Challenge Rating

[Mickeroo]

I was just wondering if there was anyway of putting one solid number to how tough a monster is and how tough the group of PCs is. In DND, they had challenge ratings, where you took the total level of the players and divided by 4 to get the groups level and each monster had their own rating assigned to them.

Has anyone made something like this? I mean, total trait points is one way to go, but it doesn't really take in the whole image. Did I miss sometihng in the Monster Burner that does this?

Also, for peer review, can I just post the monster in the forums, get fedback, and leave my players in the dark? Not all the time, but I like some surprises. I feel if players know how strong a potential monster is, then they might change thier reactions to it in game.

[luke]

Also, for peer review, can I just post the monster in the forums, get fedback, and leave my players in the dark? Not all the time, but I like some surprises. I feel if players know how strong a potential monster is, then they might change thier reactions to it in game.

hm. do we count as Peer Review? I'd say yes. Thor, Pete, Dro?

[Kaare Berg]

Don't worry about monster level too much.

BW and DnD have two very different styles of play. DnD resource managment is not applicable in Bw and therefor threat level looses its primary purpose: i.e. to drain teh party of saif number of points.

If you worry about your monster being too evil, look at the amount of damage it can do with its primary attack, if this exceeds the lowest MW of your player characters then the monster is very dangerous for said characters. Particulary if it matches them in skill.

This method dosen't nessesarily work when you start throwing in esoteric attacks like mind-control or poisoned blades ect. but it gives you an idea.

My advice would be to include some exploitable weakness and if they get their butts handed to them give them the oppertunity to flee, research and come back and get even. If they don't flee, well then they're monster toast and deserveno better.

K

[Redoid]

I don't see a problem with letting players in the dark regarding monsters. It's even beneficial. It doesn't feel right when characters meet a monster for the first time and use player knowledge to defeat him... "Oh, this monster has a poisonous touch, let's pellet him from a safe distance".

On the other hand, countring trait points isn't very useful for assessing a monster power, because some traits are detrimental and cost points, while some traits are very powerful but less so in combat situation, and will cost more than their usefulness to kill something.

Look at how difficult it is to strike the beast down: can the party reasonably expect to inflict him light wounds consistently, and how many of them are needed to incapacitate him (what's his lowest attribute exponent?). Take armour into account and you have an idea of his toughness. In the time it will take the group to defeat him, how much damage do you expect him to deal? Calculate probabilities roughly, and look for maximum damage as it can take a character out for a long time if he suffers a mortal wound or even a severe wound.

What's your monster supposed to do in the story? If you don't want him to kill anyone, lower his damage under the MW of the characters, so it can't be too dramatic. If you want a tough fight that will ovewhelm the PC and make them flee, don't understimate the power of numbers: a single monster can drop much more quickly confronted to a group than in D&D. Conversely, being overwhelmed 3 to 1, even by the lowliest of peasants, can be tough for a fighting group (especially if they fight smart, using the helping rules), while it would be in D&D a matter of "could be kill them all in one round, or will it take more?". So assessing fighting ability isn't that easy, as the CR table for multiple encounters shows it is in D&D.

[Thor Olavsrud]

hm. do we count as Peer Review? I'd say yes. Thor, Pete, Dro?

Sure. We can do Peer Review.

Oh, and an important point about monsters in Burning Wheel: you need to use them differently than you do in D&D, as Kaare pointed out.

You definitely don't want to throw in random monsters in BW -- they've got to mean something. They should be the focus of a story. That means that you can make it pretty damn tough if you like. Probably best to keep its Mark Result less than their Mortal Wound though.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see someone use a Raksha, just because they're freakin' cool. Maybe I'll have to design a demo scenario around it...

[Kaare Berg]

What's your monster supposed to do in the story?
probably the most important monster question you can ask yourself, ever.

[Drozdal]

hm. do we count as Peer Review? I'd say yes. Thor, Pete, Dro?
Bring it on!

[Viper]

Also, you can use shades and exponents as a rough guide. If your players have all their physical attributes in the mid-black (B4-B6) range,, then a monster with similar scores will be fairly challenging. A monster with high blacks (B8-B10) will be a very dangerous foe, and a monster with greys will be outright deadly.

Of course, there is more to monsters than their attributes, but in terms of combat effectiveness, they can serve as a rough guide. THe thing to remember is that things scale mighty quickly at the top end of the PTGS scale. A monster with a mark result of B6 for his physical attack will likely cause a midi wound on your average player- while a B8 will probably kick it up to serious, if not traumatic. A monster that does grey damage, even if it is only G1, will utterly destroy characters without grey armor (or a PTGS that reaches grey)

I agree with the others, though, If you're going to go through the trouble of making a monster, make it special, unique, and interesting. If you simply need a bruiser, build it with the orc or troll lifepaths and make some cosmetic changes.

[Mickeroo]

So I have a race I'm working on right now that really pales in combat, but focuses on either using tactics, or using other people. If they were to get into a fight, there would almost definatly be a few of them. What do you guys think about what Redoid said? About how being outnumbered can make things extremely more difficult? I mean, I wouldn't want to throw like 5 of these 'weakling' at the group only to have a total party kill.

[Viper]

You have to trust that your players are smart enough not to fight to the bitter end - that if things go bad and they start failing steel tests, that they choose run and scream, or beg for mercy. Then, you let them get away, or have the beings take them prisoner.

If their first encounter with them goes badly, then they are likely to think up tactics of their own to defeat them next time.

[luke]

So I have a race I'm working on right now that really pales in combat, but focuses on either using tactics, or using other people. If they were to get into a fight, there would almost definatly be a few of them. What do you guys think about what Redoid said? About how being outnumbered can make things extremely more difficult? I mean, I wouldn't want to throw like 5 of these 'weakling' at the group only to have a total party kill.

Run a few combats with a player you trust. Part of ye olde peer review process. And your fears are EXACTLY WHY we have a peer review process.

-L

[Kublai]

It's really hard to place a fixed rating on any monster in BW. One goblin that's meant to be a mook can get a lucky shot off and incapacitate your knight with one shot. So in this sense, almost all monsters should be rated "CODE RED!!!"

The closest measure I have for determining threat-level is too compare a monster's Superb Damage to my PCs Mortal Wound. Most of the time, though, all my baddies will have a Superb equal to the PCs MW! That means every time my PCs decide to fight, there's a chance they're gonna die. That puts some serious stakes on the table and adds a lot of dramatic tension to combat.

If you're worried about killing off the PCs, so should they! Lots of less threatening monsters will drive off the party faster than one big meanie, so that's a way to reduce risk. But again, combat should be all about risk! Everytime your PCs draw steel, they should be asking themselves "It this worth it?"

[Mickeroo]

There is a player in my group who is a doctor, I mean, she took the actual lifepaths and has surgery and all. Should I take this into consideration, since it will be easier for players to recover? Essentially, would this raise the "challenge rating" or 'level" of the group of players?

[Kublai]

NOOO! :shock:

Recovering takes long enough as it is! Let them enjoy the benefits of the doctor! Gah! They'll still be out for days, weeks, even months at a time despite his skill!