5/29/2023 0 Comments Handy haversack![]() ![]() The capacity difference meant neither was strictly superior, but each had different pros and cons (the marginal utility of being usable in combat making the Haversack especially desirable, but still not strictly superior in every way). Traditionally (I mean back in AD&D, since in 3.x this is likely the kind of thing DMs would just handwave away), digging through a Bag for an item wasn't feasible during combat, so the discovery of a Haversack was a significant upgrade in, well, handiness. (Easy enough to do, since when you're doing the rules polishing on the Bag you're not thinking about the Haversack, and it all looks fine, right?) The designers appear to have retained this distinction in the items' described function, and then made it immaterial during development by copy-pasting the standard 5e item-interaction boilerplate into their descriptions without making any adjustments to implement the functional difference they kept in the descriptions. The advantage of the Haversack over the Bag has always been that the Haversack always has what you're looking for on top, as compared to the Bag which is a disordered bag of stuff that's harder to sift through the more it holds (and it can hold so much). ![]() ![]() This is a combination of history and what appears to be a small but significant oversight. If your answer is not directly from official sources (ex: "we know this is a typo because of existing errata, found here"), please remember Good/Bad Subjective and back your answer with evidence and personal experience. Other than that, they have the same rules regarding their extra-dimensional properties, interaction etc. of difference is worth a difference of category in rarity, especially making the Haversack rarer when the bag holds approx. While the Haversack only weighs 5 (and I highly doubt 10 lbs. Regardless of contents, the Bag weighs 15 lbs. The Bag also has the disadvantage of looking similar to the Bag of Devouring. In terms of fluff, the Bag is depicted as a simple satchel while the Haversack is depicted as a hiker's backpack with multiple straps and pouches. My confusion stems from the fact that, while the Bag of Holding is obviously superior to Heward's Handy Haversack, it's the more common item of the two. It is our intent to work within this license in good faith.The Bag of Holding (DMG pg.153) is an uncommon magic item and has a significantly greater volume than any of the pouches (or even all combined) of Heward's Handy Haversack (DMG pg.174), which is rare. If you see any page that contains SRD material and does not show this license statement, please contact an admin so that this license statement can be added. To distinguish it, these items will have this notice. It is covered by the Open Game License v1.0a, rather than the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3. This is part of the (3.5e) Revised System Reference Document. Moderate conjuration CL 9th Craft Wondrous Item, secret chest Price 2,000 gp Weight 5 lb.īack to Main Page → 3.5e Open Game Content → System Reference Document → Magic Items Open Game Content ( place problems on the discussion page). Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does. Thus, no digging around and fumbling is ever necessary to find what a haversack contains. When the wearer reaches into it for a specific item, that item is always on top. While such storage is useful enough, the pack has an even greater power in addition. Even when so filled, the backpack always weighs only 5 pounds. The large central portion of the pack can contain up to 8 cubic feet or 80 pounds of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight. It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. It is constructed of finely tanned leather, and the straps have brass hardware and buckles. Handy Haversack: A backpack of this sort appears to be well made, well used, and quite ordinary. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |