D&D General Disparity in PC levels from same party

[James Gasik]

At least with 3.x, the xp you got from encounters was directly based on your level, so that you could in fact "catch up" (this is why item creation wasn't that big of a deal as most thought it was).

In AD&D, the differences between levels is very slight, which is why multiclass characters are so strong at higher levels, when you could be a Wizard (or M-U) 10 and someone else could be a Fighter 9/Wizard 9, because typically the xp to go up a level (most of the time, there were somewhat random shifts at certain levels) was equal to all the xp you've earned to this point. Also, a level of class A is not equal to a level of class B- compare and contrast the abilities of a Fighter 5 vs. a Thief 7 as an example.

Expanding on GrimCo's point: a thing with 5e is that the difference between levels varies depending on what stage of the game you're in. At low levels, you get new abilities all the time, and you notice the hp bumps more readily. By the higher levels, you have many dead levels (unless you're a spellcaster) where not a lot happens, and once you have 80 hit points, another 6 or 7 isn't as big a deal as it was back when you had 20.

-Curiously, this is a big reason why I see a lot of multiclassing after levels 5-7 for several classes: when you realize it might be 5-6 levels before you get anything interesting from your class, and that there's another class that's going to give you new abilities right over there...it's really tempting!

 

[nevin]

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?

View attachment 413543

not if the powerlevel trivializes the lower level PC's. In 1E levels weren't a good indication of power level.They were simply markers for each PC. Thus your paladin and Your Mage would be lower level than the rogue and the Warrior but they'd all play together just fine. As long as it works that way fine. If we are allowing some characters to over power the others because of decisions, GM fiat etc then NOPE.....not as a player not as a GM.