Flaming vs Flame Burst?

[Dwarmaj]

Does a Flame Burst weapon deal 1d6 fire damage on each non-critical hit? The text of Flame Burst states that ait functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit.

We've been playing that a Flame Burst weapon also acts as a flaming, but then why is the Flame Tongue priced as if it is a +1, Flaming, Flame Burst weapon?

Dwarmaj

 

[Aydee]

(First post - yay)
Off the top of my head, I believe it was corrected in the errata... *checks* Yes, it was. Correct text (for the Flame Tongue) should be:
"This is a +1 flaming burst longsword (+1d6 points of fire damage with each hit, +1d10 points of bonus fire damage on a critical; see flaming burst, above."
Hope that helped.

 

[hong]

A flaming burst weapon does +1d6 fire damage on each hit. It's a matter of debate whether it does +1d6+1d10 on a critical hit, or whether the +1d10 replaces the +1d6. I believe the consensus is that it's balanced if it does +1d6+1d10 on a crit.

 

[Ristamar]

Aydee is correct. The official rule is that the bursting damage replaces (-does not stack with-) the normal damage on a critical. It doesn't seem to be the most popular rule, but it is the rule, nonetheless.

BTW, the errata lists the correct market price for a Flame Tongue as 18,315 gp.

 

[Moto Jojo]

I probably shouldn't turn this into another extended thread, as I'm sure this has been gone over before, but the text: "This is a +1 flaming burst longsword (+1d6 points of fire damage with each hit, +1d10 points of bonus fire damage on a critical; see flaming burst, above." ... means pretty clearly to me that a crit does 1d6 + 1d10 fire damage. If it weren't meant to stack, the text ought to read "+1d6 points of fire damage with a regular hit" instead of "... with each hit".

 

[Ristamar]

While Monte suggested that they should stack, the Sage has clarified that the damage doesn't stack (unless this has changed recently). *shrug* Take that for what it's worth...

 

[PenguinKing]

Of course, the Sage has a history of saying whatever sounds good at the moment without really considering the ramifications. Overall, his tendency is towards taking the low-powered approach, even if he has to be inconsistent to do so - he'll insist upon a literal reading of the rules if it yields the lower-powered option on one hand, then turn around and insist upon an alternate interpretation that the text doesn't completely support if in this case a literal reading would yield a more favorable outcome.

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!