D&D General Disparity in PC levels from same party

[Lanefan]

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.

In 1e 9th level IS high level.

 

[James Gasik]

In 1e 9th level IS high level.

It's all relative. I mean, there's even 1e support for 100th level characters (yes, I know that module is ridiculous. But it still amuses me)!

 

[Lanefan]

It's all relative. I mean, there's even 1e support for 100th level characters (yes, I know that module is ridiculous. But it still amuses me)!

BECMI goes to 100, but does 1e?

 

[James Gasik]

BECMI goes to 100, but does 1e?

Yeah, the rules are presented in H4: The Throne of Bloodstone

 

[Distracted DM]

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.

It does. West Marches works quite well in 5e, I ran it for years- characters within 3-4 levels of one-another works fine.

 

[Clint_L]

In 1e 9th level IS high level.

I played my 1e main, a ranger, for about six years across multiple campaigns and I believe he made it to level 11.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, the rules are presented in H4: The Throne of Bloodstone
View attachment 414867

I'm running H2 right now and it's for 16-18 (I've toned it down a bit for my 8th-11th party), I didn't realize H4 went to 100.

 

[Mannahnin]

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....

That makes sense. In my last campaign, a B/X & 5 Torches Deep mashup, the highest level characters only made it to 8th or 9th over three years, but advancement slowed down a lot after 4th or 5th level. And in the last year or so our schedule got more sporadic, where before it had been pretty steady weekly.

Old school Wizards were so awesome they just leveled more slowly.

Depends on what levels you're looking at. In TSR D&D they start expensive but then accelerate and take fewer XP for 7th level than a Fighter does (by 10k in AD&D or 14k in OD&D). The charts are funky.

It's all relative. I mean, there's even 1e support for 100th level characters (yes, I know that module is ridiculous. But it still amuses me)!

BECMI goes to 100, but does 1e?

Yeah, the rules are presented in H4: The Throne of Bloodstone

Expanded spell advancement charts, right? In 2E AD&D advancement in the core books only goes to 20th, but in OD&D and 1E AD&D the rules explicitly allow unlimited advancement except for the classes which have caps (Assassin, Monk, Druid, Bard).

Men & Magic explicitly says there's no limit, but leaves it up to the DM to expand the charts. The Thief advancement chart in Greyhawk and the 1978 PH advancement charts for all classes other than the four I mentioned above include a "xxx,xxx experience points per level for each additional level beyond the [last level shown on table]th" note, with no limit specified, so in OD&D or just using the PH PCs can theoretically advance forever. In AD&D gaining more HP and weapon proficiencies (and NWP if you use the WSG/DSG). The Cleric and MU spell advancement charts end at 29th level (Paladin 20th, Ranger 17th, Illusionist 26th), so as I recall the main thing H4 did was expand those charts.

 

[James Gasik]

Not to mention, 1e certainly had no problem with NPC's of levels beyond 20. For, uh, vast and complex reasons, I'm sure.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

We would never play differing levels ever again. Old school PC death, energy/level drain, and even Wish/Deck of Many Things level-change shenanigans, subjective individual XP awards that not everyone acquires, all of them were disruptive to the party balance, even if it is a perceived imbalance. Some PCs will forever be behind everyone else unless the DM invents some reason to close the gap. And if the DM does decide to close the gap, then the justification for entire system that allowed it in the first place was flawed. Telling someone that they will forever be behind everyone else is rough. A player and friend who has family responsibilities and can't make every session should not be punished by falling behind. Our respect for our real life relationships should matter more than the story.

As a cooperative game, the effective balance/contributions of every player is far more important than this particular illusion of verisimilitude that not everyone is equal. There are already other aspects of the game that can showcase a difference in effectiveness, whether class/subclass/species design components, min-maxing, motivation, engagement, or skill levels in reading, math, reasoning, or cunning. It's a game. At least design the mechanical aspect so that everyone in the same party has the opportunity to contribute equally at the same level.