D&D General Disparity in PC levels from same party

[Bill Zebub]

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

I think the benefit is indirect. Not that one wants disparate levels for their own sake, but one might want to be able to bring in new players, or replace existing characters with new characters, without skipping levels.

EDIT: There's also some compelling narrative value, imo, to the trope of "seasoned adventurer guiding the newbies". That's easier to do with flatter power curves.

 

[the Jester]

I'm fine with mixed level groups, both in those I run and those I play in, as long as the game mechanics don't basically prohibit it- 4e was terrible for this, and 3e wasn't great for it either. In both cases, the rate of increase of the numbers (hps, attack bonuses, save bonuses, etc) by level was just too much. You could have a party where the pcs were a few levels apart, but more than that and the game fell apart- either there was no challenge for the high level pcs or the low level guys were either doomed or incapable of keeping up.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Now that the kids of the players in the group are getting older they join us sometimes, so I have taken to introducing them at 2nd/3rd level so as to not overwhelm them with their character abilities and let them have a sense of growth. Handing a 9 year old a 7th level warlock as her first real character can be daunting. They get to level up every session or so and get caught up pretty quickly.

 

[haakon1]

Now that the kids of the players in the group are getting older they join us sometimes, so I have taken to introducing them at 2nd/3rd level so as to not overwhelm them with their character abilities and let them have a sense of growth. Handing a 9 year old a 7th level warlock as her first real character can be daunting. They get to level up every session or so and get caught up pretty quickly.

I agree. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe it’s Warlocks (what I play), but it seems like D&D gets more complex with each edition. I was playing Warlock to keep it simple, but at 9th level, there’s a lot more to deal with than pew-pew Eldritch Blast.

 

[Lanefan]

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

In theory the 5e concept of bounded accuracy should work to significantly flatten the overall power curve, thus making mixed-level parties much more viable than they were in 3e (or, from what I gather, 4e).

I'll leave it to others to tell us whether the theory matches the reality.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Things do generally get more complex, but 5th edition was a much needed culling of that complexity. 5th edition is much simpler than 3rd edition. I can't speak to 4th edition.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Thing is, if you remove those other "loss conditions" you get 5e, where the only remaining loss condition is PC death.

Now if you also said PC stats and xp should be untouchable going the other way as well - i.e. that they could never get permanently raised or boosted, and no ASIs - then I'd be closer to being on board because at least it's a consistent viewpoint.

 

[Lanefan]

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

If there's player turnover within a campaign, some long-standing players might be put out of joint if a new player can bring in a PC at the same level without having "earned it". That said, I'm used to the stable-of-characters approach and multiple parties within a campaign, rather than just one single party with static PCs. Rare indeed is the time when I'm DMing a party of all the same level.

Further, even though mixed-level might not be what the players want it might be what they get anyway if the game has level drain, level-granting effects*, xp changers (or, a la 3e, the ability to use xp as a spendable resource), and so on.

* - though players hate losing levels, I've never met a player who didn't love-love-love it when their character somehow managed to suddenly gain one without needing to earn the xp.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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.

How do you feel about sacrificing XP for magic item creation, with the caveat that others could make the sacrifice? The fighter can sacrifice the XP for the new sword, for example. That being an optional loss.

 

[James Gasik]

In theory the 5e concept of bounded accuracy should work to significantly flatten the overall power curve, thus making mixed-level parties much more viable than they were in 3e (or, from what I gather, 4e).

I'll leave it to others to tell us whether the theory matches the reality.

The accuracy isn't the problem, it's the hit points. Somebody upthread talked about starting new characters at level 2-3 to hang with level 6 characters.

A level 3 Fighter in 5e might have, say 31 hit points. They'd better be a ranged build and stay far away from melee, because a CR 4 able to deal 18-22 damage on average isn't abnormal in the slightest- take a normal animal like an elephant, which has an attack that's +8 to hit and deals 3d10+6 damage.

So there's a very good chance that the new character will die, lol, to be replaced by a new low level character ad infinitum, giving them very little chance to "catch up"...