Should Daylight count as Sunlight?

[treecko]

The spell daylight is almost universally considered on of the worst spells in the game, using up a 3rd level spell slot for essentially an upgraded light. However, it would be able to see some niche use if it counted as sunlight for the purposes of vampires, drow, wraiths, and other sunlight sensitive creatures. By RAW, it is left unstated, but the spell sunbeam specifies that the light created by the spell is sunlight, so by omittion it could be determined that daylight does not make sunlight. However, it seems to make sense that a spell called daylight would create daylight, and also it's niche use as a vampire killer might justify a 3rd level spell slot. What would the playground rule?

(I want to know because I'm trying to theorycraft a party to cheese kill strahd at level 5)

[Longcat]

The Daylight spell counting as sunlight would probably be overpowered and open up some major abuses.

[treecko]

Like murdering Strahd/drow. Of course, as it stands it wouldn't even be taken if it was 1st level.

[Corran]

To my surprise I realised this very recently, here in this forum, when I was discussing about using daylight against a drow rogue. It only seems natural and logical to me for daylight to function as sunlight, otherwise what is the point? I would rule it to do so when I play DM, and advice for it when i am a player.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Daylight is sunlight since that's what causes light during the day. It is a 3rd level spell, and very useful in Curse of Strahd.

[Goober4473]

I've house ruled it as sunlight. It's a pretty pointless spell otherwise. Making it sunlight makes it situationally very useful.

[MaxWilson]

The spell daylight is almost universally considered on of the worst spells in the game, using up a 3rd level spell slot for essentially an upgraded light. However, it would be able to see some niche use if it counted as sunlight for the purposes of vampires, drow, wraiths, and other sunlight sensitive creatures. By RAW, it is left unstated, but the spell sunbeam specifies that the light created by the spell is sunlight, so by omittion it could be determined that daylight does not make sunlight. However, it seems to make sense that a spell called daylight would create daylight, and also it's niche use as a vampire killer might justify a 3rd level spell slot. What would the playground rule?

(I want to know because I'm trying to theorycraft a party to cheese kill strahd at level 5)

Certainly not.

The fact that you want to use Daylight to "cheese kill strahd at level 5" is a clue that this is a bad idea.

Daylight is still all right. It's bright light, which impairs shadows and shadow demons/dragons. It illuminates out to 120', which ought to prevent drow from sniping you at advantage from outside your darkvision range. Daylight's biggest problem is the short duration. If you want to buff it, make it last for eight hours or "until dispelled." But don't turn it into sunlight without raising it to 6th level.

[MaxWilson]

Daylight is sunlight since that's what causes light during the day. It is a 3rd level spell, and very useful in Curse of Strahd.

If this were true, you'd be able to light a fire with a magnifying glass using only overcast Seattle daylight.


Lighting a fire with a magnifying glass requires light as bright as sunlight to focus, tinder to ignite, and about 5 minutes for the fire to ignite. Emphasis added.

Furthermore it would make the Paladin of Devotion 20th level capstone pretty pointless.

All signs point to "sunlight" being a technical term in 5E which refers to rays from the sun shining directly on the subject, not just the general ambient daylight which occurs (even indoors) during the day.

[Giant2005]

Just go for a middle of the ground route. Daylight isn't sunlight, but it is close.
As a result, Vampires in its presence don't take damage but they lose their regeneration; Drow don't have disadvantage but they cannot gain advantage. Things like that.

[Quintessence]

Daylight is situationally amazing, our group was saved in HotDQ by that spell in Skyreach castle.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Furthermore it would make the Paladin of Devotion 20th level capstone pretty pointless.

Yeah, because Daylight says that an enemy takes 10 radiant damage from your light and gives you advantage on saves against spells.

Sure.

[Arkhios]

Daylight has never before been equal to Sunlight as far as I can remember, so I don't think it should now either. There are spells such as Sunbeam and Sunburst that do count in a way, however.

It's important to remember that any light from a spell isn't natural light, and thus I would argue against Daylight being counted as such either.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, because Daylight says that an enemy takes 10 radiant damage from your light and gives you advantage on saves against spells.

Sure.

You could already get advantage on saves vs. spells from 17th level (Circle of Power). If you're arguing that 10 radiant damage per round is a good capstone, well, I'm speechless.

I love your screen name BTW. Just mentioned that guy at the table last week when one of the PCs was made a kinglet.

[Dalebert]

People shouldn't ascribe too much meaning to a spell's name. There are misnomers throughout D&D, this edition and past editions. Besides, Daylight seems like a decent name for a very bright light. I saw a paladin use this to prevent banshee's from wailing. It's still situationally game-changing. Making it sunlight would definitely feel broken for a 3rd level spell. For that matter, the sunsword feels fairly broken because it actually does make sunlight and it seems to drop like candy at a Mexican birthday party these days.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

You could already get advantage on saves vs. spells from 17th level (Circle of Power). If you're arguing that 10 radiant damage per round is a good capstone, well, I'm speechless.

I love your screen name BTW. Just mentioned that guy at the table last week when one of the PCs was made a kinglet.

I would argue that the Devotion capstone ain't all that great to begin with.

Thanks, it's such a hilarious name. I've never played a bard before but I've decided I have to play a bard/swashbuckler named Fflewddur Fflam and constantly try to lie in front of NPC's while his harp strings break.

[JumboWheat01]

What about making it scale in a way. As a 3rd level spell, it's simply bright light, but as a 6th (or whatever you feel like,) spell, it's sunlight. That limits its use as a vampire slayer and drow annoyer, since you would have to consider it eating up the limited high-level slots.

[MaxWilson]

What about making it scale in a way. As a 3rd level spell, it's simply bright light, but as a 6th (or whatever you feel like,) spell, it's sunlight. That limits its use as a vampire slayer and drow annoyer, since you would have to consider it eating up the limited high-level slots.

Sure, that would be fine. 6th level feels appropriate.

[coredump]

It becomes a much better spell the closer the group plays light sources RAW. Light cantrip, torch, etc really sucks for fighting in the dark.
Plus, Daylight dispels Darkness..... Which can be pretty handy.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

It becomes a much better spell the closer the group plays light sources RAW. Light cantrip, torch, etc really sucks for fighting in the dark.
Plus, Daylight dispels Darkness..... Which can be pretty handy.

So does Dispel Magic, also a 3rd level spell. Seriously, if Daylight doesn't create sunlight than it is completely worthless.... which may in fact be the case.

[Arkhios]

So does Dispel Magic, also a 3rd level spell. Seriously, if Daylight doesn't create sunlight than it is completely worthless.... which may in fact be the case.

That Daylight shines brighter than light cantrip or a torch makes it far better as a spell, and Darkness is annoying spell since RAW even a person with darkvision can't see through it. You'll need superior ability to penetrate magical darkness. Or Daylight to dispel it.
If Daylight created sunlight, it would make the Sunbeam pointless, as it would be far better due to being a 3rd level spell, instead of 6th level. (Also, Sunbeam creates a light source in your hand which is specifically mentioned as being sunlight. Daylight isn't.)

[Vogonjeltz]

I've house ruled it as sunlight. It's a pretty pointless spell otherwise. Making it sunlight makes it situationally very useful.

It counters Darkness in a large area, isn't that enough?

[Dalebert]

It becomes a much better spell the closer the group plays light sources RAW.

This. I don't think many folks are really paying attention to light sources and how characters without darkvision can only see a very limited distance. You can use some very effective tactics just by pointing this out to the DM sometimes. Shoot an arrow with light on it into the middle of a group of orcs from > 60 ft away. Now you can see them but they can't see you.

If you do that a couple times, the DM will start to wise up to light and how crucial it is, sometimes even with darkvision available. That's when you'll start to appreciate a light source that lets you see as far as a drow's darkvision. When you have people who can't see in the dark as most parties do, you'll realize that Daylight is a playing field leveler. When the enemy starts using tactics like the above, even if you have 60 ft darkvision, you'll realize how nice Daylight is. It's not flashy and fun. It's not something you want. It's something you NEED in many situations just so you won't be under a significant handicap. I suspect a lot of folks who don't think it's any big deal just haven't been strictly RAW with light and vision.

I do, however, agree with folks suggesting it should last longer. That's the proper de-nerf it needs instead of being sunlight which is just too good.

[Sigreid]

In older editions I remember it being specifically called out as actual daylight, complete with the damage that it does to the vulnerable undead. That's no longer the case.

If I recall correctly, it never was enough damage to insta kill a vampire, but it was likely enough to burn them up a bit and then force them to leave it's radius.

[Dalebert]

In older editions I remember it being specifically called out as actual daylight, complete with the damage that it does to the vulnerable undead. That's no longer the case.

I'd guess because more attention and playtesting has been given to balance in this edition. Shame no one play-tested summoning 8 wolves with a 3rd level spell, but now I'm on a tangent. :smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

Daylight has never before been equal to Sunlight as far as I can remember, so I don't think it should now either. There was a time, OD&D, where full daylight caused orcs/goblins to attack at -1. But that's a LONG time ago.

Monsters and Treasures page 7.

GOBLINS: These small monsters are as described in CHAINMAIL. They see well in darkness or dim light, but when they are subjected to full daylight they subtract -1 from their attack and morale dice. They attack dwarves on sight.

Note that daylight changed to sunlight in AD&D 1e.
Monster Manual page 47 (Goblins)

They too hate full daylight and attack at a -1 when in sunlight.

[R.Shackleford]

If you play by the actual light rules, daylight is still an over slotted spell but a very very very useful one.

So many DMs ignore lighting rules.

[Dalebert]

So many DMs ignore lighting rules.

It comes back to this. People who think Daylight is over-rated may be spoiled by lax DMs.

[R.Shackleford]

It comes back to this. People who think Daylight is over-rated may be spoiled by lax DMs.

Vision and Light

The most fundamental tasks of adventuring— noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few—rely heavily on a character’s ability to see.

Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.

The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

AND

Darkvision

Many creatures in fantasy gaming worlds, especially those that dwell underground, have darkvision.

Within a specified range, a creature with darkvision can see in darkness as if the darkness were dim light, so areas of darkness are only lightly obscured as far as that creature is concerned. However, the creature can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.


AND

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.

Here is the main thing that people forget.

Shadows/lightly obscurement give disadvantage on perception checks. Darkvision doesn't change this.

Warlocks can get around this though.

[MaxWilson]

If you play by the actual light rules, daylight is still an over slotted spell but a very very very useful one.

So many DMs ignore lighting rules.

Also, Dancing Lights becomes a pretty decent way to spend your concentration.

Manipulating visibility is the easiest way to gain advantage on ranged attacks.

[Dalebert]

Warlocks can get around this though.

Interestingly though, Devil's Sight lets you see completely normally in total darkness, even magical darkness. However, it doesn't do anything in dim light. So warlock's still have disadvantage on perception unless they also have darkvision, and not just any kind of darkvision but racial darkvision. By default, darkvision (such as by the spell) only allows darkness to appear as dim light. Making dim light appear as bright light appears to be a feature of most if not all (probably all) racial darkvision. It's specifically mentioned under the darkvision of various races.

I noticed a synergy between Dancing Lights and drow darkvision. Dancing Lights only provide dim light. That means even though they let humans see, a drow would still be able to stealth against a disadvantaged perception but the drow would have no penalties seeing even up to 120 feet away which I think falls within the range anyway.

I make it a point to remind my DM that my monk with Devil's Sight while scouting will make perception rolls in the pitch black of the Underdark with no penalty while creatures with darkvision will have disadvantage perceiving him.

I'm off on a bit of a tangent, but the point is that lighting and vision properties can be exploited for all sorts of tactics if you understand them fully and make sure your DM does as well. Meanwhile, all these elaborate tactics, whether you're drow, whether you cast Darkness, whether you have Devil's Sight, they all get completely foiled by Daylight spell and level the playing field for creatures that need light.

[MaxWilson]

Interestingly though, Devil's Sight lets you see completely normally in total darkness, even magical darkness. However, it doesn't do anything in dim light.

And neither does Truesight, by the same RAW approach.

And that interpretation is counterintuitive and adds nothing to gameplay, in my opinion. A reasonable DM will concede that the ability to see normally in total darkness necessarily implies being able to see in partial darkness; from an actual, physical perspective, there's nothing special about "dim light" as opposed to "darkness." They're only distinguished in game jargon for game purposes.

[Dalebert]

It's not just RAW. Apparently it's RAI also.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/devils-sight-vision/

And there's a tweet where Crawford confirms that not all darkvision treats dim light as bright light. It has to specify such as it does with all the racials I think. I can't find that tweet right now though.

[MaxWilson]

It's not just RAW. Apparently it's RAI also.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/devils-sight-vision/

Is Crawford going to claim that it's RAI for Truesight too? Because they have the same RAW, but the RAI logic he's presenting doesn't make sense for Truesight.

[coredump]

So does Dispel Magic, also a 3rd level spell. Seriously, if Daylight doesn't create sunlight than it is completely worthless.... which may in fact be the case.

Hmmm.... Dispel Magic will work once, against a single instance of Darkness within 120' and requires you to use your action at the time it is dispelled.

Daylight will work on *every* instance of Darkness with any overlap within 60', and it lets you walk around dispelling all instances of Darkness with any overlap within 60', and it lets you walk around doing this for an *hour*, and it prevents anyone from casting an additional darkness with any overlap within 60', and you don't need to us an action to dispell/prevent any instance beyond the first ones.
Oh, and it lets all the non-darkvision types to actually be able to see clearly in an area 9x larger than the cantrip.

So no, Dispel Magic does not "also" do the same thing....

[coredump]

And that interpretation is counterintuitive and adds nothing to gameplay, in my opinion. A reasonable DM will concede that the ability to see normally in total darkness necessarily implies being able to see in partial darkness; from an actual, physical perspective, there's nothing special about "dim light" as opposed to "darkness." They're only distinguished in game jargon for game purposes.

I understand your position, and it has merit. But I see it a bit differently. To me it represents the power is stronger in complete darkness. Kind of like a spell that must be cast exactly at midnight..... and not at 11:55. When in complete darkness you gain powers that you do not have when 'tainted' by any light sources....thus you can 'see' in complete darkness, but not if there is any light sources to interfere.

[R.Shackleford]

Hmmm.... Dispel Magic will work once, against a single instance of Darkness within 120' and requires you to use your action at the time it is dispelled.

Daylight will work on *every* instance of Darkness with any overlap within 60', and it lets you walk around dispelling all instances of Darkness with any overlap within 60', and it lets you walk around doing this for an *hour*, and it prevents anyone from casting an additional darkness with any overlap within 60', and you don't need to us an action to dispell/prevent any instance beyond the first ones.
Oh, and it lets all the non-darkvision types to actually be able to see clearly in an area 9x larger than the cantrip.

So no, Dispel Magic does not "also" do the same thing....

It also lets races with Darkvision not take disadvantage on perception (sight).

With disadvantage on a low to moderate perception... You may as well be blind.

[MaxWilson]

I understand your position, and it has merit. But I see it a bit differently. To me it represents the power is stronger in complete darkness. Kind of like a spell that must be cast exactly at midnight..... and not at 11:55. When in complete darkness you gain powers that you do not have when 'tainted' by any light sources....thus you can 'see' in complete darkness, but not if there is any light sources to interfere.

Why would it be appropriate for Truesight to be stronger in darkness? Or are you thinking only of Devil's Sight?

[Dalebert]

Is Crawford going to claim that it's RAI for Truesight too? Because they have the same RAW, but the RAI logic he's presenting doesn't make sense for Truesight.

I suppose it's possible that it was not intended for Truesight and is just an oversight. I have no idea what his rulings on Truesight are. You would need to ask him.

[Temperjoke]

Didn't Darkvision used to be something like infrared sight? The first forms of nightvision goggles like that IRL required total darkness, otherwise they were messed up. So that might be the case for some forms of darkvision that don't say anything about dim light visibility.

On the original topic, wouldn't the sudden use of a Daylight spell temporarily blind enemies who were using Darkvision to fight you? What with the sudden burst of light, it might make them have to take a turn or so to adjust, if they didn't make a save check or something.

[R.Shackleford]

Didn't Darkvision used to be something like infrared sight? The first forms of nightvision goggles like that IRL required total darkness, otherwise they were messed up. So that might be the case for some forms of darkvision that don't say anything about dim light visibility.

On the original topic, wouldn't the sudden use of a Daylight spell temporarily blind enemies who were using Darkvision to fight you? What with the sudden burst of light, it might make them have to take a turn or so to adjust, if they didn't make a save check or something.

I think infrared vision was another type of vision you could have.

Why would it blind Darkvision users and not anyone who had their eyes open?

[Temperjoke]

Why would it blind Darkvision users and not anyone who had their eyes open?

If the users of the spell were already using torches or a Light spell, it wouldn't be as big of a shock, as opposed to people who were standing out of the range of the torch, but that's a fair point.