Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7478044" data-attributes="member: 97077">My comments with regard to the specific playstyles you cite are in my previous post.That a low-level character can die from massive damage doesn't mean he or she will or that he or she cannot meaningfully contribute during play. And the level range at which a character is likely to die from massive damage is, as I said before, very small indeed. From a practical standpoint, it is just not a concern provided the player has some control over the sorts of situations in which the character finds itself and can act with agency to avoid or mitigate these kinds of results. I would say this is a theoretical issue, not one that is very likely to occur during play. It also completely ignores meaningful contributions in other pillars of the game.As to the specific poster you mention, I have blocked him until this thread falls off the front page due to what I perceive as engaging in bad-faith discussion. So I can't really comment on posts that this poster made going forward.Unless we're talking about the DM engaging in "gotchas" (which I would say is bad DMing), then the player has at least some say in being in the situation that leads to the combat. What you suggest, unless I'm reading you incorrectly, is that the player just doesn't have any real choices here, either before or during the encounter. I don't think that's the intended mode of play. It therefore couldn't really be laid at the feet of characters of disparate levels being unable to meaningfully contribute in my view.I suppose nobody can stop a player from wanting to have the character commit suicide. That can be true at any level or in parties with same-level PCs. I don't see this as a problem of having characters of different levels in the party. I would say this whole matter could be set aside.In fact, I think meaningful contribution happens in all three pillars. That some folks have been focusing solely on combat is a mistake, perhaps even a willful oversight, in my view. That's not a great way to judge whether a character of lower-level can function alongside higher-level PCs as I see it.I would like for you to go into detail on your experience if you're willing to do so, as others have. As an interesting data point, if nothing else. If I remember correctly, most of the people in this thread who have practical experience with PCs of different levels think it works fine due to D&D 5e's design.I would add that my "playstyle" is based on my understanding of the rules of the game. You would expect to see my playstyle change in some other game as those rules may create different expectations. My assertions or objections to the assertion that lower-level characters can't meaningfully contribute are based on that understanding. If someone has an approach that so diverges from the expectations that can be reasonably derived from the rules (perhaps said person plays the game as if it is some other game), then I would concede that in those kinds of games, yes, perhaps a lower-level character cannot meaningfully contribute. But even then, the only objections so far have been to the combat pillar which ignores other avenues of meaningful contribution. Further, the specific outcomes that were cited in previous examples can be due to many other factors outside of the ability of lower-level PCs to contribute and can also apply to parties of the same level. I would say that makes it insufficient to support the claim that lower-level PCs cannot meaningfully contribute in a party with higher-level PCs.And as a matter of making sure I'm being understood, I will also mention again that none of what I'm saying is an argument for or against using XP or that anyone should have characters of different levels in the party. My argument is very narrowly aimed at assertions that characters of lower-level cannot meaningfully contribute in a party with higher-level PCs.</blockquote>

Verification