Sunburst v Nightshades

[orion90000]

Nightshades have the Aversion to Daylight Characteristic:

Aversion to Daylight (Ex)
If exposed to natural daylight (not merely a daylight spell), nightshades take a -4 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks.

Would this make them succeptable to Sunburst's Autokill feature for undead?

"Sunburst causes a globe of searing radiance to explode silently from a point you select. All creatures in the globe are blinded and take 6d6 points of damage. A creature to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural takes double damage. A successful Reflex save negates the blindness and reduces the damage by half.

An undead creature caught within the globe takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 25d6), or half damage if a Reflex save is successful. In addition, the burst results in the destruction of any undead creature specifically harmed by bright light if it fail its save.

The ultraviolet light generated by the spell deals damage to fungi, mold, oozes, and slimes just as if they were undead creatures.

Sunburst dispels any darkness spells of lower than 9th level within its area."

 

[irdeggman]

I don't think so.

Suffering a penalty isn't the same as being "harmed".

For comparison check the text for a vampire (which is the obvious comparison here) - it says they are destroyed in subsequent round when exposed to direct sunlight.

 

[frankthedm]

I'd go with irdeggman's interpretation.

Nightshade counters anyone?
img33.imageshack.us/img33/6219/nightshadey.png

 

[Empirate]

By that ruling, no creatures whatsoever except for Vampires and Vampire Spawn would take the extra damage! I'd contest that.

Wraiths, for example, are "powerless" in sunlight. They are not harmed, in that they do not take damage, but still "flee from it". But wouldn't you call that "specifically harmed by bright light"? At the very least, the clause "A creature to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural takes double damage" would be in effect here, wouldn't it? I would certainly argue that Wraiths should take double damage from Sunburst, and be destroyed on a failed save!

By the same reasoning, a creature like a Nightshade, which maybe doesn't become "powerless", but still takes a hefty -4 penalty to attacks, saves, and skill checks, should suffer similarly from a Sunburst spell.


After all, Sunburst is a REALLY mediocre spell for 8th level. At this level, you can Greater Planar Bind a Planetar to do your bidding, or Polymorph Any Object, or make yourself a Clone.
Sunburst? Does piddly damage in an AoE, a little more against certain creature types. There's not really a 5 spell level power differential between this and Fireball that I can see. So let's assume it can at least get the job done against those specific few kinds of monsters that the spell is actually supposed to be good against.

 

[Dandu]

Orcs are dazzled (-1 penalty to various things) y in bright light. Do they take extra damage from Sunburst?

 

[frankthedm]

Orcs are dazzled (-1 penalty to various things) y in bright light. Do they take extra damage from Sunburst?

As it happens that subject got FAQ'ed up. "The Sage is leery of extending the definitions of light sensitivity and light blindness beyond the wording of those two qualities."

Official D&D Game Rule FAQ

Do drow and other creatures with light sensitivity or light blindness count as “creatures to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural” for the purpose of sunbeam and sunburst?

The Sage is leery of extending the definitions of light sensitivity and light blindness beyond the wording of those two qualities. Each one specifically states its effect, and arbitrarily adding corner-case effects usually isn’t in the best interest of game play (it tends to create arguments and slow down the action).

That said, it seems like a reasonable house rule to say that sunlight is “unnatural” to a creature with light sensitivity or light blindness. It’s certainly not unbalancing to the game.