Missed session catch-up XP

[iserith]

I was just responding to: The same opportunity applies in almost any situation - you create your victories. Anything outside of that situation I would say is probably an outlier.

I don't see how a statement like that can be taken as anything other than what you said. Good tactics equals the PCs, even the low level ones, surviving. In the game where I played, there was no amount of party tactics that could have saved the 1st level PCs.

Then that was likely a bad DM and a bad scenario. It happens. I still refute what you're saying though unless the scenario was presented unfairly. You were in the position to be targeted. You shouldn't have been. If you had no choice in that, then that's bad on the DM or the scenario.

I could run through any number of scenarios where low level PCs would not survive encounters I typically throw at a mid-to-high level party if the monsters are being run intelligently. Then again, my monsters regularly attack the guys in the back if they're annoying and I rarely do traditional old school dungeons. If you gave me a way to deal with the hill giants throwing boulders at the guy in the back I missed it.

Go upthread to find it if you want.

At least we're in agreement that one of us (well,okay probably both of us) are full of it. I think you're dismissive of people saying that it's not fun to play low level characters with a high level group. You seem to think that party cohesion and cooperation is some kind of magical unicorn fairy dust that will protect low level PC, and that if they do die it's probably "an outlier".

I can't believe this. You keep saying I'm saying something that I'm not. You either still don't understand my point, which I've carefully restated over and over using different words and approaches, or you're willfully behaving as if you don't.

Either way, I'm not continuing to discuss this topic with you. On to more productive things. I think anyone reading in good faith will know that I really don't care whether people find it fun to play low-level characters alongside higher-level characters and that my disagreement lay with assertions that they cannot meaningfully contribute. That's all that matters now.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The best thing that happened to me as a DM was discovering West Marches style of campaigns. You don't need the same four players to show up each time to run the adventure. Each session is discrete and can have any combo of the player pool present. Heck, I've even run sessions for just one player. You can successfully have different levels of characters playing together. You could have new players playing with more experienced players against lower threats. Or against higher threats. More experienced players could even create new 1st level characters to accompany the new players' 1st level characters on a simple mission. Then when the new characters are a little less squishy, they might join some of the beefier leveled-up PCs on more dangerous quests. Players can enjoy a "back-up" character in this way if they want. Or not. The permutations are plentiful. Character deaths happen, and not just due to level discrepancy. Sometimes the party needs to retreat if there is a deadly threat to the group - and then send a more prepared strike force at some point in the future that is well-equipped for the challenge the first group discovered (if it is still there!). We don't need to award "catch up" XP in some arbitrary or "unearned" manner. High level characters can find fun in exploration or interaction along with low level characters. It's not all about chasing increasingly higher XP each session as the campaign progresses. It's about having fun.

That said, in another campaign we just had a new player join and I had him start at 1 level lower than current lowest member of the party (which ended up being level 5). It worked just fine and everyone had fun. The rule for that campaign is that if a PC irrevocably dies, a new PC can be created two levels lower than the dead one. Players are ok with that and have been fine with the varied levels of the PCs for the almost two years we've been at it..

In another recently completed Curse of Strahd campaign, however, I made up some out-of-session reasons for an oft-absent player to "catch up" to keep all four players at the same XP level. Other times, we played the absent character as a party NPC. It just made bookkeeping easier for that particular group. It worked fine and everyone had fun.

So, I've experimented with the leveling up strategy a bit. All of these variations seem to work well and do not diminish the enjoyment at our tables. YMMV.

 

[Oofta]

Then that was likely a bad DM and a bad scenario. It happens. I still refute what you're saying though unless the scenario was presented unfairly. You were in the position to be targeted. You shouldn't have been. If you had no choice in that, then that's bad on the DM or the scenario.

If by "in a position to be targeted" you mean in the room that combat was happening then guilty as charged.

Go upthread to find it if you want.

I did go up thread. You had a pair of dragonborn tanking, with the low level guy behind them. Which gives the low level guy cover for a +2 to AC. The hill giant has a +8 to hit so he's still going to hit that lowly sniper roughly half the time.

I can't believe this. You keep saying I'm saying something that I'm not. You either still don't understand my point, which I've carefully restated over and over using different words and approaches, or you're willfully behaving as if you don't.

You keep saying things like somehow the low level PC should (almost) never be a target of an attack. That our PCs died because of poor party tactics or bad DMing even though you have no idea what the PCs or DM did.

So here's some scenarios from my my last campaign on some fights I threw at my level 10 party. I'd like to know what tactics could have been invoked to protect a low level character. Let's say the group has a level 1 PC with them, we'll call him Les. I've presented them as if they are sequential and IIRC this is the sequence the group hit them in.

First fight is set in the courtyard of a ruined castle. Roughly an open area 40X60.

Opponents: Adult Red Dragon (CR 10) being ridden by an Evoker (CR 9).

If Les is caught in an AOE of either opponent he's dead even if he makes his save. How does he survive other than not showing up?

Second encounter (in caverns beneath the castle) they face a pair of Yochlol (CR 10). These are wide open natural caverns, with the encounter starting in a cave area roughly 20X30 with a 20 ft ceiling. There are a handful of branches going off into the darkness. Yochlol can travel around in mist form, and have spider climb. They can basically target anyone in the party. Their tactics are to web from the shadows and scurry around the area using their spider climb or misty form attacking whoever looks weakest. Les can't be protected from something that can drop down from the ceiling - if Les is hit he's dead even if he makes his save vs poison.

Third encounter - they meet the boss. He's in a large cavern, roughly a 100 ft squarish. It's a Nalfashne (CR 13). He flies and has 10 ft reach. Unless the PCs can stop him from flying, there's nothing that stops him from getting to Les. If Les is targetted, he's dead. The stated tactics for the demon is to sail over the front line fighters and attack the weaker enemies hiding in the back.

These aren't particularly deadly fights for my party, made sense in context of the story and just the first three encounters for that adventuring "day".

You keep claiming that good tactics will somehow save Les. I don't see how - even if he's 2nd or 3rd level Les is toast.

 

[Blue]

This is not a comment debating if it works, it's a question about where it works best.

5e is a lot more forgiving about level differences due to bounded accuracy. But it still has a lot of the sacred cows of power gates like max spell levels, number of attacks, etc.

For those that have practical experience with mixed level groups, what is the point below the median party level where it breaks down?

For example, a character a level below or above the average level shouldn't make a big difference at all. But a 1st level character running with a bunch of 20ths will not be able to contribute and will probably be taken out by "trivial" challenges like an area of effect spell or a trap unless the DM changes style to protect them.

So, if we have a range from "this is fine" to "this isn't fine", where's the practical breakdown that it doesn't work anymore? (And it doesn't have to be static.)

Half level? Above / below the level 5 (and/or level 11) power bump? Different tiers of play? (AL has a rule specifically about this.) Half/double the median level?

I'm specifically interested in the party median levels I spend the most time playing, say 5 to 15. Can a 1st tier character contribute consistently when the median party level is over that range? Or would you suggest capping at a full tier behind, so once the median party is in the third tier, new characters come in at the start of second tier?

 

[Seramus]

For those that have practical experience with mixed level groups, what is the point below the median party level where it breaks down?

Mechanically, my experiences were different depending on the average level. Between 1-4 the differences were pretty extreme even one level to the next, but strongly noticeable with a level difference of 2. At higher levels a wider gulf had less impact, but even then I noticed the difference having a definite impact with a level difference of 3-4.

Emotionally, it seems to revolve around benchmark levels. For example, the biggest frustration/disappointment I've seen came when a level 4 melee character was in a party with other level 5 melee characters and watched them use their extra attack. Likewise, I've seen some frustration/disappointment when spellcasters are an even level while the rest of the party is at an odd level. Not having that Fireball, Forcecage, or Ressurection when another character in the party does had a negative impact on morale.

When there was nobody else to compare themselves with, things went a little easier?

 

[Oofta]

This is not a comment debating if it works, it's a question about where it works best.

5e is a lot more forgiving about level differences due to bounded accuracy. But it still has a lot of the sacred cows of power gates like max spell levels, number of attacks, etc.

For those that have practical experience with mixed level groups, what is the point below the median party level where it breaks down?

For example, a character a level below or above the average level shouldn't make a big difference at all. But a 1st level character running with a bunch of 20ths will not be able to contribute and will probably be taken out by "trivial" challenges like an area of effect spell or a trap unless the DM changes style to protect them.

So, if we have a range from "this is fine" to "this isn't fine", where's the practical breakdown that it doesn't work anymore? (And it doesn't have to be static.)

Half level? Above / below the level 5 (and/or level 11) power bump? Different tiers of play? (AL has a rule specifically about this.) Half/double the median level?

I'm specifically interested in the party median levels I spend the most time playing, say 5 to 15. Can a 1st tier character contribute consistently when the median party level is over that range? Or would you suggest capping at a full tier behind, so once the median party is in the third tier, new characters come in at the start of second tier?

I think it depends a lot on tier. The difference between a level 4 character and a level 1 is pretty big. Even the difference between level 3 and 1 is large. I can't imagine a 1st level character surviving long in many groups that are higher than that when a single hit or failed saving throws goes from full health to dead. Unless of course the low level PC has plot armor.

For AL, it's generally a spread of 4 levels. It's noticeable, but still works. Not my preference for a home game, but that's the biggest gap I've had personal experience with.

It's not just about ability to hit or the DC of saving throws, it's the number of spells, hits, rages, defenses and HP. Many of those things depend on your campaign. For example, in my games we regularly have 5-10 encounters (typically fights but can include other resource using encounters) between long rest. Many classes will be more impacted by level differences in my campaign that have fewer encounters. Having a couple more rages for a barbarian won't matter if they don't use them all.

 

[iserith]

I'm specifically interested in the party median levels I spend the most time playing, say 5 to 15. Can a 1st tier character contribute consistently when the median party level is over that range? Or would you suggest capping at a full tier behind, so once the median party is in the third tier, new characters come in at the start of second tier?

I think this comes down to what you mean by "contribute." A lower-level character can meaningfully contribute, so far as my practical experience tells me, quite well in a higher-level group. The disparity I've personally seen is 7 levels. If you're thinking "contribute" means "do as much damage as the higher-level barbarian," then you quite rightly will think that the lower-level PC isn't meaningfully contributing. I think that's a terrible metric though, even among same-level characters. There are so many other ways to meaningfully contribute.

And the other thing that I think is ignored is that the 5th-level PC is going to be 6th level - more capable, more survivable - in 3 Medium encounters if the party is going up against CR 15 threats. I saw a 1st-level character go up to 4th level in one session when traveling with 6th- to 8th level characters. He was 2nd level after a single encounter. So even if someone believes (wrongly, in my view) that a lower-level PC can't meaningfully contribute in combats alongside higher-level PCs (which also ignores meaningful contributions in two-thirds of the pillars of the game by the way), you're spending almost no appreciable time doing that since you're leveling up very quickly. Perhaps really quickly in apprentice tier and beyond that "sweet spot" where the level gain is slower. Once into the higher levels, I understand advancement come even faster by design.

 

[iserith]

Mechanically, my experiences were different depending on the average level. Between 1-4 the differences were pretty extreme even one level to the next, but strongly noticeable with a level difference of 2. At higher levels a wider gulf had less impact, but even then I noticed the difference having a definite impact with a level difference of 3-4.

Emotionally, it seems to revolve around benchmark levels. For example, the biggest frustration/disappointment I've seen came when a level 4 melee character was in a party with other level 5 melee characters and watched them use their extra attack. Likewise, I've seen some frustration/disappointment when spellcasters are an even level while the rest of the party is at an odd level. Not having that Fireball, Forcecage, or Ressurection when another character in the party does had a negative impact on morale.

When there was nobody else to compare themselves with, things went a little easier?

Our group just thinks about this differently, I guess. I recall us being elated when the first character in the party got Extra Attack. The group's overall efficiency improved which allowed us to earn more XP per session which allowed everyone else to advance faster. There was certainly no resentment, frustration, or disappointment there. Outside of any fun in-character rivalries, there's no competition between PCs.

 

[Seramus]

Our group just thinks about this differently, I guess.

Oh, definitely! My group actually feels bad if they are higher level than another player, like they are 'flaunting' their powers or stealing the spotlight even when the player in question explicitly said he didn't mind. They can be TOO accommodating. They take "No player left behind" to a new level.

I should count my blessings that I have so many team players at my table, but sometimes I wish they had more initiative. There was literally a stalemate when we tried to decide where to get food one day. "Oh, I'm happy with anything. Whatever you want" was met with "No, no, whatever you want! I'm easy."

 

[Oofta]

I think part of my dissonance with the whole theory of having a low level character joining a high level group and leveling incredibly quickly is that levels are supposed to reflect roughly learning, training and getting better at your job through experience.

That kind-of works when people advance together. You get better over time through repetition and practice. If I want to become a race car driver, I start out with a go-cart learning how to steer, brake and when to apply the throttle. I learn and ingrain the basics of the physics of driving fast and then I graduate to slightly faster cars. Maybe I start getting into sports car racing where I have to pay more attention to mass and acceleration. Eventually I work into the top leagues and I'm doing formula 1.

But throwing people into a high level game seems artificial to me. It's like throwing a novice driver into a formula 1 race and after a couple races being lapped by everyone (assuming they don't get killed) suddenly they're a pro driver. They bypassed all those hours of training and just gained the skill via osmosis?

To me there would be no sense of earning those levels, especially if I'm a front-line fighter who does nothing but hide in the back. Since I don't really "earn" those levels, why bother? It feels like filling out unnecessary paperwork with no value in order to be official.