Multi-Level Parties

[Burrahobbit]

I don't know if this has come up yet, but I'm curious as to whether and to what extent it will be practicable to play multi-level parties in the new D&D. I remember doing this quite frequently in 2nd edition (though I should admit that we may have played a little fast and loose with rules back then). In 3rd Edition, while not strictly impossible, the ruleset discouraged multi-level parties. I haven't played 4e but am under the impression that, within a given tier, a multi-level party is pretty doable.

I would like the option to have players start new characters at first or at least a lower level than existing characters without being completely useless or instantly killed in adventures that challenge their higher-level allies. I would like for characters to be able to earn individual xp without throwing things out of whack for the DM.

It looks like the design of the new edition, with, say, an orc still viable at higher levels, should be able to support this as well. Thoughts?

 

[howandwhy99]

If they really are decoupling magic items from class levels, then we may see this. It also depends on what else they silo off.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I imagine it will make things better, though we have done individual XP in all editions (and games) we have played and never worried about it.

 

[ferratus]

Flattening out the attack bonuses and AC will also help with this immensely.

Hopefully it will also make it so you can take lower level henchmen along again without it being a death sentence for your prized irreplacable follower.

 

[Yora]

Apparently the plan is to have nummerical bonuses rise much smaller as one advances in levels as compared to earlier editions. Which would support having characters of different level in a group without having too much fear that lower level characters are instantly killed or have no chance at all to do anything to the enemies.

I like this especially for characters that only later join the campaign, both from new players who join the group and characters to replace others that died or split off for ingame reasons (or because they turned out to be boring). That way you have real incentive to keep your character alive, without crating too much of an imbalance.
And sometimes it just might be a lot of fun to play a knight and squire duo in which one character is clearly stronger than the other. Or some urchins that were picked up by heroes comming through town. It isn't always everything about tactical combat, after all.

 

[Li Shenron]

A 2-3 levels distance between party members should be very much supported by the game. We've always had such difference in our 3e games, due to some players missing sessions and lagging behind, or the occasional level drain (although this may or may not be in the 5e game).

More than that, I am not so sure that this should be high on the priority list. At least, if they flattened the power curve as it seems from the rumours, the gap can be easily larger.

 

[Mark CMG]

For (O)D&D, we played it straight; if you died, you rolled up a new first level character. Sometime during 1E and through 2E, when I DMed, I used a house rule where if someone died they rerolled a new character but advanced that character to the lowest level of the existing party (by XP total) that was in attendance. Essentially, this meant the party always moved forward but there was some definite incentive to stay alive, to preserve institutional memory. And XP was not equally divided in those days and in some cases characters got bonus XP for high stats, early on, as I recall.

Of course, this meant that you didn't want to die on the day when someone showed up who only was there once every month or two. It also meant that the guy who only was there once every month or two would very bravely take point in hopes of advancing through his next character a couple of levels via suicide by monster and rolling up a new PC. I think we sometimes just had someone who was rarely showing up advance the PC he already had in order to avoid such scenarios.

 

[Tallifer]

I like the idea of having characters of different levels in a long running campaign. It did not always work very well in the old days, but it was simply part of every normal game. Whenever a new player joined or an old character died, a first level character replaced him. Because the experience point requirements are very low for the first levels, characters soon caught up to within two or three levels.

When I first started playing the massively multi-player on-line roleplaying game Dark Age of Camelot, the system was hostile toward forming groups of players of disparate levels (the game severely penalized players' experience points per encounter for a level difference of more than one, and low level players could not hit or damage anything a few levels above them). Not fun at all for noobs, who had to struggle alone in the wilderness. When the gods changed the system, it was a fantastic boon for the social atmosphere: now friends could group together regardless of level and help their friends gear up and level up.

No idea how that works in World of Warcraft. I do know however that it does not work so well in the Fourth Edition because of the rapidly scaling bonuses and monsters.

 

[howandwhy99]

Hopefully it will also make it so you can take lower level henchmen along again without it being a death sentence for your prized irreplacable follower.

AD&D specific "Followers" as a high level gained limited resource, which is class-specific is something I strongly doubt we'll see in the core rules. As a supplement, it would be interesting.

 

[trancejeremy]

This was pretty much the norm in the old days, because you had some classes simply needing more xp to level (especially multiclassed characters), while level itself wasn't such a huge factor.

I think a big thing was then that adventuring was more of an endurance race, rather than a sprint that is seems to be today.

So you didn't have a few tough fights, but a lot of lesser ones with a tougher one now and then (which is what spells were saved for).