Talk:20% Delirium (5e Equipment)

I'm wondering if a legendary weapon should be allowed to bypass the bag of rats issue, even though it is mostly for ammo here. But that's not even the biggest issue since this thing links to a 3.5e base weapon for some reason? That honestly makes it unusable. I am curious though what this +6 weapon precedent is, since I apparently misremembered it to be the Sword of Kas (it's only +3 as an artifact). As it is, even a +5 in 5e is insane haha.--Yanied (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2023 (MST)

I Swear up and down by Christ himself it was the sword of kas but the major thing I think for it's balance is that the weapon is not a +6 out of the box but ramps up to a +6 as long as you are still in combat, which to be fair, a gm can just say no --Brostodes (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2023 (MST)

Relying on a GM to alter an item in order to balance it is not congruent with the aims of the wiki, and suggesting its possibility is not an acceptable manner in which to dismiss concerns as to the balance of the relevant page. See A Good DM for reference. Additionally, it is generally considered to be unwise to create any feature that could be abused if one had a 'bag of rats', or other such collection of easily-slaughtered creatures. Abilities or functions that 'charge up' based on the amount of creatures you've recently killed are a textbook example of an ability that becomes exploitable as soon as you acquire a bag of rats.
Additionally, the wording of the item's features still leaves much to be desired - 'on kill' is not proper 5e wording, no mechanic in D&D has anything at all to do with 'killing'. Phrasing such as 'When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points with an attack from this weapon' would be far more suitable. The term 'tooth n nail' combined with the lack of capitalization in the item's abilities leaves the page looking unpolished, as though little care went into it. This is why the wording template was applied. Your refusal to address the issues brought forth in the template therefore implied that you did not care about it, thus the escalation to the deletion template. If you do wish for this page to remain part of the D&D Wiki, I implore you to improve it to a higher standard. If you have no desire to see the page improved, I ask that you instead refrain from opposing its deletion. Thank you for your time. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2023 (MST)

Good sir since you have laid these issues out as plainly as could be, I will redouble efforts to fix this page, I did not understand the bag of rats gesture but the other explanation of other issues has opened my eyes and I thank you for your great explanation and the time to type that out thank you and good day --Brostodes (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2023 (MST)