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.

 

[jasper]

I play adventure league so I see level spread regularly, and there not much of problem until you get to end of the corners. And then the glass and hammers meet.

 

[Horwath]

we left the level difference back in 2002/2003, together with XP tracking, never looked back.
it was bad then(in 3.0), it is bad now.


someone missed a session or two? who cares about "free" XP?

they missed out on the fun of D&D, that is all the punishment they need to get for missing out a session.

 

[rmcoen]

In my previous campaign, 4e, new characters joined 1 level behind the other PCs. I had a player who kept switching characters, playing a bit before wanting to try out the next cool story, or the next shiny thing from the most recent splatbook... given that campaign ran 10 years (and 1 month), he didn't want to just wait for the next game. So he was always a level behind, but got to play lots of different ideas. Another player heroically sacrificed their character to save the rest of the party, without chance of resurrection (lost on another plane); she came back one level behind with a new character too. A third player retired his high level character because the character had met all his goals, and it made sense; the new character was a "good friend" of the retired PC. You guessed it, one level behind. The single level of difference didn't matter too much throughout the whole game, although I think the PC-switching player was 2 levels behind at one point. Plus the XP system allowed him to catch up after a few sessions.

In my current campaign (5e), the campaign setting has reasons for a lack of powerful (levelled) people. New PCs are therefore Story-bound at the "level cap" until they trigger/encounter Story reasons for the ability to break the cap. However, I also gave the PCs a "get out of death free" card, so no player permanently died before two of them acquired revivfy. A new player joined the game when the group was 7th level; the new PC was 4th (the level cap). For Story reasons - some of which the party learned after that PC had left the game! - he "remembered old abilities", leveling past the level cap (and catching up). He left just after getting 6th level as the other PCs hit 8th. While under-leveled, he was vulnerable and somewhat inaccurate - compared to the party - but he was still powerful compared to "the world", and was competent in most situations. His PC brought skills to the party that they were lacking, which helped - he was the first PC to get Extra Attack, for example! But he also had a habit of charging into combat, and was the recipient of numerous healing spells and revivifys! That PC retired from the group due to Story reasons...

... The new PC started at 3/3 (i.e. 6th), with a Story reason behind the compromised roundabout "breaking" of the level cap (6th level character, but only 3rd level of power in either class). The rest of the party are 8th level, except one PC who "took a deal" and made it to 9th. Again, the new PC has skills the others don't, AND a backstory and customized gear that fit the campaign world and somewhat compensate for the lower level (like a shield that will block a lethal hit once per expensive-and-lengthy-ritual-replacement). But I also made sure that the new PC was exposed to a "level-enabling trigger" fairly quickly. He'll catch up to the rest of the group, who are level-locked right now.

TL; DR = level gaps haven't mattered across campaigns. But I'm the DM and I control the threats and the gap!

P.S. I did want to call out something someone else said, though: try not to power gap across Tiers. a 4th level PC with 6th level PCs was way more noticeable across that level 5 power up than the same PCs at 5th and 7th!

 

[Lanefan]

In my previous campaign, 4e, new characters joined 1 level behind the other PCs. I had a player who kept switching characters, playing a bit before wanting to try out the next cool story, or the next shiny thing from the most recent splatbook... given that campaign ran 10 years (and 1 month), he didn't want to just wait for the next game.

Unrelated to the rest of your post, I just gotta tip my hat to someone who could keep a 4e campaign going for 10+ years, given that 4e isn't exactly designed to support long-running campaigns. Well done!

 

[Mannahnin]

Unrelated to the rest of your post, I just gotta tip my hat to someone who could keep a 4e campaign going for 10+ years, given that 4e isn't exactly designed to support long-running campaigns. Well done!

How so?

I can see how, put next to AD&D xp requirements, WotC editions' comparatively lower ones look designed for shorter games. Generally with the recommended encounters you can run from 1st to max (20th in 3.x or 5E, 30th in 4E) in a year or two of weekly play. But of course in any edition you can always reduce xp awarded to draw things out.

 

[Lanefan]

How so?

I can see how, put next to AD&D xp requirements, WotC editions' comparatively lower ones look designed for shorter games. Generally with the recommended encounters you can run from 1st to max (20th in 3.x or 5E, 30th in 4E) in a year or two of weekly play. But of course in any edition you can always reduce xp awarded to draw things out.

You can, but at least in 3e when we tried this we found it led to an ever-growing raft of other headaches. We did get a 10+-year (431 sessions) campaign out of it but after about 4th level the DM really had to work at it; and even then it collapsed at about 14th.

4e, with its even tighter design that's very much centered on the 4-character party going 1-30 over about a 90-session run, would seem to make stretching it out even harder. That said, @rmcoen did indicate that campaign saw a fair bit of character turnover, which really helps slow the overall progression when new characters come in a level behind; but that alone can't explain spinning it out to 10 years.

I'm guessing that campaign was mostly using homebrew adventures as well; the official 4e adventures assume the PCs bump a few times within the single adventure, meaning that with slowed or flat advancement those adventures will either be too easy at the beginning or too deadly at the end.

 

[rmcoen]

You can, but at least in 3e when we tried this we found it led to an ever-growing raft of other headaches. We did get a 10+-year (431 sessions) campaign out of it but after about 4th level the DM really had to work at it; and even then it collapsed at about 14th.

4e, with its even tighter design that's very much centered on the 4-character party going 1-30 over about a 90-session run, would seem to make stretching it out even harder. That said, @rmcoen did indicate that campaign saw a fair bit of character turnover, which really helps slow the overall progression when new characters come in a level behind; but that alone can't explain spinning it out to 10 years.

I'm guessing that campaign was mostly using homebrew adventures as well; the official 4e adventures assume the PCs bump a few times within the single adventure, meaning that with slowed or flat advancement those adventures will either be too easy at the beginning or too deadly at the end.

Entirely homebrew campaign. I used the suggested XP awards initially, with characters leveling about every other session. Then in the teens it slacked off. The campaign ended with most characters at 28th, one having completed his Epic Destiny (the retired one).

Duration also had a lot to do with us all working, half of us with kids; our standard schedule is every other week, on a weeknight, for 3-4 hours....

 

[TigerDude]

Old school Wizards were so awesome they just leveled more slowly. So a typical party would start to see a little separation. Old school Thiefs were so sad that you needed to play for years before your percentage rolls for hide and such were over 50%, so being a little higher level didn't mean much. I saw somebody talk about high level characters here, and my experience was high level characters were almost myths. I played AD&D for 3 years most weeks and only got to L9 before a new guy & PVP destroyed the party.