Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
So far, I've see strong evidence that emanations have a diameter exactly twice that of their listed radius and this covers a circular/spherical area from a specific point of origin, not the boundaries of an object/creature or the square(s) they occupy.
I have yet to see any evidence for the interpretation that you start counting distance at the boundaries of the object/creature or the square(s) they occupy.
It interests me when people just refuses to accept what a rule actually says. I can get that this is a multi layered rules set and that the different layers talk against each other so I'd understand an argument of "I think this fits best" or "this works for more situations" or similar. But to simply refuse what the rule says seems strange.
Emanation
No mention of "point of origin" but does say that it "extends ... from a creature or object". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Um. How is
(emphasis mine) not evidence that it extends from a creature or object, not from a point, and the distance it extends is measured from the creature or object, not a point.
I just realized the PHB has this picture for an Emanation:
Despite the words that were chosen to label the concept, the term "point of origin" does not actually refer to a point when the term is used to describe an AoE in general. However, it IS a point when this same phrase is used within each individual AoE shape description.
The general term "point of origin" is actually a defined term in this game. By definition, this is "a location from which the effect’s energy erupts" whereby "The rules for each shape specify how to position its point of origin". This aligns with the more general rules for spellcasting which include spell effects that are NOT AoEs. For example, the Range of a spell "indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate". Those rules also explicitly acknowledge the possibility whereby "The spell’s effect originates on something". A typical non-AoE spell is cast "on" or "at" a creature or object directly and such spell effects originate at that creature or object, not at a specific point on that creature or object. For example, the Fire Bolt spell effect originates "at a creature or an object within range", not at a specific point in space.
Now, for individual AoE shapes, when it is clear from the description that the effect does not originate "on" a creature or object, then the word "point" in that context really does refer to a point in space. For example, a Cone extends "from a point of origin". A sphere extends "from a point of origin". A cube extends "from a point of origin located anywhere on a face of the Cube" and a Cylinder extends "from a point of origin located at the center of the circular top or bottom of the Cylinder". In context, these all clearly refer to a point in space.
However, the description for an Emanation never uses the word "point" at all. It never refers to its "point of origin". However, we know that there is a general rule that applies to all AoEs which states that "An area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the effect’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how to position its point of origin." So, indeed, an Emanation has a location from which the effect's energy erupts. But the rules for this shape specify that it extends "from a creature or an object" and goes on to use the phrase "the creature or object that is its origin" and also "An Emanation’s origin (creature or object)". So, in this context, it's clear that the location from which this effect's energy erupts is not a point in space. It's a creature or object.
Nah, sorry. Not good enough in this case. The AoE rules are quite clear that all listed AoEs have a point of origin, and that the glossary description tells you how that point can be positioned
Absent an explicit exception for Emanations, that point of origin is simply positioned on the creature or object in question and moves with it -- which is why it's distinct from a Sphere
If you're arguing that every single spell or feature that doesn't explicitly re-state its core rules is creating an exception to those rules, we have much bigger problems than casting Darkness on a rope
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That seems pretty clear that a 10-foot Sphere and 10-foot Emanation are the exact same size, regardless of what they are created on
I suppose you can make an RAI argument here that they simply updated the image from the 5e PHB a little lazily and didn't consider that Emanations don't have a point of origin at all, but that's an awfully big stretch for me
Can anyone come up with any examples of monsters or such that have Emanations that wouldn't even cover their entire persons using the "Emanations still have a point of origin" interpretation?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What, D&D being sloppy about rules is a surprise? Have you been reading the same game as me?
And yes. The balor is a Huge creature (15' space) and its fire aura is a 5' Emanation.
Every spell or feature that says something that contradicts a core rule is creating an exception.
It's how exception-based rule systems work. Every single rule has an implicit "unless something says otherwise".
If you try playing 5e fully sticking to the principle argued here, well, it won't be pretty.
You haven't shown a contradiction here. You've just shown an absence
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The point of origin can't be ON a creature or object, rather than the origin being the entire creature or object?
The general rule is that all AoEs have a point of origin. As Tarod pointed out, there's even a handy little pic showing that this does in fact explicitly include Emanations
You haven't demonstrated that there's a contradiction here, only an omission of the "point of origin" language in the Glossary
That Glossary entry for an Emanation also omits any language about being blocked by Total Cover. Does that mean it's providing an exception to that rule as well?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sure, if the text said that the point of origin was on a creature or object. It doesn't.
Every area effect with a point of origin states where that point is. Emanations do not specify a point, they specify that the origin is a creature or object (also, did you miss the example of the balor, which is a creature with a 15' space and a 5' emanation?)
Wow, are there people really arguing a 10' emanation that targets the caster doesn't extend 10' in every direction from the caster, but instead he must choose a corner of his grid to create a 10' radius sphere, and then that sphere follows him around, weirdly lop-sided?
That's an obvious contradiction. Consider a wizard who casts a 10' emanation spell. Assumption: it has to have a point of origin locked to a grid intersection. The wizard chooses the NW corner. There's a creature 2-squares away to his East. Despite being within 10' of the caster, it is not in the emanation. =><= Therefore, emanations cannot have a point of origin that is a grid intersection.
(Also, the balor example is hilarious. I might also point out any Enlarged PC with a 5' emanation, like Word of Radiance.)
Or the Remorhaz: Huge and Heat Aura is a 5-foot Emanation.
Another example could be the Brazen Gorgon: a Large creature with a 5-foot Emanation for Flame Aura.
EDIT: Cthulhu: Gargantuan and Impossible Geometry is a 10-foot Emanation.