Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6562873" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'll see your dire tiger anecdote and raise you a dire shark/kraken and a roc.  Skrimishing swimmers and flyers are even more dangerous.The problem here lies in the fact that we're moving outside of the combat resolution mechanics.  You're going to be breaking out the AD&D Evasion and Pursuit rules which are different than the 3.x Evasion and Pursuit rules which are different than 4e Group Checks or 4e Skill Challenges which are different than 5e Chases (but are the same as 4e Group Checks as they were ported directly over!).  The common theme of each of these rules subsystems is that, as is pretty much the legacy with D&D, noncombat resolution mechanics are siloed away from the combat resolution mechanics.  There is a different level of zoom, abstraction, and very different mechanical apparatus (relative to each other and relative to the system's own combat resolution mechanics) from subsystem to subsystem.  D&D's siloed combat mechanics just make the gameplay a very different experience than a game such as Dungeon World where the entirety of the game's mechanical infrastructure is unified so you're seamlessly able to just follow the fiction and go from combats to chases (etc) without having to toggle back and forth between subsystems (one of which has a tight action economy and all kinds of component parts that the other doesn't possess...and there is little to no overlap in potency between abilities brought to bear in one versus the other).  For D&D's purposes, I thought 4e had a great answer to this.  The conflict with such a creature would either be created as a Lurker Hazard/Trap (of relevant xp value where the danger is represented by its capacity in the "Lurker" role) or it would be an n complexity SC where n represents the danger the creature brings to bear with hit and run tactics (and the stakes are PC or NPC, better still, is dragged away and devoured...or the creature is caught and the combat resolution mechanics are then consulted for what happens next).So in total, I'm in agreement with, I think it was,  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6776887" target="_blank">Tormyr</a> (?).  In order for something akin to CR to be of value to a GM, it needs to be premised upon the deployment of a standard combat routine for the creature within the venue of the combat resolution mechanics.  Its capacity outside of the combat resolution mechanics is very useful to know, but you don't need the same sort of precision in calibration (you do need calibration however...just not the same type) that you do in the D&D combat mechanics minigame (which are governed by all kinds of mechanical bits, bobs, units, and widgets that must interface coherently...because the stakes are generally rather high)</blockquote>

Verification