avoid the encounter :p

[aglondier]

That sounds like it COULD be hostile DMing... Or a change of pace, to encourage different tactics from the party.
The fact that the player has warning of this makes me believe it could easily be the latter.

Yes, entirely possible. But I have known DMs who very much bought into the vs players mentality, who delighted in taking away anything and everything the players tried to build up during the game. I suppose some players might enjoy that kind of challenge. I, myself, just find it frustrating.

If the DM is just trying to get you to think outside the box a little with his warning, then great, do what you can to counter his dastardly plans.
If he is messing with you for the sake of messing with you and has no intention of letting you succeed, you might need to take a step back and consider your place at his table...

[Fizban]

Never use magic items made of anything less than metal, but aside from that, stay out of range, be in cover, miss chances ought to carry over. etc.

To protect the sack, stop wearing it and put it in another sack. Now it has full cover and cannot be targeted, or destroyed by natural 1s on saving throws. The outer bag can, but attacking the outer bag does nothing to the inner bag, and depending on just how "destroyed" it is by the attack, you can claim some amount of cover for the inner bag. Or just put the sack inside of another sack, etc. Use sacks made of chainmail and they get that 10 hardness. Or a box, though a box isn't going to have any more hit points than a sack unless it's rather thick and heavy.

Also, just never wear any magic items where they can be seen or attacked in the first place. Wear your shirt/vest and necklaces under your other clothes. Wear a tunic or robe or jacket over your belt. You could wear sabatons (I think is the word), the armor plates that go over boots, over your boots. Gloves inside of gauntlets. Rings inside of gloves. Headband under helmet.

Of course if the DM has decided it's appropriate for them to go and sunder all your stuff, they likely won't care about little things like that, and simply rule that the guy swings at your whatever and cuts through the outer layers and destroys the thing. which to be fair, is potentially reasonable when making common sense rulings on damaging objects, but layers of cloth on a moving target are more disruptive than you might think, and well, there's the chainmail sack again. In which case anything that's not under armor specifically (because armor can't be sundered, and so you point to the armor descriptions where gauntlets and helmets are clearly part of armors [also 'heavy leather boots', 'greaves', and 'a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath']) is pretty much hosed. But anything that is under armor has extremely strong justification for telling the DM no, they actually cannot sunder it.


Magically, you could store things in non-sack magic items, like Glove of Storing or Ring of Arming, which can be more easily protected. Or hide your stuff in a Secret Chest spell. Or cheese through Shrink Item's "nonmagical item" limit my shrinking a nonmagical sack (full of magical items), and then sticking that somewhere safe. Wear a Skin of Ectoplasmic Armor and see what happens. But I have never seen a published spell for just protecting things from sundering, because it's just not done. Also particularly unrealistic given the main reason to kill adventurers is to take the massive amounts of treasure they have compared to NPCs of equivalent level, so any bounty to offset that would have to be enormous.

[King of Nowhere]

Sounds like you have a serious case of Hostile-DM-itis...

many people seem to have that reaction as soon as they hear of targeting items, without further informations. it's not necessarily the case. it can be a competitive game, or it can be an inexperienced dm. I always had enemies spam disjunctions in high level fight, but I also provided more than enough replacements (though I never included bags of holding among targets, for reasons of practicality and bookkeeping).
in this case, I really think it's not hostile DM. an hostile dm would just sunder their items and laugh at the players' lack of foresight. the fact that he gives forewarning means he wants you to adapt, which means he wants to challenge you tactically.

Never use magic items made of anything less than metal, but aside from that, stay out of range, be in cover, miss chances ought to carry over. etc.

To protect the sack, stop wearing it and put it in another sack. Now it has full cover and cannot be targeted, or destroyed by natural 1s on saving throws. The outer bag can, but attacking the outer bag does nothing to the inner bag, and depending on just how "destroyed" it is by the attack, you can claim some amount of cover for the inner bag. Or just put the sack inside of another sack, etc. Use sacks made of chainmail and they get that 10 hardness.

i have seen that claimed many times as a way of protecting items, but it never makes any sense. Let's substitute the item to be protected with a person, and see how well it holds
"to protect yourself, put yourself in a sack. Now you have full cover and cannot be targeted. your clothing can, but attacking your clothes does nothing to you"
we may as well go with
"throw a towel on your head to protect yourself from the bugblatter dm of traal. the bugblatter dm of traal assumes that if there is something blocking direct sight between you and your foes, you cannot be seen, targeted or attacked."
I have never seen anyone claim that putting on a burqua makes you untargetable and invulnerable, yet people make the same argument for items. this seems hostile player-ing to me: here I am offering you an in-world puzzle, one for which I forewarned you in advance, and instead of engaging it within the framework of the game, you try to rules-layer your way around it.

besides, the point of the handy haversack is to be able to retrieve items from it quickly. if you have to open multiple sacks to get it, retrieving items is no longer a move action.

that said, covering it in chainmail would absolutely provide a modicum of protection. discuss the option with your dm; if he gave warning about targeting items, he likely is not adversarial, and he wants you to engage the challenge smartly. an attempt to tackle the challenge within a realistic in-world framework should be well received.

protecting/hiding the item under the armor can be done for an amulet or similar, but the haversack is a backpack, you can't fit it under your clothes. putting the haversack inside another nonmagical backpack could be a functional way of disguising it; if you are a trained adventurer, you may be able to recognize specific items; and in that case, you should recognize that the other guy is wearing a nonmagical backpack, not worth sundering. but that depends on what your foes want, and how much intelligence they have on you; it's an "ask your dm" situation.
In general, the haversack seem very vulnerable, and I can't see ways to protect it very well. so I'd go with counterattack and mitigation. how much stuff can you really have inside anyway? remove the most expensive things from the haversack, keep only basic potions in it. this way, if the enemies manage to sunder it, you don't lose much. try to kill them before they can sunder your items. the loot on the enemies is likely to far exceed what you may lose from the sundering.

[King of Nowhere]

Sounds like you have a serious case of Hostile-DM-itis...

many people seem to have that reaction as soon as they hear of targeting items, without further informations. it's not necessarily the case. it can be a competitive game, or it can be an inexperienced dm. I always had enemies spam disjunctions in high level fight, but I also provided more than enough replacements (though I never included bags of holding among targets, for reasons of practicality and bookkeeping).
in this case, I really think it's not hostile DM. an hostile dm would just sunder their items and laugh at the players' lack of foresight. the fact that he gives forewarning means he wants you to adapt, which means he wants to challenge you tactically.

Never use magic items made of anything less than metal, but aside from that, stay out of range, be in cover, miss chances ought to carry over. etc.

To protect the sack, stop wearing it and put it in another sack. Now it has full cover and cannot be targeted, or destroyed by natural 1s on saving throws. The outer bag can, but attacking the outer bag does nothing to the inner bag, and depending on just how "destroyed" it is by the attack, you can claim some amount of cover for the inner bag. Or just put the sack inside of another sack, etc. Use sacks made of chainmail and they get that 10 hardness.

i have seen that claimed many times as a way of protecting items, but it never makes any sense. Let's substitute the item to be protected with a person, and see how well it holds
"to protect yourself, put yourself in a sack. Now you have full cover and cannot be targeted. your clothing can, but attacking your clothes does nothing to you"
we may as well go with
"throw a towel on your head to protect yourself from the bugblatter dm of traal. the bugblatter dm of traal assumes that if there is something blocking direct sight between you and your foes, you cannot be seen, targeted or attacked."
I have never seen anyone claim that putting on a burqua makes you untargetable and invulnerable, yet people make the same argument for items. this seems hostile player-ing to me: here I am offering you an in-world puzzle, one for which I forewarned you in advance, and instead of engaging it within the framework of the game, you try to rules-layer your way around it.

besides, the point of the handy haversack is to be able to retrieve items from it quickly. if you have to open multiple sacks to get it, retrieving items is no longer a move action.

that said, covering it in chainmail would absolutely provide a modicum of protection. discuss the option with your dm; if he gave warning about targeting items, he likely is not adversarial, and he wants you to engage the challenge smartly. an attempt to tackle the challenge within a realistic in-world framework should be well received.

protecting/hiding the item under the armor can be done for an amulet or similar, but the haversack is a backpack, you can't fit it under your clothes. putting the haversack inside another nonmagical backpack could be a functional way of disguising it; if you are a trained adventurer, you may be able to recognize specific items; and in that case, you should recognize that the other guy is wearing a nonmagical backpack, not worth sundering. but that depends on what your foes want, and how much intelligence they have on you; it's an "ask your dm" situation.
In general, the haversack seem very vulnerable, and I can't see ways to protect it very well. so I'd go with counterattack and mitigation. how much stuff can you really have inside anyway? remove the most expensive things from the haversack, keep only basic potions in it. this way, if the enemies manage to sunder it, you don't lose much. try to kill them before they can sunder your items. the loot on the enemies is likely to far exceed what you may lose from the sundering.
depending on your level and optimization, it may be possible to also use some sort of contingent spell to protect the equipment. or to spend an action to put up a resilient sphere around a haversak that has started taking damage.

[Frostthehero]

This is definitely NOT a case of hostile DM-itis. We're just trying different things out to keep it fresh. I'm definitely interested to see how this turns out. Everyone in the party is onboard for it.

In any case, given that we're mid-dungeon and don't have the ability to buy any items, I think I'm just going to use the glove of storing I already have. This has a distinct advantage over the leather sack approach, because AFAIK, by raw, in order to retrieve an item from a nonmagical sack, you take a move action, even if there's only one thing in the sack. This move action provokes AOOs. Then there's another move action to retrieve something from the haversack (which does not provoke AOOs).

A glove of storing, on the other hand, allows the user to retrieve or store something as a free action, meaning I can retrieve any item I want for a grand total of one move action without provoking AOOs.

[Darg]

Does no one drop their bags for fights where you have the freedom to? This should especially be the case for the bag of holding which is literally just a sack. Sunder isn't all that dangerous if they can't reach your items in the first place. Honestly, an indiscriminate fireball is much more scary than sunder in my opinion.

Edit: if you really want to protect it while carrying it, polymorph.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Does no one drop their bags for fights where you have the freedom to? This should especially be the case for the bag of holding which is literally just a sack. Sunder isn't all that dangerous if they can't reach your items in the first place. Honestly, an indiscriminate fireball is much more scary than sunder in my opinion.

No. Only an idiot would do that, honestly.

It's a haversack, quite literally a backpack designed to be worn by adventurers. Dropping it so anyone can steal it when you're busy (especially when it has most of your stuff in it) is a very bad idea.

Plus, a haversack thrown on the ground is basically guaranteed to be destroyed by a fireball or any other AoE that could damage it. At least if it's worn, it has a much better chance of surviving.

(object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.

Items Surviving after a Saving Throw
Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack deal.

If an item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.

Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks
Order*-----Item
1st-----------Shield
2nd----------Armor
3rd-----------Magic helmet, hat, or headband
4th-----------Item in hand (including weapon, wand, or the like)
5th-----------Magic cloak
6th-----------Stowed or sheathed weapon
7th-----------Magic bracers
8th-----------Magic clothing
9th-----------Magic jewelry (including rings)
10th----------Anything else
*In order of most likely to least likely to be affected.

[King of Nowhere]

This is definitely NOT a case of hostile DM-itis. We're just trying different things out to keep it fresh. I'm definitely interested to see how this turns out. Everyone in the party is onboard for it.

In any case, given that we're mid-dungeon and don't have the ability to buy any items, I think I'm just going to use the glove of storing I already have. This has a distinct advantage over the leather sack approach, because AFAIK, by raw, in order to retrieve an item from a nonmagical sack, you take a move action, even if there's only one thing in the sack. This move action provokes AOOs. Then there's another move action to retrieve something from the haversack (which does not provoke AOOs).

A glove of storing, on the other hand, allows the user to retrieve or store something as a free action, meaning I can retrieve any item I want for a grand total of one move action without provoking AOOs.

a glove of storing is extradimensional storage. a haversack is extradimensional storage. i'm pretty sure you can't put two extradimensional storages one inside the other.

No. Only an idiot would do that, honestly.

It's a haversack, quite literally a backpack designed to be worn by adventurers. Dropping it so anyone can steal it when you're busy (especially when it has most of your stuff in it) is a very bad idea.

I wouldn't say that.
sure, if you drop your backpack someone may steal it.
if you wear it during combat, it may get damaged. it may also slow you down.
under real life assumptions, it's generally better to drop it. the rules specifically handwave the issues of fighting with a backpack. anyway, it depends strongly on how likely it is that your backpack is stolen. if you fight a gang of thieves in an alley, then yes, if you drop them someone may just steal them while you're busy. if you drop the backpack in a cave while fighting owlbears, it's generally a smart move

[MaxiDuRaritry]

a glove of storing is extradimensional storage. a haversack is extradimensional storage. i'm pretty sure you can't put two extradimensional storages one inside the other.

Nope. Only 2 such interactions occur, and both involve a bag of holding and a portable hole. A glove of storing is neither.

Unless we're houseruling, and you don't even need an extradimensional space for that.

I wouldn't say that.
sure, if you drop your backpack someone may steal it.

Which wouldn't happen if you were wearing it.

if you wear it during combat, it may get damaged.

It's actually less likely to be damaged if you're wearing it, unless you leave it at home or take the time to hide it out of the way, and in-combat rounds are precious.

it may also slow you down.

Only if it puts you over your weight limit, and the entire point of a haversack is so that is less likely to happen.

under real life assumptions, it's generally better to drop it. the rules specifically handwave the issues of fighting with a backpack. anyway, it depends strongly on how likely it is that your backpack is stolen. if you fight a gang of thieves in an alley, then yes, if you drop them someone may just steal them while you're busy. if you drop the backpack in a cave while fighting owlbears, it's generally a smart move

Except there is no reason to drop it and every reason not to; see above.

[King of Nowhere]

Nope. Only 2 such interactions occur, and both involve a bag of holding and a portable hole. A glove of storing is neither.

Unless we're houseruling, and you don't even need an extradimensional space for that.

we are not houseruling, we are making reasonable reading of the rules. the srd specifically says that a handy haversack behaves like a bag of holding, so it's safe to assume the same interactions with both other bags of holding or portable holes. if the glove also stores in extradimensional space, it is, again, the most logical reading is to assume the same interaction. the rules do not need to list each and every such interactions one by one, once they establish that extradimensional space has issues when put inside each other.
however, i just went to read the text for the glove, and it says the item is shrunk to microscopic size, not stored extradimensionally. and there's no issues with shrinking and extradimensionality.
so, you were right, but for the wrong reasons.

It's actually less likely to be damaged if you're wearing it, unless you leave it at home or take the time to hide it out of the way, and in-combat rounds are precious.

Only if it puts you over your weight limit, and the entire point of a haversack is so that is less likely to happen.

Except there is no reason to drop it and every reason not to; see above.

I did specifically say "under real life assumptions". under real life assumptions, a backpack always slows you; you don't see an olympic runner running with a 40 kg backpack because with his 18 str that's still a light load and he takes no penalty for it. you don't see a pugilist enter the ring with a backpack full of fragile glassware on his back, and expect the glassware to survive because objects in a backpack are not affected by attacks.
d&d rules are more forgiving, and they say that your 18 str allow you to run with a 40 kg backpack without any penalty, and to fight while carrying glassware without the glassware taking damage, because nobody wants to keep track of things in such detail. which is why, in d&d, people don't bother dropping their backpack before fighting. nor do they bother keeping track of where their backpack is in the first place, because that's boring. not unless they know specifically that their foes will attempt to sunder their backpack and the items wherein. but, in a more realistic simulation, the idiotic thing would be to fight with the backpack.

Which wouldn't happen if you were wearing it.

makes me wonder, it could actually be a strategy to drop your loot-filled backpack before fighting. someone may try to steal it, wonderful! instead of dealing sneak attack damage, this specific rogue is wasting his rounds trying to steal your stuff. then, after you finish killing his companions, you chase him - easily, he's slowed by all that heavy loot he carries - kill him, and take his loot too.
at high levels, one would need to dimensional anchor the backpack and several items within to prevent the looter to just teleport away. some kind of tracking rune would help in case the miscreant tries to hide.
seriously, if the roles were reversed, and the pcs tried to pick up loot before the end of the fight, i'd call them the idiotic ones - unless they had a good plan to get away with it. so, dropping your valuables before combat is a lot less stupid than you think. unless you get an adversarial dm who will tailor a looter to counter exactly the kind of defences you put in place.

[Frostthehero]

a glove of storing is extradimensional storage.

Debatable. The glove of storing's description says

The item is held in stasis and shrunk down so small within the palm of the glove that it cannot be seen.

Which I read to mean that the storage is NOT extradimensional.

EDIT: You already said this in your most recent post.

I tend to also say that only the bag of holding + portable hole interaction occurs, but that's more of a RAI thing. Either way, it doesn't apply here.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

we are not houseruling, we are making reasonable reading of the rules. the srd specifically says that a handy haversack behaves like a bag of holding, so it's safe to assume the same interactions with both other bags of holding or portable holes. if the glove also stores in extradimensional space, it is, again, the most logical reading is to assume the same interaction.

It really isn't. The interaction very specifically mentions two items, and neither is a glove of storing. There are enough differences that, no, a glove of storing is not particularly similar to a portable hole.

Since a glove of storing is not a portable hole, and the interaction specifies portable hole, a glove of storing does not act like a portable hole.

the rules do not need to list each and every such interactions one by one, once they establish that extradimensional space has issues when put inside each other.

Then it should've given a general rule. It did not. It gave a very specific rule for a very specific interaction, which does not cover the one you're insisting on.

however, i just went to read the text for the glove, and it says the item is shrunk to microscopic size, not stored extradimensionally. and there's no issues with shrinking and extradimensionality.
so, you were right, but for the wrong reasons.

And also for the reasons I've specified.

I did specifically say "under real life assumptions". under real life assumptions, a backpack always slows you; you don't see an olympic runner running with a 40 kg backpack because with his 18 str that's still a light load and he takes no penalty for it. you don't see a pugilist enter the ring with a backpack full of fragile glassware on his back, and expect the glassware to survive because objects in a backpack are not affected by attacks.

We're using RAW interactions, since they are very much defined. You mainly use Real Life Rules™ when the RAW doesn't cover things. They do here, so that's what we're using.

Does the haversack increase your encumbrance? If yes, then we follow the rules for encumbrance. If no, or if the group doesn't use standard RAW encumbrance rules (which is quite common, from what I gather), then we go with that.

d&d rules are more forgiving, and they say that your 18 str allow you to run with a 40 kg backpack without any penalty, and to fight while carrying glassware without the glassware taking damage, because nobody wants to keep track of things in such detail. which is why, in d&d, people don't bother dropping their backpack before fighting. nor do they bother keeping track of where their backpack is in the first place, because that's boring. not unless they know specifically that their foes will attempt to sunder their backpack and the items wherein. but, in a more realistic simulation, the idiotic thing would be to fight with the backpack.

Don't forget, it's a magic backpack. It stores stuff outside of normal space. I imagine things going on in normal space don't affect stuff outside of normal space, as with what happens with stuff stored in a handy haversack.

makes me wonder, it could actually be a strategy to drop your loot-filled backpack before fighting. someone may try to steal it, wonderful! instead of dealing sneak attack damage, this specific rogue is wasting his rounds trying to steal your stuff. then, after you finish killing his companions, you chase him - easily, he's slowed by all that heavy loot he carries - kill him, and take his loot too.

Most characters prefer death to losing all their stuff. It's far less expensive to raise someone from the dead than to lose all of that character's WBL at higher levels. Definitely not something anyone would describe as "wonderful" unless resurrection magic is entirely unavailable.

at high levels, one would need to dimensional anchor the backpack and several items within to prevent the looter to just teleport away. some kind of tracking rune would help in case the miscreant tries to hide.
seriously, if the roles were reversed, and the pcs tried to pick up loot before the end of the fight, i'd call them the idiotic ones - unless they had a good plan to get away with it. so, dropping your valuables before combat is a lot less stupid than you think. unless you get an adversarial dm who will tailor a looter to counter exactly the kind of defences you put in place.

Again, there's no reason to drop one's haversack unless it over-encumbers you, and lots of reasons not to. It's less likely to be damaged or destroyed or stolen if you're wearing it, and far more likely for all of those things to happen if you drop it on the ground. So don't do that.

[King of Nowhere]

It really isn't. The interaction very specifically mentions two items
We're using RAW interactions, since they are very much defined. You mainly use Real Life Rules™ when the RAW doesn't cover things. They do here, so that's what we're using.

quoting from the srd

Handy Haversack

A backpack of this sort appears to be well made, well used, and quite ordinary. It is constructed of finely tanned leather, and the straps have brass hardware and buckles. It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding

if each is like a bag of holding, then it should follow the rules of the bag of holding for everything not explicitly written in the handy haversack text.
This IS raw, and the interaction between multiple bags of holding and/or portable holes do extend to handy haversacks, by raw.

and now that I went to check the bag of holding, i see that, contrary to what i remembered, there is no mention of anything happening if you put a bag of holding inside another bag of holding. that was the basis of my argument, and i see that the line is not there.
it is still a very reasonable RAI to make, since both items do mention extradimensional storage space, to assume that bad things happen every time you try to put two extradimensional spaces inside one another.
and for all that you say we are using RAW, many tables prioritize RAI. there are many lines in the dmg itself encouraging a rai approach. you can't say rai is wrong just because you stick to strict raw.

the real life thing is an entirely different, unrelated argument - in which i was pointing out that dropping your backpack is not a stupid thing to do in a realistic scenario, it is only so because of how raw works. there really is nothing to argue there.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

quoting from the srd

if each is like a bag of holding, then it should follow the rules of the bag of holding for everything not explicitly written in the handy haversack text.
This IS raw, and the interaction between multiple bags of holding and/or portable holes do extend to handy haversacks, by raw.

Err, I said that the RAW interaction required two specific items and then said that the item that is NOT the handy haversack is also not the item in the combo that is not the portable hole.

That is, the handy haversack may be similar to a bag of holding, but the glove of storing is not a portable hole. Thus, the RAW interactions between a bag of holding and a portable hole do not cover the interactions between a glove of storing and literally anything else.

That's what I said, not what you seem to be arguing against.

and now that I went to check the bag of holding, i see that, contrary to what i remembered, there is no mention of anything happening if you put a bag of holding inside another bag of holding. that was the basis of my argument, and i see that the line is not there.
it is still a very reasonable RAI to make, since both items do mention extradimensional storage space, to assume that bad things happen every time you try to put two extradimensional spaces inside one another.
and for all that you say we are using RAW, many tables prioritize RAI. there are many lines in the dmg itself encouraging a rai approach. you can't say rai is wrong just because you stick to strict raw.

the real life thing is an entirely different, unrelated argument - in which i was pointing out that dropping your backpack is not a stupid thing to do in a realistic scenario, it is only so because of how raw works. there really is nothing to argue there.

You cannot use an unrelated text passage to cover things not covered in that unrelated text passage.

You're reaching really, really hard, but you won't be grabbing it this time, I'm afraid.

[Darg]

No. Only an idiot would do that, honestly.

It's a haversack, quite literally a backpack designed to be worn by adventurers. Dropping it so anyone can steal it when you're busy (especially when it has most of your stuff in it) is a very bad idea.

Plus, a haversack thrown on the ground is basically guaranteed to be destroyed by a fireball or any other AoE that could damage it. At least if it's worn, it has a much better chance of surviving.

That's why I said an indiscriminate fireball is scary. Then again you wouldn't drop your bag if an errant fireball would destroy your stuff. Fireball only has a diameter of 40 ft. If you are more than 40 ft away from your stuff a fireball trying to kill you won't destroy your stuff. It'll be an extremely rare event a fireball would destroy your stuff. It's not like the DM can claim that the fireball "missed" because a fireball never misses. Though it's not like 10+size+your dex is all that large of an AC so destroying your easy regardless.

As for creatures stealing your stuff, never had mind blank protected invisible creatures literally steal your entire inventory off of you without you knowing? Come on, if the DM is going to be that malicious you may as well just walk out the door. You don't want to drop your items if it's likely to be stolen like in a seedy alleyway, but off in the wilderness the likelihood of generic thieves stealing your stuff literally feet away should be as small as winning the lottery. Your enemies wouldn't do it because they're too busy not dying, knowing you aren't going to use the bag you threw away, or to rummage through to find something useful in the present. And you aren't carrying around 2x4ft cloth sack in combat while using a 2h weapon. So what exactly are you doing with your bags of holding?

That said, you could just get the haversack repaired for 600 gp if it does get broken.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

That's why I said an indiscriminate fireball is scary. Then again you wouldn't drop your bag if an errant fireball would destroy your stuff. Fireball only has a diameter of 40 ft. If you are more than 40 ft away from your stuff a fireball trying to kill you won't destroy your stuff. It'll be an extremely rare event a fireball would destroy your stuff. It's not like the DM can claim that the fireball "missed" because a fireball never misses. Though it's not like 10+size+your dex is all that large of an AC so destroying your easy regardless.

As for creatures stealing your stuff, never had mind blank protected invisible creatures literally steal your entire inventory off of you without you knowing? Come on, if the DM is going to be that malicious you may as well just walk out the door. You don't want to drop your items if it's likely to be stolen like in a seedy alleyway, but off in the wilderness the likelihood of generic thieves stealing your stuff literally feet away should be as small as winning the lottery. Your enemies wouldn't do it because their too busy not dying, knowing you aren't going to use the bag you threw away, or to rummage through to find something useful in the present. And you aren't carrying around 2x4ft cloth sack in combat while using a 2h weapon. So what exactly are you doing with your bags of holding?

That said, you could just get the haversack repaired for 600 gp if it does get broken.

I sell my bags of holding and buy enveloping pits. They're extremely inexpensive (3,600 gp) and are essentially 10' x 10' x 50' portable holes. I'd use a handy haversack for anything I need to keep around, with gloves of the master strategist for anything I need at hand ASAP.

Whenever I have the money when starting a game at higher level, I'd do this.

I avoid leaving my stuff lying around. There are tons of ways that could go badly, no matter where you are or what you're doing. Every ecosystem in D&D is filled to the brim with hostile sapient life and lots of critters that love to steal/eat/destroy shiny magic items. I ain't riskin' it.

[Darg]

I sell my bags of holding and buy enveloping pits. They're extremely inexpensive (3,600 gp) and are essentially 10' x 10' x 50' portable holes. I'd use a handy haversack for anything I need to keep around, with gloves of the master strategist for anything I need at hand ASAP.

Right, you just buy relics. Makes sense. Relics are as common as normal magic items.

Whenever I have the money when starting a game at higher level, I'd do this.

If your DM allows you to do this, good for you.

I avoid leaving my stuff lying around. There are tons of ways that could go badly, no matter where you are or what you're doing. Every ecosystem in D&D is filled to the brim with hostile sapient life and lots of critters that love to steal/eat/destroy shiny magic items. I ain't riskin' it.

Sounds like your DM is compensating for how far off the rails your games are.

[icefractal]

Put me on the "not hostile GMing" side, especially with the forewarning.

I mean, Sunder is a core combat maneuver, hardly obscure. Is "using effects with a Will save" hostile GMing just because someone could make a character with a crap Will save?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Right, you just buy relics. Makes sense. Relics are as common as normal magic items.

Relics have prices attached and item creation prereqs. If an item can be made, an item can be bought, even if it's just, "I've used Diplomacy to convince this kobold artificer to create this item for me, and I even got a discount because he really, really likes me." Alternately, charm or dominate, if needed.

If your DM allows you to do this, good for you.

Spellcasters, man. What can you do?

Sounds like your DM is compensating for how far off the rails your games are.

Or I've had to compensate for multiple really difficult DMs. And a few with a high tolerance/expectation for P.O.

[Darg]

Relics have prices attached and item creation prereqs. If an item can be made, an item can be bought, even if it's just, "I've used Diplomacy to convince this kobold artificer to create this item for me, and I even got a discount because he really, really likes me." Alternately, charm or dominate, if needed.

Part of the issue is finding the creature capable of creating the item. Yes they can be made, but if you aren't the one wasting your feats on it then relics are not as guaranteed for the vast majority of players as you think they are.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Part of the issue is finding the creature capable of creating the item. Yes they can be made, but if you aren't the one wasting your feats on it then relics are not as guaranteed for the vast majority of players as you think they are.

The cost for an enveloping pit is quite low, so a crafter capable of creating one should be available in a fairly smallish town.

[King of Nowhere]

I sell my bags of holding and buy enveloping pits. They're extremely inexpensive (3,600 gp) and are essentially 10' x 10' x 50' portable holes. I'd use a handy haversack for anything I need to keep around, with gloves of the master strategist for anything I need at hand ASAP.

how many people actually track that stuff?
i have games where quickened disjunctions flow freely, yet even i never bothered rolling for bags of holding and general inventory, only equipped items. because it's already enough of a bookkeeping pain without having to worry about where you keep your potion or your rope.

that said, i also have games where players have a safe base where they can leave what they're not using right now. they don't have to worry about carrying all their possessions with them

I avoid leaving my stuff lying around. There are tons of ways that could go badly, no matter where you are or what you're doing. Every ecosystem in D&D is filled to the brim with hostile sapient life and lots of critters that love to steal/eat/destroy shiny magic items. I ain't riskin' it.

You just got me wondering: you can't drop your stuff in the wild because there are tons of critters wanting to eat it, and yet piles of ancient treasures managed to sit undisturbed for millennia without any of the aforementioned critters touching them.
ok, if we made a list of inconsistencies in the standard archetypical game world, this wouldn't enter the top10.