View Profile: Phazonfish - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Phazonfish's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 02:05 AM
    Personally I think the Sentinel Raven being intelligent is enough of a free buff, and the sister's intelligence being tied to the brother makes for more interesting story possibilities, but that's just my opinion. In terms of balance the extended range probably won't break your game on its own.
    7 replies | 249 view(s)
    1 XP
No More Results
About Phazonfish

Basic Information

About Phazonfish
Disable sharing sidebar?:
Age Group:
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.



Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Last Post
Intelligent Familiars Friday, 12th July, 2019 02:05 AM


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 08:02 AM
Join Date
Saturday, 24th September, 2016
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
My Game Details

Saturday, 13th July, 2019

Friday, 12th July, 2019

Wednesday, 10th July, 2019

Tuesday, 11th July, 2017

  • 06:30 PM - The_Gunslinger658 mentioned Phazonfish in post What Races (classes) do you allow or disallow in your campaign?
    No need to insult me with a troll label just because I do not like Dragonborne or Tieflings in my campaign. The question is do you allow such races in your campaign, if so kool, if not that is kool too. But I am liking some of the ideas you guys are throwing out there. Good stuff. Phazonfish: << I get how they might rub you the wrong way thematically, but if you say they are Munchkin races that means they are unbalanced or exploitable, right? In what way?>> Ya they do rub me the wrong way, the reason I called the Munchkin races is because munchkin players like playing monsters and one that can breath fire, even better. I kinda wish WotC would have just put a supplement out with monsters as PC's instead of carrying over old 4E races. As for why Pally's are Human only, being old school AD&D grog, thats just the way I feel. In most fantasy literature and legends represent Paladins as human IE Charlamain, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot and so on. Not angry looking orcs. (another residual from either 3E or 4E). Scott

Wednesday, 28th June, 2017

  • 07:30 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Phazonfish in post What's the worst spell?
    Phazonfish I am SO keeping wish in there. :) Three guys, Abe, Bart, and Chad, have been marooned on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific for nine months. Abe finds a lamp, and rubs it. WOOSH! A djinn appears! The djinn says, "For freeing me, I shall grant each of you ONE WISH." Abe immediately says, "Man, I am so happy! I wish I was back with my family in New York City!" *poof* Abe disappears, sent to New York City. Bart then pipes up. "Boy, this is the best news ever! I wish I back eating crawfish in New Orleans!" *poof* Bart disappear, sent to New Orleans. Chad sits there, thinking for a long, long time. Finally, Chad speaks to the djinn. "Boy, I'm lonely. I wish my friends were back." *poof*

Monday, 10th October, 2016

  • 05:46 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Phazonfish in post Planar Binding
    Sorry MechaTarrasque gonna agree with Phazonfish here - you cannot call it good design to offer a spell that's designed to force outsiders to do your bidding, but not then ensure a reliable supply of such outsiders. Any outsider that agrees to sitting still for a whole hour doesn't need to be bound. So that can't be the use case. There must be a way to pacify a hostile outsider long enough to take control over it. That's what the discussion is about. If there are no such ways, then Planar Binding sucks. And that assumes you can even find such an outsider. In every edition past, you could always conjure up your own. If that isn't possible in 5E, then Planar Binding sucks even more. As for stories involving outsiders - if you don't need a spell to summon the monster, it's reasonable to expect you don't need one to bind it either. So what's the spell even for? Perhaps there once was more support for summoning and binding of outsiders, but Planar Binding certainly isn't good enough on its own. Right now, it all looks towards Plana...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Wednesday, 20th March, 2019

  • 11:37 PM - not-so-newguy quoted Phazonfish in post Why, Why, Why?
    Panopticon Effect is a thing; the idea that their papers could be checked is enough to keep many people in line. I learned something new today :) ETA Also my new enworld title, “Waghalter,” has a grim meaning

Monday, 11th February, 2019

  • 02:31 PM - Blue quoted Phazonfish in post What level's this spell?
    Actually I would expect to see things like GWM, magic weapons, superiority dice, ect on half/third casters more often than full casters. Even still, I'm sure it's fine when used with these as intended, it just looks exploitable, sorry if I overstated the severity of these considerations. In support of what you are saying, we need to think about the caster who picks this. There are better choices to burn a spell known/prepared if they have a lousy melee attack. I would assume that if this is taken, the caster likely has at least a decent and likely an above-average melee weapon attack. So it's likely multiclass (fighter/wizard, paladin/sorcerer, whatever), hexblade, bladesinger, valor bard, or some other good-at-melee caster. Also it's not concentration, so it pairs well with other spells that improve all of your attacks. Shadowblade (XGtE), Bless, Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Greater Invisibility (for advantage), etc. Including some that could be buffs from others in your party. (And n...
  • 12:14 AM - Yunru quoted Phazonfish in post What level's this spell?
    As has been said, the fact that it works by letting you make weapon attacks is the key issue, as it has too much synergy with other features. It's easy to boost attack rolls, but only a hand full of things can sabotage saves; lots of features and weapons grant riders and more damage dice to weapon attacks; attack rolls can crit (which I'm convinced is the only reason disintegrate is an all-or-nothing Dex save). Sorry if this is kinda redundant with what's already been said, but I feel like Blue's post desperately needs a tl;dr. If you assume your targets succeed their save against Fireball it does 14-ish damage; just a bit more than your spell.But not for a class that takes 17 levels to get the spell, surely? (Except fpr cheating Bards who cheat) As for Fireball, one it's 2 levels lower (even if it fits a 4th level damage), and two a successful save is assumed to happen 50% of the time, so your "it's close if everyone saves" feels kinda... pointless? Better spells for comparison are Conjure ...

Friday, 1st February, 2019

  • 02:03 PM - FrogReaver quoted Phazonfish in post God mean, Druid?
    What everyone else said, but also Heat Metal. It is a nasty debuff that only druids and bards get. Target metal armor to make a creature have permanent disadvantage on attacks and checks. Free bonus action damage every turn. Target a weapon to disarm if you thing they can't make a Con save (or don't want to, because success means they are still holding scalding hot metal). Heat metal is an awesome spell. It’s just damage though and only works well against a small subset of enemies, those that use metal armor. I don’t think it helps fulfill the god Druid concept better than other spells you could take do. But it’s still a great spell to have

Thursday, 4th October, 2018

  • 03:22 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Phazonfish in post Do you allow Acrobatics and Athletics to be used interchangeably?
    As someone else said, squirrels have a climb speed, so their bonus to Athletics is irrelevant. In terms of which check to use when climbing, I would say that if you have a running start, you can use Acrobatics if that momentum could reasonably carry you that high, otherwise you're out of luck, gotta use Athletics. Related to this, I allow acrobatics for anything that Id be unsurprised to see in a YouTube parkour/freerunning video. I also allow athletics for most of it, though, because those str characters need to be thrown a bone.

Wednesday, 12th September, 2018

  • 08:26 AM - Paul Farquhar quoted Phazonfish in post Unearthed Arcana Dragonmarks
    Just a level 2 Thunderwave. Quite right, I was in error. Then the wording even more strongly implies the ability to learn aberrant spells higher than level 1. Thunderwave still looks like the best spell to pick for this (assuming your character is melee).

Thursday, 25th January, 2018

  • 03:26 AM - Kobold Boots quoted Phazonfish in post Determining a spellbook value
    On the other hand, if thieves weren't confident in their ability to take things without being caught and allowed the thought of getting caught to scare them out of it, they probably wouldn't be thieves. I'm sure there are all kinds of thieves out there and I'm sure creatures other than civilized humanoids won't always play by the same rules. Sure. 1. Kobolds may take the book not knowing what it is and think the ruckus earns them the right to ask for a ransom, perhaps food for their tribe. 2. Demons may take the book knowing full well what they're doing and look for the soul of the mage. Depends on the thief but messing with a wizard when you're a thief is asking for pain unless you're well prepared.

Wednesday, 20th December, 2017

  • 05:40 PM - neobolts quoted Phazonfish in post Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
    I don't understand the view that bonus actions are complicated. You have one action per turn. You have one bonus action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled which one they use. If you cast two spells, the main one has to be a cantrip. How complex is that? Am I missing something? I completely agree. The action economy is well controlled in 5e. The most you can ever do from the start of one turn to the next is 4 things... -Move (can be split up during your turn) -1 Standard Action -1 Bonus Action (cannot use both standard and bonus for spells, unless standard is cantrip) -1 Reaction This is not overly complex in the context of all RPG out there. It's an elegant system where you mix-and-match something you do as a basic thing with a little extra. Combining standard and bonus actions into single "jazzed-up standard actions" (for lack of a better term) solves nothing, it will just lead to a creep of jazzed-up standard actions instead of a creep of bonus actions. And it will be less ...
  • 04:13 PM - seebs quoted Phazonfish in post Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
    I don't understand the view that bonus actions are complicated. You have one action per turn. You have one bonus action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled which one they use. If you cast two spells, the main one has to be a cantrip. How complex is that? Am I missing something? It's still weird to me that you can't use your action to Take A Bonus Action. Because there exist things where you have two things you could do as a bonus action, and you'd rather do both of them than take any regular action and do one of them, and that's annoying. They're faster and easier to do except when they're not.
  • 12:16 PM - Li Shenron quoted Phazonfish in post Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
    I don't understand the view that bonus actions are complicated. You have one action per turn. You have one bonus action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled which one they use. If you cast two spells, the main one has to be a cantrip. How complex is that? Am I missing something? It is not complex, it is just more complex than not having bonus actions at all. Mearls' point is that there is fundamental need for bonus actions for the game to work fine, they are essentially redundant, and eliminating them would decrease the complexity a little bit. But notice how their existence creates a cascade of small but yet additive complexity increases: - they could have just stopped with bonus actions being in addition to everything else on your turn - immediately there's the problem: what if I have 2 special abilities that use bonus actions? hence the need to specific "maximum one per turn" - then next issue is: what if the bonus action is a spell and I also cast a spell as my main actio...
  • 07:01 AM - ad_hoc quoted Phazonfish in post Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
    I don't understand the view that bonus actions are complicated. You have one action per turn. You have one bonus action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled which one they use. If you cast two spells, the main one has to be a cantrip. How complex is that? Am I missing something? It is the one thing that I've seen new players get tripped up on. In my experience they pick up everything else just fine. Most rules are straightforward and easy to explain thematically. Bonus Actions are game constructs which distract from the theme. I like bonus actions, but I've recently encountered problem because one of my player is playing a monk and is *completely baffled* by them, and I can't seem to explain it in a way that makes it click :/ I encountered this with a new player who played a Monk. They quickly became overwhelmed and just stuck to an attack plus an unarmed attack each turn. At first it really disrupted the flow of the game to explain to them what they can do on each turn unti...
  • 06:28 AM - Charlaquin quoted Phazonfish in post Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
    I don't understand the view that bonus actions are complicated. You have one action per turn. You have one bonus action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled which one they use. If you cast two spells, the main one has to be a cantrip. How complex is that? Am I missing something? It’s (very slightly) more complex than: You have one action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled when they allow you to do extra stuff on your turn. Of course, those abilities will need to be more complex. So, the question is, do you prefer a simpler system with more complex exceptions, or a more complex system with simpler exceptions. Personally, I prefer the former, but there is an argument to be made that the latter is preferable because it lowers the barrier for entry - the bare minimum no you need to learn before you can start playing.
  • 06:19 AM - flametitan quoted Phazonfish in post Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
    I don't understand the view that bonus actions are complicated. You have one action per turn. You have one bonus action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled which one they use. If you cast two spells, the main one has to be a cantrip. How complex is that? Am I missing something? The only confusing ones I can think of is "when you make X action" vs "after you make X action" are different timings (as the former lets you do the bonus action before the action but the latter doesn't) and the spell one (As Action surge lets you ignore the rule, but doesn't if you cast with a bonus action and your two actions)

Wednesday, 13th December, 2017

  • 06:14 AM - Sacrosanct quoted Phazonfish in post Best Kensei weapons?
    Except that's not part of the Attack action. Flurry of Blows states that your extra unarmed strikes happen "Immediately after you take the Attack action". Still, you probably only losing a couple points of damage anyway. Flurry is a different monk ability than the unarmed strike monks get when declaring an attack action. Let me ask you this. If the unarmed strike a monk gets after declaring their attack action is just a bonus unarmed strike, then why call it out? Every PC can use a bonus action to make an additional unarmed strike if they want. It's treated the same as duel wielding, only instead of a dagger or sword, it's your fist you're using.

Saturday, 2nd December, 2017

  • 07:27 PM - 5ekyu quoted Phazonfish in post Players Self-Assigning Rolls
    I don't think we do; there's a difference between "trustworthy" and "capable of doing no wrong". If I don't trust someone in that situation, it's not necessarily because I don't trust them in general, it's because poisoning the well makes ANY decision they make dubious. Them getting the information ahead of time just sets the whole situation up for failure. I don't think you understand the situation fully. You say things like "if I had already decided which one to pick" but you never had the opportunity to pick because you weren't told the options because you rolled before you could be told. Your stated default response of allowing the DM to pick is a healthy attitude, but not all players are you, so allowing pre-rolling is just setting up for the time where someone throws a fit because the DM picked for them. Maybe you run with players where this will never happen. That's fine, but not the case for everyone. I mean, you can't just always assume total competence; before we even star...
  • 05:16 PM - 5ekyu quoted Phazonfish in post Players Self-Assigning Rolls
    Do keep in mind, as I stated, I was providing that I claimed to be something along the lines of what he meant, not claiming to be clarifying what he said. Unless I'm not understanding you correctly, in which case please clarify, but it definitely looks as though you are splitting hairs. Anyways... Your change of context doesn't help matters. Pre-rolling IS bad in both situations. As for trusting the players when given that information, it's possible to not trust someone even if said person is trustworthy. Once that information is out and you have "poisoned the well", any choice made is dubious; I wouldn't even trust myself not to act on it, because how could you not? Sure, you could choose to take the worse option to "prove" you weren't exploiting information you wouldn't have, but would you really have not? Sometimes. uhhh we definitely have an issue of what "trustworthy" means. in answer tyo your question, if i had already decided which one to pick, i would keep to that regardless of r...
  • 08:48 AM - xxluzdarkxx quoted Phazonfish in post Absorb elements
    RAW there is no reason you could not, but it would only give you resistance to the fire half. (Assuming you had a reaction and a spell slot left, that is)I had a spell slot and reaction. I overall think he just wanted to kill the party and didn't like the fact I could live through it lol Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
  • 07:37 AM - 5ekyu quoted Phazonfish in post Players Self-Assigning Rolls
    No offense, but I feel like you've made a lot of posts like this that put words in peoples' mouths. Assuming he allows you to retcon your targets based on your rolls is a crazy conclusion to jump to from his post. I don't mean to speak for him, but my interpretation of his meaning is that it is probably something like this... SITUATION WHERE PLAYER DOESN'T ROLL FIRST === Player: I want to lift his purse. Should I roll Slight of Hand? DM: Actually, make a Perception check. Player: Okay... 18. DM: You notice he has multiple, including one on his belt in the open, which could probably be taken without drawing his attention, but also one on an inner pocket in his jacket, which would take some skill to get at. You can make a Slight of Hand check to get at either, but the inner one will be more difficult. Player: Oh, I'll just try and snatch the one off his belt I guess... 23! Man, I should have gone for the better one! === SITUATION WHERE PLAYER DOES ROLL FIRST === Player: I wan...
  • 05:57 AM - Charlaquin quoted Phazonfish in post Players Self-Assigning Rolls
    I'm not sure what you mean here, given that the phrase is being tossed around on a forum, not as part of Charlaquin's game. Furthermore, trust goes both ways; some DMs might see players hijacking a process the DM is suppose to adjudicate as disrespectful, even if the player means nothing by it and it doesn't hurt anything. Exactly. And to be clear, in actual play, if a player in my game initiates a check on their own, I'm not a dick about it. Going back to the "I try to steal the guy's coin purse" example, I'll just say "You didn't actually need to roll for that - this guy's super drunk, he doesn't even notice." Or, "Sorry, he's been suspicious of you since you came in. Even with a natural 20, this would fail." Or, "Nice, you easily cut the purse from his belt, add 12 silver and 5 copper to your inventory." In any of those cases, I would follow it up with "Next time though, just tell me what your character does, I'll let you know if you need to make a check."

Thursday, 30th November, 2017

  • 09:35 PM - FieserMoep quoted Phazonfish in post XGTE Errata
    It doesn't say it does any of those things, so I would assume not. A weapon's attack rolls and the wielder of a weapon's attack rolls are not necessarily the same thing. I don't understand where that is coming from either?

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Phazonfish's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites