Talk:Chain Sickle (5e Equipment)

If this is a weapon for monks:

• let it use the monk's martial art's damage, rather than coming up with s
• drop the finesse. Monks use Dexterity anyway. For other wielders, Strength is important, as the primary attack is a heavy metal ball.
• Now it can be balanced OK for a simple weapon, and you don't have to come up with this awkward rule about dropping other proficiencies.
• Disarming (DMG p. 271) is an optional rule; this and tangling would be under DM adjudication.

I'm making the changes. Marasmusine (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Made changes to better relate to my original idea, while also considering the previous tips and advice. - Roman - 4:18 - 08/05/2017

Let's see.

• "kusarigama" is Japanese for "chain sickle", so let's call it a chain sickle to make it culture independent.
• Why does this give a +2 bonus to climbing, when a proper climber's kit doesn't? (...because this is 5e, not 3.5e or 4e: you don't get stacking numeric bonuses to skill checks)
• Why does it have this racial proficiency exception thing? When someone gains a proficiency in a weapon, obviously they've been trained by someone else proficient in that weapon; and this weapon still needs to be usable in campaigns that do not include Kor.
• I set the damage to 1d4 so that this doesn't become a no-brainer for a monk. But I'm beginning to think that any reach weapon should be martial. Marasmusine (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

i have made more changes, taking in the advice from Marasmusine. i am determined to have this weapon able to be dual-wielded, that is the only thing i dont wanna change. If we could try work around that, if these changes i have just made arnt suitable, that would be much appreciated. thank you for the help and assistance :) Roman - 10:44am - 09/05/2017

I have reverted to my last revision.

I have made it versatile rather than heavy. Firstly, so that monks can use it. Secondly, now you can use it with two-weapon fighting if you take the dual wielder feat.

Still not finesse, for the reasons I mentioned above. Marasmusine (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2017 (MDT)

Quality Article Nomination

— This article did not become a quality article. 11:30, 16 January 2024 (MST)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the QA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

Seems to be stable now. Real-world weapon useful for most campaigns, balanced mechanics. Marasmusine (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2020 (MDT)

• Oppose — I am do not believe it is clear that this weapon is balanced. In the end it might be, but I believe this weapon has too many uncertainties for me to support it. To start with, this weapon has the Entangle variant rule. This is an issue as detailed on my earlier comments on it, as the entangle property is likely unbalanced to add to a weapon. You add the ability to use this variant rule on a reach weapon, and it exacerbates the issue. Besides that, I am unsure whether this weapon deals too little damage. Comparatively, the whip deals the same damage in one hand, but has the finesse property. The ability to use one of two damage types and the added versatile property are nice properties but dropping the finesse property while keeping a d4 damage die is underwhelming. --Blobby383b (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2021 (MST)

• Oppose — I agree that the Entangle variant rule leaves a lot of unresolved balance questions (that may well not be a problem in gameplay!), but the Chain Sickle with an optional variant rule with the questions that it raises doesn't need to be a featured article (even if it's playable and well made!). --Green Dragon (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2024 (MST)

I am closing this as a failed nomination. The page has become unstable anyway, with users disagreeing on if it should be a simple (monk weapon) or martial weapon. Marasmusine (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2024 (MST)