Emanation: radius or diameter?

I know this doesn't solve or determine the "object vs. point on object vs. point at center of object" argument (that's ok, that's a boring discussion, I think the answer is "object").

But I bet almost all the actual contention about this would go away if you rule the object size to conform to creature size...so a rope easily fits into a 5ft square, so that's the object size, and if you uncoil the rope, you basically get to pick which 5ft section "holds" the emanation.

That's a ruling, not a rule, but I think it would remove anyone's anxiety about the rule. If you find a legit "Huge" object, you get a bigger emanation, sure, but remember "It isn’t a building or a vehicle, which are composed of many objects."

Quote from kenclary >>

I know this doesn't solve or determine the "object vs. point on object vs. point at center of object" argument (that's ok, that's a boring discussion, I think the answer is "object").

But I bet almost all the actual contention about this would go away if you rule the object size to conform to creature size...so a rope easily fits into a 5ft square, so that's the object size, and if you uncoil the rope, you basically get to pick which 5ft section "holds" the emanation.

That's a ruling, not a rule, but I think it would remove anyone's anxiety about the rule. If you find a legit "Huge" object, you get a bigger emanation, sure, but remember "It isn’t a building or a vehicle, which are composed of many objects."

I think my house rule on this, should it come up, is that it's a point of origin on an object, but the whole creature if it's a creature. So pallys and monsters can get the larger area for their Emanations, but if you cast darkness on a massive boulder, you won't need a circus tent to suppress its effect

Quote from jl8e >>

Which is not the point of Emanations

And that's an RAI argument, not a RAW argument

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from jl8e >>

Which is not the point of Emanations

 

And that's an RAI argument, not a RAW argument

1.  So what? In situations of ambiguity, considering the designers' intent often helps to resolve the ambiguity.
2. This isn't even ambiguous, at least to most people.
3. It wasn't even an argument. It was "this is why they didn't write it the way you said would conform to the general rules, because it isn't supposed to conform to the general AoE rules".

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from jl8e >>

Which is not the point of Emanations

 

And that's an RAI argument, not a RAW argument

1.  So what?

That "so what?" is how you end up with an 80-foot darkness tunnel when you cast it on a rope

Quote from AntonSirius >>

That "so what?" is how you end up with an 80-foot darkness tunnel when you cast it on a rope

Honestly, that is kind of a 'so what', that's more in the range of 'stupid PC tricks' than anything actually useful. The point was that, in cases where rules are legitimately unclear, it's useful to look at intent to decide how to resolve the lack of clarity.