Serrated weapons (3.5)

[Eladrinblade]

For slashing and piercing weapons.
A serrated weapon increases a targets armor or natural armor bonus by 1 (if they have both its still just 1)
On a hit, roll 1d6; on a 5 or 6 the weapon inflicts a bleeding wound.
The wound inflicts 1 point of damage on the target each turn at the start of your turn. The wound bleeds for a number of rounds equal to the attacks base damage die roll plus the weapons enhancement bonus (if any) plus the number of sneak attack damage die (if any), minus the targets constitution modifier (bleeds last a minimum of 1 turn). On a critical hit, the bleed damage is increased to the weapons critical damage modifier.
Each time the target receives first aid or magical healing, a bleed immediately stops (the latest one applied). If they are healed to full hp, all bleeds stop.
Fast healing and regeneration do not stop bleeds.
Targets immune to critical hits do not bleed.

So, a 1 in 3 chance of inflicting a slow bleeding wound in exchange for a harder time damaging an armored enemy and a higher weapon cost. Fair?

For the cost, I was thinking +50% of the weapons base and MW cost, and +2 to the craft DC.

[Loek]

It's been too long since I've worked with 3.5, so I don't think I'll be able to help with the cost part.

For the actual idea though:
Change: "A serrated weapon increases a targets armor or natural armor bonus by 1 (if they have both its still just 1)"
Into: "A serrated weapon has -1 to hit against targets who are wearing armor and/or benefiting from natural armor"

And fast healing/regeneration should probably lower the amount of turns that the bleeding lasts or some such (Though the question then becomes if it should be a flat amount or something based on how strong those effects are)

[ngilop]

I would completely do away with the penalty to attack and just make it do 1 point of bleed damage a round until healed without a need to roll extra dice.

All other bleed damage works like that: any healing or a DC 15 heal check stops the bleed damage.

I would also make the cost of serrated like 50% or maybe 75% of masterwork, so anywhere from 450 to 525 extra gold on a weapon that is serrated and masterwork (which i would assume one needs masterwork to be serrated)

That way not only is it in balance with the mechanic in game (bleed) but, I feel, balanced in cost.

[Eladrinblade]

And fast healing/regeneration should probably lower the amount of turns that the bleeding lasts or some such (Though the question then becomes if it should be a flat amount or something based on how strong those effects are)

They still heal the damage dealt by bleed, they just don't count as "magical healing" in this case.


I would completely do away with the penalty to attack and just make it do 1 point of bleed damage a round until healed without a need to roll extra dice.

All other bleed damage works like that: any healing or a DC 15 heal check stops the bleed damage.

I would also make the cost of serrated like 50% or maybe 75% of masterwork, so anywhere from 450 to 525 extra gold on a weapon that is serrated and masterwork (which i would assume one needs masterwork to be serrated)

That's just a straight upgrade to regular weapons, which is not what I'm going for this. And bleed until healed means you can attack a beast once and then stay away from it and it will eventually die. I think that's why they changed the wounding enhancement for 3.5.

[ngilop]

They still heal the damage dealt by bleed, they just don't count as "magical healing" in this case.



That's just a straight upgrade to regular weapons, which is not what I'm going for this. And bleed until healed means you can attack a beast once and then stay away from it and it will eventually die. I think that's why they changed the wounding enhancement for 3.5.

None in their right mind is going to pay more for a downgrade.
What is the logic behind "I want this weapon quality to be worse, but cost more" Some kind of 'balance?"

The idea of giving them a tiny damage boost in return for 1) less accuracy, 2) RNG, and 3) higher cost is not balanced. Nor is it in line with the existing mechanics for what you are wanting.

[Eladrinblade]

I was worried about it being a little too good, so that's good to hear.

[Breccia]

For slashing and piercing weapons.
A serrated weapon increases a targets armor or natural armor bonus by 1 (if they have both its still just 1)
On a hit, roll 1d6; on a 5 or 6 the weapon inflicts a bleeding wound.
The wound inflicts 1 point of damage on the target each turn at the start of your turn. The wound bleeds for a number of rounds equal to the attacks base damage die roll plus the weapons enhancement bonus (if any) plus the number of sneak attack damage die (if any), minus the targets constitution modifier (bleeds last a minimum of 1 turn). On a critical hit, the bleed damage is increased to the weapons critical damage modifier.

Hoo boy. This is a little bloated. I would expect a good number of players to avoid this weapon just because of the amount of extra work.

First of all, I agree with Loek on the -1 to hit.

Secondly, there's confusion if bleeds stack. I would assume from context they did not, as the damage stacks up pretty quickly otherwise. But this text


(the latest one applied)

suggests they do. I'm not convinced I want D&D combat sessions to become "everyone slash/stab twice then we run and hide". Most monsters can't apply first aid or magical healing. And you're dropping these like anyone can have them, as opposed to a class feature, magic item, or spell.

Thirdly, I'm not a huge fan of that one-in-three shot. A 1st-level commoner who barely hits the targets AC with a serrated shortbow arrow has the same chance as a high-level martial who gets an 18 with a serrated greatsword, aka "Cloud's Steak Knife".

Fourthly, there's all those dice. Let's take a hypothetical rogue with a 1d8 weapon, +2d6 sneak attack, and victim Con 14. Every third hit will do an extra 4.5+2-2=4.5 damage spread out over 4 or 5 rounds. That's an average of 1.5 per attack. Meanwhile a Fighter would get every third attack doing +2.5 damage on the same target. Critical hit modifiers seem to work the same way here as baseline weapon damage because it's not 5E.

From the Fighter's point of view, the weapon might as well just do +1 damage. The 1-in-3 chance to do almost one damage/round for three rounds doesn't feel like something a Fighter would be excited about. And if bleeds don't stack, as I suspect they don't, his multiple attacks and massive +Str bonus won't help much here. Against higher-level foes, with higher Con, the Fighter just won't cause any bleed damage at all most times -- remember, even on a critical hit, the damage includes the Con reduction first.

From the Rogue's point of view, these weapons get better and better. At 15th level, the Rogue is doing +8d6 bonus damage, meaning that 1d8 weapon now bleeds for 10.5 damage over time. Again, if bleeds don't stack, not a huge deal at 15th level, but it's a great reason to attack multiple targets. If they do stack, the Rogue has three attacks/round and therefore has a high chance of adding a new bleed every round. And the Rogue can get bleeds even on high-Con targets due to the bonus from sneak attack.

In other words, this quickly feels like it's better off as a class ability. At low levels, the extra bleed damage should have some real effect, as +1 damage is pretty instrumental then. At higher levels, everyone will ignore it except the Rogue.


Each time the target receives first aid or magical healing, a bleed immediately stops (the latest one applied). If they are healed to full hp, all bleeds stop.
Fast healing and regeneration do not stop bleeds.

Okay, so, there is magical fast healing and magical regeneration. And I would assume that the very first thing regeneration would do is close bleeding wounds. Also, I don't want the Fighter to say to the Rogue "No you go first, apply your much larger bleed and then I'll apply my much weaker one, if he heals he'll remove the smaller one even if he wants to remove the larger one, because that's how the game mechanics work". Which wouldn't even be an option if bleeds didn't stack.


Targets immune to critical hits do not bleed.

This is very 3.5 and should be left in.

And finally, we get to the main issue I have: barring magical effects or special abilities, slashing and piercing weapons, realistically, are going to bleed anyway. As someone who's cut themselves in the kitchen more times than they care to remember, I can personally attest that steak/bread knives and paring/chef knife cuts hurt just as badly and bleed just as much. Considering these effects don't even require proficiency to use, in most hands, they become "take that one-in-three shot, hope for the best, and run away when it works". Higher-level players will ignore it, as things like Power Attack are just mathematically better since they work on everything all the time. Unless you're a Rogue, in which case you'd use nothing but.

So my suggestions to make this more accessible are:
1) Make bleeding a class ability. As someone who made an entire 5E class around this, it's my recommendation.
or
2) Make the effect just +1 damage on viable targets, pretend that +1 happens the next round, and call it a day
or
3) If you insist on making bleeding damage over time that literally anyone can pick up and use, you could still smooth out the math. Perhaps the bleed kicks in if you hit by at least 4 or 6? Perhaps the total bleeds all stack in duration, but only 1 damage per round regardless of number? (This significantly tones down the "everyone stab once or twice then flee" issue) Perhaps the amount of bleed added is the number of damage dice rolled that are at least 4? Because right now, it feels like "Rogues and NPCs are required to use this, everyone else is required not to" and it doesn't feel like an actual choice.

I get the idea is to create weapon choice, I do, and I like those choices myself. This just feels like a lot of work into something that most characters will need to avoid on principle, and the rest will need to use for a dramatic gain. At which point, it's not a choice.

[Eladrinblade]

Bleeds stack. Rogues tend to use smaller die weapons (d4, d6, d10 tops) and are incentivized to be under reduce person, whereas martials tend to use larger die (d8, d10, d12) and like to be enlarged. I figured rogues needed a boost so that there's a reason for smaller die weapons to be serrated. It's also meant to off-set the fact that higher level enemies tend to very high con. Humanoid enemies are much more likely to have access to heals. Fast healing/regen will heal bleed damage, and if they get to full hp the bleeds stop as I stated in the OP.

I'm not a big fan of the 1 in 3 chance either, but it seems too good if I remove it; I'm least sure about this part. Requiring them to hit x above AC is kinda harsh because you get a penalty in the first place. As for running away after applying bleeds, that is an option but it's not a great one. If they stack a lot of bleeds on a target who doesn't heal, then run away, okay sure, but that's fine.

Yes, cutting/piercing wounds bleed, but serrated edges cause worse bleeds.

[AnonJr]

Can't find the specific issue at the moment, but one of the Dragon Magazines has a "Serrated" option for piercing and slashing weapons. For 600 gold it causes 1 bleeding damage for 1d4 rounds. I have this nagging feeling that in the original printing it only applies on a crit, but at our table we've always played it as an "on hit" thing. Simple upgrade, not too expensive, and it doesn't really kill the balance.

As much as I like the expanded flavour of your suggestion, given the two options I'd be more inclined to take the Dr Mag version for the simplicity and it more neatly avoids some of the other issues brought up.

Having said that, a more expensive option that upgrades it to "bleed for a number of rounds equal to the attacks base damage die roll", and maybe a further upgrade option for something a little more (but still fairly straightforward) would be a nice way to build.

[Saintheart]

Can't find the specific issue at the moment, but one of the Dragon Magazines has a "Serrated" option for piercing and slashing weapons. For 600 gold it causes 1 bleeding damage for 1d4 rounds. I have this nagging feeling that in the original printing it only applies on a crit, but at our table we've always played it as an "on hit" thing. Simple upgrade, not too expensive, and it doesn't really kill the balance.

It's Dragon #358. Weapons with this item quality deal 1 point of damage each round for 1d4 rounds following a successful critical hit. This repeating damage does not apply to creatures immune to critical hits. +600 gold and no increase on the weapon's effective enhancement bonus. It's really the cheapness of the price that makes it even worth considering, at a +1 this wouldn't be anywhere near worth taking.

There's a couple of third party books that contain serrated weapon qualities, but they tend to focus on either raising the critical hit range or multiplier.

[AnonJr]

It's Dragon #358. Weapons with this item quality deal 1 point of damage each round for 1d4 rounds following a successful critical hit. This repeating damage does not apply to creatures immune to critical hits. +600 gold and no increase on the weapon's effective enhancement bonus. It's really the cheapness of the price that makes it even worth considering, at a +1 this wouldn't be anywhere near worth taking.

There's a couple of third party books that contain serrated weapon qualities, but they tend to focus on either raising the critical hit range or multiplier.

Thanks. You are a Saint. :smallwink:

We've been playing with it as 1d4 bleeding damage on hit, and it hasn't overbalanced anything. Not bad for a small investment.

[Blackhawk748]

Ya, if you're concerned about "slash cut and run" (which is a totally valid hunting technique btw) just give it a time limit. Like 2d4 rounds or something.

Also if you want some sort of "realism" then just have it not work on anything with over +5 Nat armor as its hide is too thick for proper purchase or something.