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
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
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)
And that's an RAI argument, not a RAW argument
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 "so what?" is how you end up with an 80-foot darkness tunnel when you cast it 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)
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.
Dude, the 80-foot darkness tunnel is a straight RAW ruling.
Maybe you don't like it, but insisting the rules don't mean what they actually say just to avoid the consequences is a... less than ideal choice. Just rule it doesn't at your table.
The fixation on RAW over intent (blatant or not) and table ruling is a plague on rules discussion.
Except in this case, there's no ambiguity. The text is perfectly clear. Some people just don't like what it explicitly says. And, well, houserule it if it offends you, just be aware you're doing that.
And now we're right back around to the top of the argument, because that simply is not Rules As Written. You have to infer the existence of the exception to the AoE point of origin rules from things like monster statblocks, which is RAI, not RAW
And yet, here you are insisting your interpretation is RAW, rather than sticking to your shoulder shrug "So what?" and not caring whether I consider a thing to be RAW or RAI or whatever. So physician heal thyself and all that
The point of these "fixations", at least for me, is to examine the assumptions I'm making with rulings as a DM, to try and avoid bad or silly things like the 80-foot darkness tunnel -- and that one is absolutely a very, very silly ruling
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)
We used to reward players for being clever.
No you don't. You don't have to infer the exception from anything, because the exception is stated overtly. The rules for an emanation say how it works (it extends from an object to a defined distance), and that overrides the general rules for AoEs.
The monster abilities that don't work if emanations are drawn from a point are supporting evidence. The primary argument is, and has always been, that the definition of emanations says it's drawn from something other than a point.
No that is false, it wouldn't. A "point of origin" can't be "on a creature" because as you yourself has quoted the rules say that the point of origin should be at an intersection of squares. If you are going to demand explicitly written exceptions to general rules then you have to do so for all, not just the ones where it fits your argument.
The rules do what they say and specific beats general is a base principle of these rules and that means that the thing that you keep calling an omission, i.e a rule that states something different than the general rule, is actually an exception.
As you used it as an argument we can use total cover as an example of this principle. The rules say that Total Cover blocks an AoE from expanding in its direction. This was the same in the 2014 rules but there you also had some spells, like Fireball, that said that it "spreads around corners". They didn't add a big red sign to this that said "THIS DEFEATS COVER" simply because they didn't need to. The spell said that it goes round corners and then it does so even though that means that it usually makes total cover irrelevant.
Due to this combination of text, the Tunnel of Darkness trick goes against RAW. It isn't the entire object that's emitting darkness, it's a point on the object. Nothing about Emanations actually states it goes against the AoE rules. That it extends from the creature or object isn't an exception, it's a description of behavior, but it still has a focal point by the general rule.
Neither creatures nor objects are 'points', and if it extends from a creature or object, it is thus not extending from a point. A point is a very specific thing - it has no dimensions. Yes, even in normal idiomatic English.
If that was the case, the rules text for emanation would say so. It does not, and the existing text is incompatible with it extends from a point.
A Medium or Small creature takes up one square on a grid -- including its corners
A larger creature would obviously have an intersection or intersections within its area, as well as its outer corners
Even a Tiny creature (four to a square) would have one intersection available in its space
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)
Clearly you both misunderstand. The point would be a point ON the creature or object, that would be defined as the actual center of the spell. Whatever point that is wouldn't change for the duration of the spell.
Because Emanations are an Area of Effect and don't create an explicit exception to the rules of Area of Effect placement, any answer of how the Emanation behaves must satisfy the conditions of both. So it must target a creature or object, AND it must have a point of origin positioned, specifically ON the creature or object.
This creates a different scenario than what's been proposed: Positioning the origin point on one end of a rope that's been tied into a lasso makes a lasso that engulfs the target in darkness.
No, I don't misunderstand, I just disagree. The text says that an emanation extends from the creature or monster, not from a point on the creature or monster, and claiming it comes from a single point changes the meaning of the text substantially. Given that the actual examples we have are all consistent with the natural reading of the text and inconsistent with your preferred interpretation, the obvious solution is that your interpretation is wrong.
No misunderstanding here. You're objectively wrong.
If it extends in straight lines from a creature or object in all directions, then that explicitly contradicts it having a point of origin, because a creature or object is not a point. Specific > General, so emanations need no point of origin.
Indeed, if the rules meant what you think, we wouldn't need "emanations" at all. Emanations would not be emanations, they would instead create spheres centered on a chosen point in contact with the target creature or object. Since the rules don't say that, and instead defines emanations without reference to a point at all, then its blatantly obvious that what you want is not in the rules.
That you dislike the consequence of the rules working the way they say they do is not an argument that the rules say something else entirely that they never actually say.
And when was the last game you played where the Balor's 5' emanation didn't affect all 16 squares adjacent to it? Or heck, where Thunderclap didn't hit creatures in all 8 squares around a player casting it.