Forum:Cursed bag of holding howto

From NetHackWiki
Revision as of 20:44, 7 May 2016 by Martyf (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Not sure why it took me so long to try this....

Cursed bag of holding I can't lift, no Wand of Cancellation, no gelatinous cubes in sight..

I just dropped anything I didn't need at that instant, to create the maximum number of slots for storage in my sack, then looted it.

Naturally one or two things vanished, which is the reason you want to drop as many things as you can, so you can grab as many things as you think you'd need in the first pass.

Then I make a second pass, emptying it so I can remove the curse later, without it weighing me down until then.

"howto" suggests this is best practice in every case.
i'm not a brilliant player, but i would disagree with your analysis.
the things in your bag of holding are valuable, by definition you need them.
destroying ninety-odd percent of them is not a good idea.
how about digging a pit and covering it with a boulder?
or writing the e-word under it and leaving the level until you get a wand of cancellation?
or even just leaving it where it is until you get back? --195.2.244.193 11:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
"destroying ninety-odd percent of them?" According to the wiki page: "each item in the bag has a 1/13 chance of disappearing each time you apply or loot the bag." Funcrunch (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
rounding up, duh. ok, so losing 4 in every 50 items isn't that bad. i am a hopeless pack-rat, though, and you may as well suggest ditching the whole lot. ;) --195.2.244.193 12:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Losing one, two, rarely 3 items, seems to be a good investment, versus waiting for a wand of Cancellation, or a gelatinous cube, which may never show up in the course of a game.

Martyf (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

if you have less than 40 items in the bag, sure. fate decrees, though, that those three items will be the most useful ones. --195.2.244.193 12:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Not true. It is random, as far as I can see.


Martyf (talk)