Assorted Shining Child Questions

[Spook205]

Just a few questions on our friendly lovecraftian demon-flashlights.

1. First question, burning touch...

Shining Child Write up wrote:

Burning Touch (Su)

A shining child corrupts the positive energy within a living creature into an unnatural burning light. For the next 5 rounds after a successful touch attack by a shining child, the target takes 2d6 points of fire damage. The burning light can be “extinguished” by casting darkness or deeper darkness on the target, or by entering an area of natural darkness (not counting the light from the burning target).

As the Shining Child's Searing Rays are also touches, do they also ignite per burning touch? Or does it need to be specified as a ranged touch?

2. Searing Ray does 'double damage' to undead, is that best adjudicated by rolling 20d6, or doubling a 10d6 roll?

3.) What level of light effect is the blinding light (su) aura considered to be? Will a darkness spell douse it?

Thanks.

[Jeff Merola]

1) That grants them a pair of melee touch attacks, it doesn't make everything they do that touches the target set them on fire.

2) I'd go with 20d6.

3) Blinding Light is (Ex), not (Su). As it's nonmagical it is blocked by Darkness and the like.

[Archaeik]

Shining Child

1.

Quote:

Melee 2 touches +19 (4d10 fire plus burning touch)

Ranged searing ray +19 touch (10d6 fire)

I'd say it's pretty conclusive that the ranged attack does not also trigger Burning Touch.

To the heart of the question however, simply targeting "touch AC" does not convert every attack of that kind to an actual touch.

2.

Multiplying Damage: wrote:

Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.

3. Yes this works.

Darkness wrote:

Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness.

Shining Child wrote:

Blinding Light (Ex)

[Lune]

Man, I hate those things. As a point of suggestion to GMs: use these with caution. They are big time undercons.

I would agree with Jeff on everything except point 2. I would double the damage generated from 10d6.

[Jeff Merola]

Lune wrote:

Man, I hate those things. As a point of suggestion to GMs: use these with caution. They are big time undercons.

I would agree with Jeff on everything except point 2. I would double the damage generated from 10d6.

As quoted by Archaeik, the standard rules say to multiply the dice, not the result of the dice.

[Archaeik]

The issue with doubling the result is that it leads to a quantized distribution that heavily rewards/penalizes unlikely outcomes (ie a really good or bad roll) rather than skewing everything toward the middle.

[Spook205]

Thanks for the feedback guys. And yeah, I know they're jerks, hence why I wanted to make sure I don't take away any advantages my players might have.

Now, for the goofball pedantic question.

Lets say our shining child companion gets hit by deeper darkness. Is it safe to assume that his immunity to blindness does not prevent him from becoming effectively blind because of his inability to see in the deeper dark?

[Jeff Merola]

Correct. Just remember that since he has Darkvision, the natural lighting has to be dim light or darkness to start with, or it's just regular darkness that he can see through.

[James Risner]

Spook205 wrote:

Lets say our shining child companion gets hit by deeper darkness. Is it safe to assume that his immunity to blindness does not prevent him from becoming effectively blind because of his inability to see in the deeper dark?

Yes Immunity to Blindness is talking about the condition not the state of being unable to see.