Level Differentials for PCs

[Arnwyn]

While I've seen a few people post above that they only like 1 level differences, I haven't had a problem with 2-3 level gaps at lower levels, and 7+ level gaps at very high levels. So it's not much of a problem for my campaigns.

I'm probably in the minority, though.

 

[DiFier]

I haven't had to deal with a level gap but an attribute gap. at low level when you roll up charachters it often sucks. I have an average AU charachter but everyone else left in our game has at least one amazing stat. (the other people who left were average or below average) of course the guy with the really high strength dominates the game. killing everything as the rest of us get chopped up. I hope that it's not such a big deal at higher levels.

maybe atteibutes effects level differences too.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I haven't had to deal with a level gap but an attribute gap. at low level when you roll up charachters it often sucks. I have an average AU charachter but everyone else left in our game has at least one amazing stat. (the other people who left were average or below average) of course the guy with the really high strength dominates the game. killing everything as the rest of us get chopped up. I hope that it's not such a big deal at higher levels.

maybe atteibutes effects level differences too.

That's why I only use point buy these days. Saw too many characters who totally dominated because of a lucky roll, or characters who just weren't fun for their players because of a bad roll.

 

[Endur]

It all depends.

A party where all the characters are the same level is ideal, but rarely happens.

Just look at the Fellowship of the Ring. 9 characters, 1 epic wizard (Gandalf), 1 level 20 Ranger/Fighter (Aragorn), several high level fighters(Boromir, Gimil, Legolas), and four rogue/commoner hobbits.

As others have pointed out, a severe level disparity can cause "player" issues in that someone might feel that they don't get to fight the Big Evil Guy, or their character has to be a minion.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

I've got a 3 level gap (12th level cleric, 14th level wizard, about to go up to 15th). Most of it is my "no-show" rule. If you don't show up, the rest of the group plays your character as an NPC, and you get half xp. So far, it's not been a problem, despite the combat-heavy campaign, because the group's really conservative about protecting their healer.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My campaign has party levels at present of 12, 11, 11, 10, 10, 9.

This has come to pass because of numerous PC deaths during the campaign, but using the xp method which awards more xp to lower level characters means that over a period of about 3 levels they tend to catch up (the top 11th level will become 12th at the next xp session and will stay next to him for another 2-3 sessions probably).

I wouldn't want bigger than a 3 level gap, and if the 9th and the 12th level were the same class there would be obvious difficulties. As it is the 9th level character is the only divine caster and as such has niche's which they alone can fill, so they don't feel left out.

Cheers

 

[K'Plah Q'Houme]

As a player I think that it would not be fun to play in a campaign where there was a great level gap. I think it splits the pc in a negative way. It is important that the characters are equal, or as equal as they can be. I would say no more than one level is acceptable between characters...

 

[Saeviomagy]

It all depends.

A party where all the characters are the same level is ideal, but rarely happens.

Just look at the Fellowship of the Ring. 9 characters, 1 epic wizard (Gandalf), 1 level 20 Ranger/Fighter (Aragorn), several high level fighters(Boromir, Gimil, Legolas), and four rogue/commoner hobbits.

I think you're wrong about this

I think you've handed out levels to some of the characters based on what their history says (notably aragorn, gandalf and the hobbits) rather than what they actually DO.

Assuming that the balrog isn't your ordinary garden D&D balrog, but instead some lesser demon (probably with a DR that noone else can overcome, like 15/good or something), Gandalf doesn't actually do that much. He knows a lot, lives for a long time, casts summon monster IV, break enchantment and telekinesis. And uses his decent charisma to lead people.

Aragorn kills a few orcs and leads an army.

The hobbits manage to fight it out with a fair few pretty big critters too.

So all in all - gandalf sets the party level at 9th (for telekinesis, assuming it doesn't come from a magic item). The others seem to compete at that same level.

 

[Gnimish88]

I think you're wrong about this

I think you've handed out levels to some of the characters based on what their history says (notably aragorn, gandalf and the hobbits) rather than what they actually DO.

Assuming that the balrog isn't your ordinary garden D&D balrog, but instead some lesser demon (probably with a DR that noone else can overcome, like 15/good or something), Gandalf doesn't actually do that much. He knows a lot, lives for a long time, casts summon monster IV, break enchantment and telekinesis. And uses his decent charisma to lead people.

Aragorn kills a few orcs and leads an army.

The hobbits manage to fight it out with a fair few pretty big critters too.

So all in all - gandalf sets the party level at 9th (for telekinesis, assuming it doesn't come from a magic item). The others seem to compete at that same level.

I think most people will agree that it is generally a poor idea to try to make comparisons between D&D and various movies or books. Even assuming Endur is right about the party level distribution, what portion of the gaming community would want to play Sam if they had to compete with Gandolf? Most would rather go with the Gimli/Legolas/Aragorn group for power distribution.

 

[Agback]

Just look at the Fellowship of the Ring. 9 characters, 1 epic wizard (Gandalf), 1 level 20 Ranger/Fighter (Aragorn), several high level fighters(Boromir, Gimil, Legolas), and four rogue/commoner hobbits.

I don't agree with Saeviomagy, because I think that Gandalf an Aragorn do stand out from their backgrounds to about the extent you suggest, and do overshadow the hobbits about as you indicate.

But I do disagree with some of your class assignments.

Aragorn has lay-on-hands powers of healing and curing (eg. when he cures Éowyn, Faramir, and Merry of the Black Breath in the Houses of Healing). I'd say he was a ranger-paladin rather than a ranger-fighter.

Gandalf has powers to turn demons and undead, and curative abilities (he chips in with Elrond to heal Frodo of the Morgul-knife wound). I think he might be a cleric or cleric-druid rather than an arcane caster, and if he is an arcane caster he's definitely a sorceror rather than a wizard. But it is probably most accurate to consider him a celestial.

Boromir and Gimli are fighters right enough, but I have my doubts about Legolas. Monk might be the best way to do him.

Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are anything but commoners. Pippin is the eldest son of the Thane of the Shire, and Merry is the eldest son of the Master of Buckland. And although the Baggins are untitled, and not as wealthy as the Tooks (at least before Bilbo's adventures they weren't), they are 'more respectable', and certainly in the class where they intermarried freely with the Tooks and the Brandybucks. So I'd do all three as aristocrats.

Sam is a commoner, or possibly a commoner-expert.

You might want to multiclass in some rogue on the basis of Merry's sneak attack on the Nazgûl, but I'd attribute any extraordinary effect of that on the banes against Angmar woven into the barrow-blade, and just say that it was a coup-de-grace delivered on an unaware target. As for the hobbits (except Sam's) general stealthiness, I'd put it down to a racial bonus and high DEX.

Regards,


Agback