D&D General Disparity in PC levels from same party

[payn]

Dont care for mixed level groups in games, nor I use XP anymore anyways.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Doesn't bother me any. Eveone can still contribute ideas.

That said, the opponents probably won't have fireball until everyone can take a hit.

 

[John R Davis]

It's fine if that's how the games designed

In our BECMI I think a cleric is 6th, and an elf 4th.
PBTA mark xp differently so progress is not equal
The One Ring as well springs to mind
SPI Dragonquest PCs can have varied xp.

Not seen it in PF1 or 5e. I think you are supposed to be the same

 

[Koloth]

If the levels are within 1 or 2, can work. Too far apart and something like a sleep spell can take the low levels out while ignoring the higher. Almost any AOE spell that does damage can put a low level at risk while leaving the high levels with lots of HP left. Burning Hands vs a 3,3,3,1 party will probably kill the 1 while leaving the 3s slightly singed.

One advantage of 1e is that due to the variable XP curve, low levels catch up fairly fast.

 

[Shiroiken]

I think that the way OD&D, AD&D, and BECMI were designed, level disparity is perfectly fine. When I played, most people had multiple characters of various level, so that they could pick a character appropriate for the adventure. In 2E, we had more story based games, but due to the prevalence of Raise Dead by NPCs (and eventually PCs), we very rarely had a situation where a player ended up significantly behind the party. New players started with the total XP of the lowest character; an affectation that carried on to 3E.

Level disparity was built into 3E, but in a bad way. Level loss due to death meant that there was a built in doom spiral, where the weakest character would die more and more often. I've seen players leave games after their 3rd death in a row, knowing they were just going to die again. The XP system was supposed to give more to the lower level characters, allowing them a chance to catch up again, but IME it never came close to making up for one lost level worth of XP, let alone multiple levels.

I have not seen level disparity during 4E or 5E, and I strongly suspect it wouldn't work very well for either edition.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I am very fond of a mixed level party. It is one of the things I like about Adventurers League.

 

[Distracted DM]

I guess. It’s only the XP/level effects that have been changed, so it’s only really a nerf if your group was actually using XP. And most of the altered effects are like, advantage/disadvantage on all d20 tests for a year, or something similar. Which is far from an insignificant effect.

Ah, I see your confusion- one of them is a year, comet. The others are 3 days.

Comet used to level you- now it gives advantage on death saving throws for a year.
Fool used to lose you a bunch of XP- now it gives you disadvantage on d20s for 3 days.
Jester used to give you a bunch of XP- now it gives you advantage on d20s for 3 days.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If the levels are within 1 or 2, can work. Too far apart and something like a sleep spell can take the low levels out while ignoring the higher. Almost any AOE spell that does damage can put a low level at risk while leaving the high levels with lots of HP left. Burning Hands vs a 3,3,3,1 party will probably kill the 1 while leaving the 3s slightly singed.

One advantage of 1e is that due to the variable XP curve, low levels catch up fairly fast.

Exactly why (or one of the many reasons) I prefer games with flatter leveling curves.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Although I appreciate a lot of things that most people would consider old school, different level/XP totals is not one of them. I also don't care for XP loss for literally anything, or permanent irreversible stat drain, etc. That's one thing I think should be untouchable--a PCs stats and XP.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't mind a minor level difference here and there, I'm more concerned if the players are roughly on the same power level. It's like those old "random PC's" pre-rolled in old school adventures- the ones with the good stats and gear (remember "Ogre the Fighter", armed with an 18/00 Strength but a low level?) typically were multiclassed or lower level than the other picks. The combat bonuses of exceptional Strength mattered a lot more than levels, and with a very high Con, you might not even notice the hit point gap, but you could stand to get hosed by the worse saves (in some cases, a Thief with an 18 Dex basically operates as if they were two levels higher!).

In modern D&D (and D&D-alikes), the power difference has been flattened, so being a level lower isn't really a terrible thing, though there are some benchmark levels where it's noticeable- in my current game, a player joined later, so last session, the Fighter and the Ranger were level 5 with Extra Attack while his Paladin was still level 4.

Still, I would prefer the characters to be all the same level because it makes encounter building smoother. A lower level character means a lower budget, and more enemies the higher level characters would probably laugh at "only +4 to hit? How cute!".