D&D General Disparity in PC levels from same party

[Umbran]

Are you OK with level differences? Or do you think it would be a problem if your PC was a level lower than everyone else?

It depends on what kind of game is being run, I suppose. But my initial reaction is that major power differences usually lead to dynamics in play that I find unsatisfying.

 

[payn]

It’s interesting to see so little interest in disparate level groups in 5E as BA makes it more doable than the past few editions. Though, it’s interesting how far Paizo went with PF2 to make this work very poorly for groups overall.

 

[Clint_L]

I play 5e using milestone leveling and player characters are all the same level, period. If your character dies or retires, you start your new one at the same level as the rest of the party. It just keeps things balanced and with 5e's mechanics I don't see any good reason for having disparate levels.

 

[Stalker0]

There is a major difference between 1e and 5e in this regard. As noted, in 1e level differences were expected because of xp differences between classes. A level X thief and a level X magic users weren't "equal level" in the way we think of it now.

In 5e terms, I would never want to DM mixed level groups myself, I don't think there is any benefit there. That said, I certainly could, I don't think a level difference is that big a deal....depending on where it happens. A lvl 2 vs a lvl 3...sure that's fine. But if most of the party is level 1 vs a level 2 pc that's a major difference. Or level 4 vs 5, level 5 is just a massive uptick in PC power that it would be seriously noticeable.

 

[Umbran]

It’s interesting to see so little interest in disparate level groups in 5E

Why should we expect players to want their groups to be disparate levels? What is the benefit to them?

 

[payn]

Why should we expect players to want their groups to be disparate levels? What is the benefit to them?

Beats me. This thread was made asking it doesn’t happen much anymore. Maybe they know the benefit?

 

[TwoSix]

Beats me. This thread was made asking it doesn’t happen much anymore. Maybe they know the benefit?

The main reason I can think of is that there a lot of fantasy narratives based around a leader or mentor type (sometimes more than one) mixed with a one or a group of young "chosen ones"; a broader range of levels in the party would reflect that narrative.

I also imagine that for games that favor moderate to high PC lethality, a range of PC levels would demonstrate that desired lethality.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I run a high-level 5e game (10th-15th) which sees disparity in levels for a time, until the stragglers (for various reasons, usually newer characters) catchup. It has not been an issue for our campaign at our levels and the players do not seem to mind it.

 

[haakon1]

Different levels exist in 2 of the 3 3.5e campaigns I’m in (DM 2, play 1). It’s “natural” because it’s caused by players joining at different times or moving characters across campaigns. The XP system allows slow catch-up.

In the 5e Ravenloft campaign I’m a player in, I joined years late at 6th level (now 9th) and starting that high (plus recently rebuilding at 9th for 2024), I feel less attached and comfortable running the character. Starting at 2nd or 3rd when the others were 6th might have been better for me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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!".

Yup, another thing I don't like: worrying about "level appropriate encounters."