PDA

View Full Version : Clarification of the Sunburst spell



Mr. Friendly
2007-11-15, 02:07 PM
Sunburst
Evocation [Light]
Level: Drd 8, Sor/Wiz 8, Sun 8
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 80-ft.-radius burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex partial; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

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.

Arcane Material Component: A piece of sunstone and a naked flame.

Bearing that information in mind, imagine the following situation:

A 15th level caster (no feats to change anything) casts Sunburst into the following group:


A human warrior
A drow warrior
A vampire warrior
A black pudding
A phantom fungus
An orc warrior with the Daylight Adaptation feat


How much damage does each individual take from the casting of this spell?

To make things even, we will say there is a second, identical group, (easily accomplished in the 80' radius) which all makes their saving throws, and that group one fails all of their saving throws. To take the variables out of the situation, we will assume that he rolls exactly half damage on each die (3.5). See example below.

To make the typing easier and reference easier, we will call the group that makes their saves "Group A" and the group that fails "Group F". This way you can quickly note a targets damage and effects by saying (for example):

Target A1 is the human warrior who makes his save. F1 is the human warrior who fails his save. A1 takes 11 damage (3.5*6)/2 rounded up, while F1 takes 21 damage (3.5*6). That could be translated as:

A1: 11 damage
F1: 21 damage, blind

You don't need to show your work for the math part, but please do list your rationale for the amount of damage/effect a creature takes.

Lord Silvanos and I have been discussing this in Q&A by the RAW (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55714&page=42) and I don't want to keep tying up that thread with the discussion.

Awetugiw
2007-11-15, 02:45 PM
Let's give this a try.

The main problem (apart from the extent of light sensitivity) is how the two paragraphs interact.

My first guess to the rules as intended (whether this is rules as written can be debated) is that it should say the following:
(Note that the order in which I apply the rules from the description is different from the order in the description.)

- Creatures who fail their save are blinded. Group A doesn't suffer anything from this effect, everyone in group F is blind.
- Creatures take 6d6 damage, except undead and some other types, who take 1d6 per caster level instead, so 15d6: 1,2 and 6 take 6d6 damage, 3,4 and 5 take 15d6 damage.
- Creatures who are sensitive to light take double damage. 2. has it's damage increased to 12d6*, 3 has its damage increased to 30d6.
- Undead who are sensitive to light and fail their save are destroyed. 4F is now destroyed.
- Creaures who succeed at their save take half damage.

So this would result in:
1A: 6d6/2 damage. 1F: 6d6 damage, blind.
2A: 12d6/2 damage. 2F: 12d6 damage, blind.
3A: 30d6/2 damage. 3F: 30d6 damage, blind, destroyed.
4A: 15d6/2 damage. 4F: 15d6 damage, blind. (Still has blindsight though.)
5A: 15d6/2 damage. 5F: 15d6 damage, blind.
6A: 6d6/2 damage. 6F: 6d6 damage, blind.

*Note that I assumed the drow to belong to the "harmed by light" category. This is debatable, but I tend to think it should apply. The orc with light adaptation isn't harmed by sunlight anymore, so he's safe.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-15, 03:10 PM
Bearing that information in mind, imagine the following situation:

A 15th level caster (no feats to change anything) casts Sunburst into the following group:


A human warrior
A drow warrior
A vampire warrior
A black pudding
A phantom fungus
An orc warrior with the Daylight Adaptation feat


How much damage does each individual take from the casting of this spell?

To make things even, we will say there is a second, identical group, (easily accomplished in the 80' radius) which all makes their saving throws, and that group one fails all of their saving throws. To take the variables out of the situation, we will assume that he rolls exactly half damage on each die (3.5). See example below.

To make the typing easier and reference easier, we will call the group that makes their saves "Group A" and the group that fails "Group F". This way you can quickly note a targets damage and effects by saying (for example):

Target A1 is the human warrior who makes his save. F1 is the human warrior who fails his save. A1 takes 11 damage (3.5*6)/2 rounded up, while F1 takes 21 damage (3.5*6). That could be translated as:

A1: 11 damage
F1: 21 damage, blind

You don't need to show your work for the math part, but please do list your rationale for the amount of damage/effect a creature takes.

Lord Silvanos and I have been discussing this in Q&A by the RAW (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55714&page=42) and I don't want to keep tying up that thread with the discussion.


The Question becomes: By RAW is harmful the same as not liking the light.
If so than Orcs/Drow take double. The Feat would mitigate this I guess.

Assume minimum caster level (15), all targets are caught in the blast:

1. Human warrior : 6d6 (base damage)
2. Drow warrior: 6d6 x2 (double damage vs. sensitive to light)
3. Vampire Warrior : 15d6 x2 ({Caster Level}d6 vs. Undead)
4. Black pudding: 15d6 ({Caster Level}d6 vs. Ooze)
5. Phantom Fungus: 15d6 ({Caster Level}d6 vs. Fungus)
6. An orc warrior with the Daylight Adaptation feat: 6d6 damage (base damage).


You take the listed damage. The text sensitive says: 2 and 3 are double damage so I did that. I forget ar Black puddings harmful from light?

So Assuming 1/2 damage:
Group A: Makes Saves
a. 11: he takes 1/2 of 21 and no blinding
b. 21: Same as Human but double
c. 53: Undead but also double since it says double this even with save 1/2 made.
d. 26: Failed save so this is damage
e. 26: Failed save so this is damage
f. 11: Same as Human with feat

Group F: Fails at life, especially Vampire
a. 21, Blind: He fails so blinded, takes full blast
b. 42, Blind: Similar to human, but double damage
c. 105, Utterly destroyed: Undead but also double since it says double this
d. 53: Failed save so this is damage
e. 53: Failed save so this is damage
f. 21, Blind

Chronos
2007-11-15, 03:22 PM
The Question becomes: By RAW is harmful the same as not liking the light.Drow and full orcs go a bit further than not liking the light: Both suffer mechanical penalties due to it (blindness for the drow, and a penalty on rolls for the orc). This is in contrast to, say, a bat, which prefers darkness, but suffers no particular penalty for being in the light. So drow and orcs would take extra damage, but bats would not.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-15, 03:52 PM
See what I am getting from this is that it is generally believed that Undead take (CL)d6 INSTEAD of 6d6. That was my first belief as well, but after careful examination and discussion, I now believe that the answer is that Undead (and others in that catagory) take 6d6 + (CL)d6. If the Undead (etc.) in question is also sensitive to light then it all gets doubled. (e.g. a vampire would take 12d6 + (2*CL)d6. By RAW I think it is legal, though I am not sure.

Feel free to add any commentary you like on the topic, it does not need to be math related or even answer (hypothetical damage) question. Just anything relating to the topic of the Sunburst spell.

daggaz
2007-11-15, 04:27 PM
Why would they take caster level damage and the 6d6? It very clearly says they take caster level damage instead.

EDIT: ok I read that too fast. But I stand by it, still. There is an extra paragraph for undead which details the greater damage they take. The paragraph does not specifically say that this damage is in addition to normal damage, so I would say it replaces it. WHy?

1. The special damage is already more than regular damage for the lowest CL possible of this spell.
2. Doing even MORE damage by stacking them seems overpowered.
3. Any time something stacks in this fashion, it is always mentioned explicitly.

Awetugiw
2007-11-15, 05:34 PM
Personally I think that if it was the intention of the authors that undead would take 6d6+CLd6 damage, they would have written something like "An undead creature caught within the globe takes an additional 1d6 points of damage per caster level".

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-15, 06:03 PM
Personally I think that if it was the intention of the authors that undead would take 6d6+CLd6 damage, they would have written something like "An undead creature caught within the globe takes an additional 1d6 points of damage per caster level".

And in all likelyhood, the intent is that Undead etc. take (CL)d6 instead of 6d6. That is not what is written however.

*shrug* It could go either way honestly. It really doesn't seem that out of balance for an 8th level spell.

Ok, a little out of balance.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-16, 09:07 AM
My own answers and interpretations:

I believe that, as written, the Sunburst spell deals 6d6 to all opponents with an additional (CL)d6 to Undead, Fungi and the like. This would then mean two saving throws (as written anyway); if anyone can clearly show me some piece of RAW somewhere that says something else, I'd appreciate it.

Using my guidelines above, I believe the answers come out like this:

{table]Target|Dmg|Add. Effects|Target|Dmg|Add. Effects|reasons
1A|11|none|1F|21|blind|-
2A|21|none|2F|42|blind|sensitive to light (STL)
3A|74|none|3F|147|blind,destroyed|undead, STL
4A|37|none|4F|74|none|ooze, blindsense
5A|37|none|5F|74|blind|"fungus"
6A|11|none|6F|21|blind|feat removes STL qualifier[/table]

Now, comparing my notion of how Sunburst works against a different 8th level spell:



Horrid Wilting
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 8, Water 8
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature, dealing 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d6). This spell is especially devastating to water elementals and plant creatures, which instead take 1d8 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d8).

Arcane Material Component: A bit of sponge.

Here we see the differences in damage to types are clearly defined. Water and Plant critters take a d8/LVL instead of d6/LVL. Clear and unequivocal.

So, I will use the same groups as before, they make as good a baseline as any. I will use the same rules; same CL (15) average damage (3.5 or 4.5 per die) and group A makes it, group F fails.

{table]Target|Dmg|Target|Dmg|reasons
1A|27|1F|53|-
2A|27|2F|53|-
3A|-|3F|-|undead
4A|27|4F|53|-
5A|34|5F|68|plant
6A|27|6F|53|-[/table]

Ok, so Zurge the Theurge with the urge to purge just cast Horrid Wilting on groups A & F (at the minimum level to cast it - he's a little crazy) then uses Temporal Regression to go back and uses Sunburst instead.

Comparing total damages dealt:

{table]_|GroupA|GroupF
Horrid Wilting|142|280
Sunburst|191|379[/table]

Not all that disproportionate when you consider that most of Sunburst's massive damage stems the Vampire, whereas the Vamp is damage sink for Horrid Wilting. In more realistic situations, things with Evasion will avoid Sunburst utterly, but be rocked by Horrid Wilting.

Ok - one more for comparison: Fire Storm

Fire Storm
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Clr 8, Drd 7, Fire 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Two 10-ft. cubes per level (S)
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

When a fire storm spell is cast, the whole area is shot through with sheets of roaring flame. The raging flames do not harm natural vegetation, ground cover, and any plant creatures in the area that you wish to exclude from damage. Any other creature within the area takes 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 20d6).

You know the drill; same caster, same group, same everything.

{table]Target|Dmg|Target|Dmg|reasons
1A|27|1F|53|-
2A|27|2F|53|-
3A|27|3F|53|-
4A|27|4F|53|-
5A|27|5F|53|-
6A|27|6F|53|-[/table]

So the overall:

{table]_|GroupA|GroupF
Horrid Wilting|142|280
Sunburst|191|379
Fire Storm|162|318[/table]

So, I still maintain my perspective; Sunburst deals a significant amount of damage to Undead, though it is more or less on par with other 8th level spells. Let's look at area of effect:

Sunburst is Long range with an 80' radius burst.
Horrid Wilting is Long range with a more annoying 60' between creatures area.
Fire Storm is only Medium range, but is a deliciously shapeable 2 10' cubes per level.

This reinforces in my mind the notion that this level of damage is intended.
Horrid Wilting rocks casters and rogues, but is semi-limited in it's targeting, though it is choosable targets, avoiding 'friendly' fire.
Fire Storm has shorter range than either, is a Reflex save, is very shapeable and does standard damage.
Sunburst has good range, a great area of effect, but is almost certainly going to be of limited effect, since it hits all creatures in the blast, with little in the way of creative shaping. This could result in permanent blindness for the whole party. Also, it's "great damage" is really only going to come into play infrequently (unless the campaign features enormous numbers of undead, plants and oozes that are vulnerable to sunlight) and in general is going to be a poor damage selection compared to equivalent spells.

Thus completes my Arcane Thesis on the Sunburst spell. I now get a discount when applying metamagic feats to it.

Fin.

Keld Denar
2007-11-16, 09:25 AM
So...I played in a game 2 weeks ago where a Radiant Servant of Pelor dropped the sunburst bomb on a pack of 4 dread wraiths and an advanced deathspinner something-or-another. The question came up....Are (dread) wraiths particularly vulnerable to sunlight?

All wraiths have a very unusual trait, Daylight Powerlessness, which states that they can not take any actions (effectively stunned) when exposed to daylight (real daylight, not the spell). This is different than light vulnerability, such as that of drow or orcs. Our DM ruled that since it did not say "light vulnerability" that the dread wraiths would not be affected by the permanantly destroyed clause or the double damage clause of the spell.

(it ended up not mattering, 3 DW made their saves, and the one that didn't died from the shear damage of the spell)

What does the forum think?

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-16, 10:23 AM
In my opinion, Wraiths are vulnerable to sunlight as per the Sunburst spell.

I would say the following (SRD/Core) creatures qualify for the double damage effects of Sunburst:


Bodak
Caller in Darkness
Derro
Elf, Drow
Nightshade (All types)
Orc
Spectre
Vampire
Vampire Spawn
Wraith


Technically, if your DM wanted to use his rationale that he used on Wraiths, it would be equally applicable to Vampires, since it technically has no listed SQ describing any vulnerability to Sunlight. It lists only this under "Slaying a Vampire":
Exposing any vampire to direct sunlight disorients it: It can take only a single move action or attack action and is destroyed utterly in the next round if it cannot escape.

I would say the following creatures should, in principle, be applicable for double damage as well, based on the line:

A creature to which sunlight is harmful or unnatural takes double damage.

With that in mind a cases could be made that the following catagories of creatures should also take double damage:


Any creatures from the Plane of Shadow (Shadow Dragons, Shadow Mastiffs etc.)
Any creature described as spending it's entire life-cycle undegeround (Aboleths, Svirfneblin etc.)

squishycube
2007-11-17, 06:11 AM
Ok, so Zurge the Theurge with the urge to purge

Pure genius, more serious threads should have comic relief like that :smallsmile:

I will now steal your table and put in how I would rule it.
{table]Target|Dmg|Add. Effects|Target|Dmg|Add. Effects|reasons
1A|11|none|1F|21|blind|-
2A|21|none|2F|42|blind|sensitive to light (STL)
3A|52.5|None|3F|-|destroyed|undead, STL
4A|26.25|none|4F|52.5|none|ooze, blindsense
5A|26.25|none|5F|52.5|blind|"fungus"
6A|11|none|6F|21|blind|feat removes STL qualifier[/table]

As you can see, I only disagree with how undead (and those counted as undead for the purpose of this spell) are handled. I don't think the 1d6 damage/caster level is in addition to the default 6d6. That's because "that **** don't stack, brada". In D&D stuff stacking is an exception and one that is basically always mentioned specifically. The spell obviously requires some discussing with the DM, as the description is not as clear as it could be.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-19, 08:35 AM
Pure genius, more serious threads should have comic relief like that :smallsmile:

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all weekend. Make sure to tip the waitstaff.


As you can see, I only disagree with how undead (and those counted as undead for the purpose of this spell) are handled. I don't think the 1d6 damage/caster level is in addition to the default 6d6. That's because "that **** don't stack, brada". In D&D stuff stacking is an exception and one that is basically always mentioned specifically. The spell obviously requires some discussing with the DM, as the description is not as clear as it could be.

I don't know. As I say I think it would be reasonably balanced even with the ridiculous undead damage. Since, going by what I see as my literal RAW reading, Undead e.g. would need to make 2 saves to avoid the damage.

What would sell me on your and Lord Silvanos' POV on the topic would be if there was any sort of indicator anywhere in the spell that this is not applied as such. For example, if in paragraph one there was a qualifier such as "undead are affected differently, see below" or something similar. Or if in paragraph two there was a caveat on the damage to undead saying "use this damage instead of..." or something similar. All the other spells that have an either/or effect have a specific clause that mentions it. Except Sunburst/Sunbeam.

While I suppose the case can be made that since the other spells do it... they should do it, but as the say the exception proves the rule. The spell is subpar without it and just barely over par with it.

Keld Denar
2007-11-19, 09:42 AM
Some more ponderance, but is [Light] considered an energy type? Specifically, can you use Energy Substitution (Cold) or Snowcasting to change the type? What about Energy Substitution (Electricity) or Energy Admixture(Any)? Then can the adjusted spell be modified with Born of 3 Thunders or Lord of Uttercold? Would it still have its anti-undead properties derived from its [Light] properties? Or would the phrasing change from "harmed by bright light" change to "harmed by cold" to affect creatures with the [Fire] subtype? Would undead affected by an Uttercold Sunburst be simultaniously healed and destroyed? Such are the things I ponder.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-19, 10:17 AM
It's not an energy type, merely a descriptor.

Keld Denar
2007-11-19, 10:24 AM
It's not an energy type, merely a descriptor.

Booo, that kind of puts the kaibosh on the entire rest of the question line. Something about perverting Sunburst into an Uttercold spell had a nice feeling to it though, in a twisted evil kind of way.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-19, 10:51 AM
Well it can still be just as evil... Imagine the look on the party's faces when the Vampire Lord starts dropping Sunbusts on them from 400' away. Open up with a couple of those, then let them close the distance... they would never expect a Vampire to be using Sunbursts and Beams.

Bwahahaha. This has a certain appeal to it.

Keld Denar
2007-11-19, 11:09 AM
Well it can still be just as evil... Imagine the look on the party's faces when the Vampire Lord starts dropping Sunbusts on them from 400' away. Open up with a couple of those, then let them close the distance... they would never expect a Vampire to be using Sunbursts and Beams.

Bwahahaha. This has a certain appeal to it.

Against players, its only 6d6, save for 1/2 w/ blindness. Not terribly impressive compared to.....Radiant Assult. If the Vamp is dropping 8th level spells, and Sunburst is the best he can come up with, he needs to rethink his unlife.

The glory of using an Uttercold Sunburst, is that like an Uttercold Wall of Fire, it gets bonus effect vs undead. This should translate to bonus negative energy damage to undead spawn fighting amongst the PCs, which heals them. So it would be primarily used as a long range AoE heal for undead minions, with the added bonus that it deals damage to PCs.

Not possible though. Sigh...

Chronos
2007-11-19, 11:35 AM
Not possible though. Sigh...Eh, if it's possible to pile on metamagic onto Find Temple to make it do damage, then surely the same is true of Sunburst. Specifically, I think (from what I've seen in other threads) you can apply Snowcasting to any spell to give it the [cold] descriptor (even if it didn't already have an energy descriptor), and once it has the [cold] descriptor, you should be able to apply Lord of the Uttercold.

Then, the question just becomes whether the DM throws your books at you instead of doing 20d6 to your character, or in addition.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-19, 11:41 AM
Yeah, that's what I was looking up was Snowcasting. I think you should be able to do your Uttercold cheese of doom. :smallbiggrin: