Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8936014" data-attributes="member: 6802951">1. No. I've always seen several potential negatives in this, and no positives.2. This is common in Adventurer's League games where the characters aren't part of a set party, and are a fairly random jumbling as long as they're all the same tier. (Although there is a heavy bias towards the top of the tier.) Occasions where the party don't like the adventure overall are reasonably rare (everyone is there because they like playing D&amp;D), however I don't believe that they specifically like having a character level difference in the party. (The thankfully occasional powertripper aside.)3. Sort of. - A fairly sandbox campaign at tier 3. The houserules in place were not sufficient to keep the power and spotlight time shared evenly among the group. The players were not happy about it because some of them were deliberately not doing things that their characters were capable of and felt that they were limiting themselves, or just felt overshadowed. Fortunately there was no-one in the group who would have enjoyed being significantly more powerful than others and so not avoided overshadowing them.4. I do not like it as a DM. In Adventurer's League it is just one of those things that you have to accept, but running a tier 1 adventure with a 1st level Paladin and then 2 druids, a wizard and a cleric all at level 4 is hard, takes effort away from making the adventure generally more fun for the participants, and I find it generally unpleasant.Similarly for the sandbox campaign. Also did not like having a wide power discrepancy within the party.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 8936014, member: 6802951"] 1. No. I've always seen several potential negatives in this, and no positives. 2. This is common in Adventurer's League games where the characters aren't part of a set party, and are a fairly random jumbling as long as they're all the same tier. (Although there is a heavy bias towards the top of the tier.) Occasions where the party don't like the adventure overall are reasonably rare (everyone is there because they like playing D&D), however I don't believe that they specifically like having a character level difference in the party. (The thankfully occasional powertripper aside.) 3. Sort of. - A fairly sandbox campaign at tier 3. The houserules in place were not sufficient to keep the power and spotlight time shared evenly among the group. The players were not happy about it because some of them were deliberately not doing things that their characters were capable of and felt that they were limiting themselves, or just felt overshadowed. Fortunately there was no-one in the group who would have enjoyed being significantly more powerful than others and so not avoided overshadowing them. 4. I do not like it as a DM. In Adventurer's League it is just one of those things that you have to accept, but running a tier 1 adventure with a 1st level Paladin and then 2 druids, a wizard and a cleric all at level 4 is hard, takes effort away from making the adventure generally more fun for the participants, and I find it generally unpleasant. Similarly for the sandbox campaign. Also did not like having a wide power discrepancy within the party. [/QUOTE]

Verification