You missed the most important bonus - PC's of various levels can be used together and still present risks to the higher level, without being unhurtable by the lower level.
To a greater extent than usual, yes, though it's hardly ideal to have a large gap. While 5e doesn't scale checks, attacks or saves very quickly, it scales hps and damage quite dramatically, so a much lower-level character could be dropped or killed outright very easily. But, yes, he could participate as meaningfully as anyone else in overcoming any sort of problem that required ability checks. It's, again, reminiscent of the classic game, though for very different mechanical reasons: when exp charts were very different a new/low-level PC could rapidly catch up with the rest of the party, in 5e, Apprentice tier still does that to an extent, /and/ the new PC gets to participate in at least some of the adventuring activity.
Something that apparently wasn't true in 4E, according to most accounts. (My 4E play was very limited.)
You could do maybe a 5-level spread at the outside. Similar to 3.x/PF, in that regard, though at high level, even 3.5/PF characters of the same level could have such a great divergence of attack bonus as to be problematic. In the classic game the level ranges for modules were often around that, as well, things like 4-7 or 8-12, but, as already mentioned, the crazy level charts of the early game tended to have much lower-level PC catch up very quickly.
Mixed level parties are more of an issue in organized play, but have always been part of D&D for some.
In 3e & 4e, there were very clear guidelines to creating characters beyond 1st level, so it wasn't the issue it was in traditional games when the DM insisted replacement characters start at 1st. In 5e, it's practical to have all characters start at 1st level, again, which is pretty cool, IMHO.
With skills it's actually more like +3/4 level due to stat bumps etc, with attack rolls it's 1/1. You're right the 4e curve is shallower than in 3e, but in 4e it applies to *everything* whereas in 3e some abilities won't improve at all.
True, but at least 4e held together for same-level parties. ;P
5e is more like pre-3e in that mixed level groups within about 4 levels just work fine.
W/in 4 levels works fine in any edition. In the classic game, you could have a much larger gap than that, because of the way exp worked you could have a gap between two PCs with the same xp total, and, you could also make it up very quickly because of the way exp worked. Your 8th level character croaks non-resurrectably and your 1st level character is back up to 7th before any of his new buddies reach 9th. In 3e or 4e that wouldn't work, but you also had workable guidelines to just bring in a same-level or one-level-lower character. In 5e, for apprentice tier, at least, you have /both/. Apprentice tier goes very quickly, and generating a PC at higher-than-1st works fine!
But...4 levels apart IS a stat boost in 5e, and an increase in Proficiency. Which gives +2, equivalent to a +0.5 per level.
And it can make a huge difference on the hp side, as well. A 4 level spread in 5e as much as 5x the hps (closer to 2.5 times if you have no con bonus and roll a little low) if it's 1st to 5th level, still close to double if it's 4th to 8th. Damage potential isn't far behind, between extra attacks and scaling with slot level.
The difference is present, I won't question that, but it's smaller than you're making it out to be. "Within 4 levels" in 5e is roughly equivalent to "within 2-3 levels" in 4e...hardly a huge gap.
W/in 4 levels is fine under any ed. In 5e, though, you can get away with a lot more than that, especially out of combat. You could have a Meepo tagging along with a 10th level party and being genuinely helpful in exploration and even social challenges at least some of the time, even if he'd likely die instantly from the first AE damage to blast the party, even on a successful save.
But really, changing the Ability Check's Difficulty Class based upon who is trying the task seems like the best way to handle things.
That'd be a little crazy - and it was something that 4e was
falsely accused of to great effect during the edition war - but it
is technically within the 5e DM's purview. Less crazy and even more legit, though, is for the DM not to call for a roll, at all, from the super-competent specialist, while calling for rolls from others. A +6 vs a +2 may not mean much when you're rollling every time, but if the DM only calls for rolls from the former character when the DC is 17+, the difference is emphasized.
I thought "levelling" the world, up or down, to the PC was considered anathema. Interesting to see it advocated here.
Heh. Though, that was to party level, and the suggestion above was to the /individual PC/. It's one thing to come against higher DCs and deadlier foes as you level, it's another for the DC of the exact same task to customize itself to the individual.
That's good! The problem, of course, is that these mechanics are often somewhat divorced from characters since they are largely *ability dependent*.
Abilities are traits of the characters, so that's in no way divorced from the character. An 18-CHA character is more persuasive than an 8-CHA one, as represented by a +4 vs a -1. The d20 roll can overwhelm that, as can expertise.
It makes little sense that (insert random character here) may succeed at something simply because of a higher ability score when someone else has both the background and skill in it. This is especially true for knowledge-based skills.
If you have the proficiency, then the gap between you and the guy with the higher stat isn't more than 3 or 4, so if one of you succeeds and the other fails, it's more likely because of the results of those d20 rolls.
And, it's not like that's contrary to genre. You have the dumb character occasionally happen to know something the smart one's having trouble remembering right at the moment, or the cool character thump a lock open after the skilled lock-picker is stymied. A little comic relief, just dictated by the dice instead of an author, and thus, perhaps, not always happening with the best comic timing. That's where the DM simply not calling for a roll from the expert can become a good idea.
But lowering the DC for the more-skilled character? Maybe just a little silly, and, more seriously, is essentially working /against/ Bounded Accuracy.
