D&D General Disparity in PC levels from same party

[Sacrosanct]

For context, I currently play in a Shadowdark game, 1e game, and 5e game. One thing I noticed in my 1e game is the disparity in PC levels for members of the party. We have two 1st level, a 2nd level, and two 3rd level PCs.

For those not familiar with 1e, that is common, I've been playing 1e since 1981 and pretty much every game has had a level range of the PCs usually within 2-4 levels of each other. Heck, just look at a 1e module and you'll see something like, "For characters levels 5-7." Part of that disparity can be explained by needing different XP for each class. If all PCs got the same XP all the time, you'd have the thief PC probably a level or maybe 2 higher than everyone else, and magic users advancing a lot more slowly. Also in 1e, it was common to have each PC get awarded different XP. Either from tasks (thieves got XP for doing things like successfully picking locks) to how treasure was distributed.

But I don't want to get into the whys, but more of the "how do you feel about it." That is, how do you feel about having an adventuring party of mixed levels? I never really see it in 5e. Even with how XP is more evenly distributed, and better yet, using milestone XP, I've never seen a level difference between PCs. Even those times where a new PC was brought it, they were advanced to the level everyone else is.

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?

 

[Burnside]

I think the mixed-level party is an inevitability in 1E. The idea of "balance" as we think about it today wasn't as prevalent in that era, but the unequal experience level requirements for various classes in 1E actually are an attempt to achieve a level of balance/power parity between classes. Thieves advance faster than everyone else because of the (unspoken) acknowledgement that in practical terms the 1E thief is a mechanically weak class relative to other classes. Paladins and Rangers advance slower than Fighters because (openly acknowledged in this case) Paladins and Rangers are flat-out mechanically better than Fighters in 1E (a Paladin who violates the precepts of their class is reduced in status to being a mere Fighter).

5E generally achieves parity between classes (especially in tiers 1 & 2, and assuming more or less equally skilled players) so having a party including characters of different levels feels weirder. That said, in my experience with Adventurer's League it works fine as long as the characters are still in the same Tier (ie a level 2 character is still gonna feel useful/competent in a party with a level 4 character, but a level 3 character and a level 6 character probably shouldn't be in the same party).

 

[sevenbastard]

My last 5e campaign went about 130 sessions. When your PC died the new one started at half XP of your last charachter. I also tracked XP ( milestones are not for me) so if you missed a session you fell behind.

At somepoint we had a range of levels a few 6th, some 7th and one 8th. It worked.

 

[AlViking]

A couple levels aren't a big deal, as others stated you had staggered leveling in 1e. In 5e I always keep people the same level but I stopped using XP quite a while ago. Its really just a preference thing now.

 

[el-remmen]

I am actually in a current 5E game where there is some times a 1 or 2 level disparity between PCs, but advancement is so blazingly fast, I have never even noticed. Heck, to be honest, I would prefer much slower advancement even if it was just my character and everyone else wanted to keep the rate of advancement. I have long felt that level advancement is ancillary to the point of playing. That is not to say I do not like advancing, but I really don't need to do it more than once or twice a year of real world time.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I use attendance for leveling in my F2F 5e games. You play as many sessions as your level and you advance (so you play 1 session at level one, 2 at level 2, etc). Newer players or those with poor attendance can be quite a bit behind, but catch up relatively quickly.

I recently had a L1 PC in a party who's highest level PC was L6. It's true that they need to be cautious and hang back a bit in a fight, but everyone was aware of that. I don't think anyone e minds it.

 

[aco175]

My current campaign has several henchmen that tag along with the PCs. They are level 11 and the henchmen are about level 5 or 6 in power. They think that they are 11th level and tend to drop a lot. Some may be that I make an adventure for 11th level and not 7th.

 

[sevenbastard]

and tend to drop a lot.

The life of a henchman. Get rich or die trying.

 

[billd91]

We don't see a lot of disparity in levels in 5e these days since we level by milestone in our home games, but in cases where I have seen it (Adventurer's League) it hasn't been a particularly big deal. PCs at the lower end of the tier matched with higher end suffer only a little in the comparison and mostly just seem to need more frequent healing than anything else.
This is a pretty stark contrast with 3e/PF - there, the difference is easily noticed and felt.

When we played AD&D (many years ago), varying levels were common. But pretty much no matter how many levels ahead they were, thieves still kind of sucked. They never really ran away with power or anything because the class was so poorly done. So 14th level thief with 8-9th level party? Worked just fine.

All that said, I do prefer PCs to be the same level because it makes my job as DM easier. I'm glad WotC got rid of any attempt to balance different classes by their XP to level up - it never worked well in the first place.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ve never played in a 5e game with a level disparity between characters, but I don’t think it would be a problem at all, as long as characters are within the same tier. The difference between level 4 and level 5 is much more significant than the difference between level 5 and level 6.