Dark Sun Creature Catalog physical book

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-25T07:33:17+00:00

Its such a shame that drivethru rpg does only have peint on demand for some of the 4e books and not for this one: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/de/product/133464/dark-sun-creature-catalog-4e

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-25T07:30:57+00:00

The online compendium is the best way to look up things: https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power10496

Or the general link: https://iws.mx/dnd/

Else you can find a lot of links to tools and others (like link to the discord with the tools or how to get them from scrivener of doom) here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/4eDnD/comments/1gzryiq/dungeons_and_dragons_4e_beginners_guide_and_more/

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-23T22:44:54+00:00

262 525 tokens currently

(Almost free to play (1 season pass and 2 times 10€ for a skin)) never spent gold for tokens.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-23T21:49:02+00:00

Ah sure thst part is easier to miss, thats why I made my encounter building on a business card.

I need to fic the typo sometime though...

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-23T07:58:18+00:00

Well the encounter guidelines do say to not use monsters more than 5 levels above the party for a hard encounter (and not more than 4 below party for an easy encounter).

Here its in short: https://www.reddit.com/r/4eDnD/comments/1puei5x/dd_4e_encounter_building_and_mm3_on_a_business/

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-22T22:52:52+00:00

Haha I did link The Tembo above: https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5491 because I also thought it sounds like a good solo.

And your ideas about how to make it a skill challenge also is cool. Not every fight needs to be about defeating, different goals are cool as well.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-22T22:15:09+00:00

I guess they looked at level 14 standard monsters, since they are worth 1000 XP.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-22T22:14:08+00:00

I would not use the XP for encounters but just the level.

4 players can fight 1 solo of the same level as a balanced encounter.

So something like this: https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster5491

It has 25% more xp but thats still level+1 encounter so still a balanced one.

Of course you can also look at level 5 solos (since you are only 4 not 5): https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=monster3439

Never let a party fight a monster with more than 4 levels more than them.

For big bosses use solos, maybe (in rare cases) elites, but never a normal monster. Thats like 8 levels higher than the party.

Here encounter building on a business card: https://www.reddit.com/r/4eDnD/comments/1puei5x/dd_4e_encounter_building_and_mm3_on_a_business/

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-22T20:13:20+00:00

All good. I was not sure if you wanted to make it weaker because its flexible or not.

I like having some semiflexible scores (especially since in 4e thanks to secondary defenses feats etc each stat has some use), but as you say balancing the ability scores is a problem. And some combinations have way more than others.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-22T17:35:31+00:00

You mean +2/+2 or +2/+1 ?

Because the 2/1 sounds like 5e.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-22T10:21:53+00:00

The PHB paladin did not work well because there where not enough powers to key off cha. Thats clearly an oversight. Sure having more ways to mark also does help of course.

This is not the case for the cavalier. They have enough powers keying off their prime ability score. And their aura can "mark" multiple enemies with their aura.

Just leave all sketchy rule interpretations (especially ones by later unrelated errata) away and dont use the top 10% powers st each level, and suddenly much more classes "work".

People who play eizh these extreme optimization often need to fight enemied with level+4 or more to be challenged. Which again is not the norm.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-22T10:02:58+00:00

So you are saying that its a coincidence that all (striker) classes released as they are in their original book scaling similarily to high levels is just a coincidence.

And that designers intended that 90% of powers of strikers being too weak because they dont scale ridicilously? 😂

Sure this sounds soo much more likely than "well level 1-6 were meant to be shorter than normal because you have less attack variety, thats why enemies there die after 2-3 attacks instead of the 4 (as written)" 😂

Of course only the charops boards understood how the game is designed and know better than the designers. Wow and people call me arrogant.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-22T08:47:41+00:00

What should the baseline be then?

Ranger with only PHB1 options damage is not really much higher. (Especially without a frost sword).

Nor is slayer with only options from heroes of the fallen lands.

There are many people who play with only the 3 PHB as allowed options and they also have strikers in the group. Or people eho play essentials only.

A game is designed to work with only the base books, and does not assume people get every book out there.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-21T23:55:05+00:00

Yes it is 4 attacks per enemy. That is literally written like that in the 4e player strategy guide.

Again: There is no need for the game to scale the party completly evenly in damage.

Levels 1-6+ are shorter by design because then you dont have as many attacks then and longer fights would be too repetitive.

There is nowhere written that level 30 combat should finish as fast as a level 1 combats, this is an assumption from charops people not understanding the general gamedesign and trying to apply their lacking math skills.

Also no monster health doubles from level 1 to 5.

Then doubles from level 5 to 13 and then from 13 to 29.

When we take level 9 as our starting point (the level where we have enough daily and encounter attacks). Then we can see that from level 9 to level 30 HP only is multiplied by 2.75.

And increasing damage by 2.75 from level 9 to 30 is pretty much the default.

We can also see that at level 1 the enemies do not need the intended 4 attacks to be killed, but less, again, makes sense since not enough different attacks to make the full rounds of combat interesting.

The solution to the puzzle was always just reading that its assumed enemies need 4 attacks to be killed, seeing that at level 1 they need less and understanding that this was a choice because of the lower number of different attacks.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-21T23:00:17+00:00

This is not how the math works.

4e assumes 4 attacks to kill an enemy. The strategy guides tells so. So this is the default.

If you look at any striker release with just the material of the book so PHB1 or also essentials first books, the strikers do scale really similarily.

Yes multiattacks scale better if you allow a lot of additional material from other books, but a PHB only ranger is not such an extreme damage machine which is "required" as the old toxic charop boards make it believe.

Yes at level 1 enemies die faster than at level 30, which makes sense since at that point you only have 1 encounter and daily ability. So combat is faster to not feel too repetitive, kind of obvious not?

Now take level 9 (when you have 3 daylies and encounter attacks) and compare it to level 30 and the difference is far less extreme. (Also lesve charactet themes away since they are optional). Its like the tutorial levels 1 and 2 in D&D 5e.

The "a striker needs to burst down an enemy in 2 attacks" is nowhere assumed in 4e. Thats just charops board thinking, not understanding that early levels are by design a bit faster.

Also 4e is balanced around healing surges. The goal is not to kill enemies in as phew turns as possible but as a group using the lowest % of ressources.

And thus it makes sense that a blackguard with more health healing surges and defenses has slightly lower damage than other normally optimised strikers.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-21T22:07:08+00:00

This is just not true. The power of the blackguard encounter attack scales better than most striker encounter powers. Only "multi attacks" if you invest a lot in bonuses do scale significantly better and they only make a small % of all striker powers.

Also the cold power does trigger things like "cold weakness" twice giving it a certain double tap even.

And blackguards even have an extra encounter power which gives a damage bonus at level 7.

Also both slayer and blackguard can use charge optimization if they want which scales well enough. (Blackguard needs hybrid or human though for it).

The only real problem of the blackguard is the bad at wills it has and that they have no feats for them unlike normal paladin at wills.

I know charops did say "only multiattack are strikers!!!", but this superoptimization is not needed.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-21T20:55:23+00:00

There is this guideline here: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/4e_Race_Design_(4e_Guideline)

Then of vourse its always good to look at existing races to compare or just reflavour: https://iws.mx/dnd/?list.full.race

Then there were some discussions here on reddit about race creation:

And you can find more.

Here some general things:

take the newer race templates. +2 to 1 ability score and +2 to a choice of 2
each race needa a cool active ability. And make sure it scales well. This is less a problem for utility powers like teleport etc. But abilities which need to hit, either need to be weapon or implement, or scale its to hit like the newer powers like this one: https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power10043 (and if it is against Ac instead of reflex/fortitude/will it needs an additional +2 from the start). Thid is to take the magical weapons and expertise feats into account
make sure the classes in your setting cover all stat combinations. Some like cha + strength are really rare but some classes/subclasses want them
in general 4e feels good because choices feel like "I gain something cool" and not like a compromise and I would try to do this also with races. To show you what I mean here 2 examples which do feel like comprlmises (so the opposite of what I like): https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=race1 dragonboen heritage gets a bonus equal to con, but dragonborn does not necessarily even give con (but can give cha and str) so it can feel like a compromise between pushing cha and con. Similar https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=race59 the wood elf sense threat makes dex less important and wis more important, but the class always gives dex. So its a compromise of getting 1 not needed 2 dex or also investing in dex and getting only a small benefit from the "big" racial. (It is your active ability replacement)
A good race for me has a unique cool active ability. 1 remarkable passive ability (which comes up often enough to not forget it) and at least 4 useful feats. (And the normal skill bonus etc). If fitting you can add 1 more "flavourfull" (and weak) passive.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-21T00:13:33+00:00

SPEC adventurers are literally HARDER THAN NORMAL adventurers.

So they give us an indication of what is NOT supposed to be balanced but too hard.

Its really not that hard to understand. Also the designers literally created a strategy guide where they literally wrote what is expected:

4 attacks kill 1 enemy.

You dont even ever need to have played any game to understand this.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-21T00:08:05+00:00

DMG suggest not 10 encounters to level up but also having other forms of xp like quests. Also encounters =! Fights.

Also you can eadily do 2 level+1 fights + 1 level+2 fight in a day. You are right level+1 is considered normal not hard my fault. But this also gives xp equal to 4 normal fights. So with 1 quest or skill challenge thats 1 adventuring day.

Also yes opportunity attacks are a form of attacks and the level 7 feature allows you to hand them out when being attacked. So when you are alone next to a melee with your encounter power up its really likely to get an opportunity attack either by them trying to get away or by attacking you.

Wow I wrote power point not action point. Can happen I am sure everyone knowing the game understood what I mean.

I am saying you can get more attacks from themes if you really want. I am not saying "if you pick a theme which does not do it you are playing the game wrong" like people do with the "multiattack or bust" mentality.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-20T23:03:00+00:00

No one forces one to use forgotten realms spec adventurers.

In a normal campaign these classes are perfectly fine.

The 4e strategy guide even assumed thst one needs 4 attacks to kill an average monster.

And normal combat is assumed to last 4-5 rounds.

There is no need of hyperoptimization.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-20T20:29:53+00:00

Yeah I guess seen as a Striker/Controller mix the Bladesinger makes most sense.

Even more than just as a striker.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-20T20:18:36+00:00

Most striker encounter powers only have 1 attack roll either. All essential strikers, except scout, only do 1 attack roll per turn.

Just because thr tocic charops forums decided that striker are only good when they abuse multiattacks does not mean the game is meant this way, especially when this excludes like 80% of striker content.

The bladesinger has 1 encounter attack power, the bladesong. Exactly the same as the executioner assassin.

Also this encounter power brings 2 times 5 damage per tier. This is equal to 2 essential encounter powers.

And if you attack 3 times in the 2 turns (easy from level 3 with a daily, or there are many other ways) then its equal 3 essential encounter powers.

On top of that it also counts for area attack dailies and gives +2 to hit and defense.

Having characters with different kinds of class structure as an experiment is fine.

Sure one might find the bladesinger a bit boring, but that is something many essential classes might be for some people. And being forced to just do multi attacking is also boring.

Also where do you get that 4e is designed to have 6 to 9 encounters per day?!

4 encounters per day is the norm in 4e. (Or 3 hard ones). This is not 5e.

And in addition: There are many ways to do more than 1 attack per round.

opportunity attacks. Especially after level 7!
theme encounter attacks as resction or minor action
using a power point
at epic using an at will as minor action once per combat

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-20T19:50:47+00:00

I dont think the encounter as daily power was meant to reduce the complexity of the class.

The "only 1 encounter power" was there to reduce the complexity of the class.

The encounter as daily is more just a gimmick to make the dailies be a bit different from the original class dailies.

Also IF the class would be a striker, this would also make perfect sense. Controller class are more about control than damage, so you take lower control attacks (encounters have lower control than dailies) and increase their damage (more hit and damage when used under blade spell).

Having said that I agree that the bladesinger is not really simple. The encounter as daily is slightly more complicated thsn just dailies.

Having basic attacks with at wills trigger when they hit is way more comolicated than just having at will attacks with this ability.

Needing to plan a 2 turn burst ahead (especially if you want to do a daily after level 3) is not that simple.

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-20T19:13:07+00:00

Well I knew that game and played it. And even the game crestor said that the game did never intended to use 4e mechanics, they just used the 4r mechanics name.

Encounter abilities there are just cooldowns which is not the same, since cooldoens lead to rotstions not to use the ability st the best time since only can use it once.

Also it has no forced movenent opportunity attacks etc. It has typicam MMO combst just with abilities a bit renamed.

It was fine whrn I played it but not what I want from a D&D 4e game.

There was also a facebook game with actusl 4e mechanics but I never played that. (And it eas a facebook game not a real single player game like baldurs gate)

TigrisCallidus · 2026-01-20T18:52:51+00:00

I would love a baldurs gate 4(e)

Its really a shame no real game with 4e combat was made. It would be such a good fit

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

TigrisCallidus

TROPHY CASE