D&D General Mixed Level Party

[iserith]

Yeah, I just meant when you have characters of the same level, but there is a huge disparity between their abilities. It might be because one player didn't know how to build their character, a few magic items stockpiled to one PC, or one player purposefully chose to be weaker and another min/maxed.

Yes, definitely DMed for groups like this and it was also not a problem. Everyone gets to play what they want to play, and a powerful teammate benefits everyone.

 

[pogre]

I've seen several threads on other sites lately about how one PC is stronger than another, and it is ruining the game for the other players. It got me thinking how we used to run mixed level parties. Sometimes a character would die, and they would start back at level 1, even if the others were level 5. So, my questions to all of you are:

1. Have you ever run a mixed level campaign? If so, how did the players like it?
2. Have you ever run a mixed level short adventure? Did the players like it?
3. Have you ever run a same level campaign, but the power balance so consistent with a three or four level difference? If so, how did the players respond?
4. Lastly, if you have run any of these things - how did you, as DM, like it? Why?

Thanks.

1. Yep. Players were OK with it. I have a player pool of 12 players, but rarely have over six or seven at the table. I often have five. If I had four players only, like the rules are designed for, I think it would be more of a problem.
2. Yep. Again, players were OK with it.
3. Not really.
4. I like it because I like having five or six players at the table - I would be much more careful with level differences if I ran a smaller table as I suggested above.

If a player is in a tier below the party I usually bump them up to everyone else's current tier. This happens from time-to-time because I have players that are scattered throughout the country and only make it to the table a few times a year.

I use traditional XP and divide it - that's the award for the top level PCs. For every level below the top level PCs a character is I add +10% to the XP award. People catch up from missing a session or two pretty quickly. My players have really like this system.

 

[Horwath]

We did that in our 1st campaign in 3.0 in 2000.
Never again.

It's just too much bother for DMs to hassle with when designing encounters.

level loss for resurrection was replaced with -2 drain to Con which can be removed with restoration spell.

 

[AnotherGuy]

A mature DM with a mature set of players should not have any issues.
As others have suggested, players having a pool of characters to choose from helps and obviously as the disparity becomes larger, the trickier it is to design adventures that can accommodate the lower evel characters. The edition may play a role too.

My experience is minimal in this regard, having only had characters with 2-3 levels difference at most.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Early on, I got jumped into an ongoing game where everyone was level 5 and I had to start at level 1 because that was in no way the rules, but the DM was used to 2e..

So whenever combat started, I got to read supplement books while my character cowered like a big hero. So fun. Never again.

 

[Blue]

I've run and played in mixed level parties in AD&D, AD&D 2nd, 3ed, and 5e. Worked okay in all but 3ed - level was too important there. In AD&D 2nd we even had times where there was a pretty drastic change in level.

AD&D & AD&D 2nd it was a feature and you couldn't avoid it. Different classes had different XP charts, and you expected your thief to be a higher level than you magic-user - they both would have the same XP total and be able to adventure together. Those systems greatly slowed advancement after "name level", around 9th, which allowed others to catch up. Plus aroudn there you stopped getting more HPs so the level difference didn't mean quite as much.

5e isn't bad at it because of bounded accuracy. Unfortunately the XP chart isn't really set up for lower level characters to catch up in any meaningful way which makes it hard for a campaign, though a game where you run a stable of characters, perhaps West Marches style, can have it work well.

The DM does need to pay attention to giving chances for all of the characters to have spotlight. Luckily because D&D is such a team game the other characters likely have some opportunities in other pillars of play besides combat where they are better than a higher level character.

 

[iserith]

5e isn't bad at it because of bounded accuracy. Unfortunately the XP chart isn't really set up for lower level characters to catch up in any meaningful way which makes it hard for a campaign, though a game where you run a stable of characters, perhaps West Marches style, can have it work well.

If by "catch up" you mean reach the same level, I'd agree with that, and think that is okay. But they do get close to that level really quickly in my experience. In a past game, for example, we had 7th- and 8th-level characters with a couple of 1st-level characters and those latter PCs were 4th level by session's end, and they hit 8th just a few sessions later. But by then those higher level characters were 9th or 10th level as I recall.

 

[S'mon]

I've seen several threads on other sites lately about how one PC is stronger than another, and it is ruining the game for the other players. It got me thinking how we used to run mixed level parties. Sometimes a character would die, and they would start back at level 1, even if the others were level 5. So, my questions to all of you are:

1. Have you ever run a mixed level campaign? If so, how did the players like it?
2. Have you ever run a mixed level short adventure? Did the players like it?
3. Have you ever run a same level campaign, but the power balance so consistent with a three or four level difference? If so, how did the players respond?
4. Lastly, if you have run any of these things - how did you, as DM, like it? Why?

Thanks.

I have 5e characters come in at half the level of the highest level PC. Works great in 5e (in fact I think it's necessary for the kind of long term sandbox play I like), I wouldn't do it in 3e or 4e. 3e just has too steep a power gradient. 4e every level is effectively +1 to every d20 roll, so you really feel any gap, and just isn't built for the kind of simulationist concerns where variable levels make sense.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Yes. AD&D always used mixed levels as each class leveled at a different rate. Like Fighter needs 2K xp for level 2 and Wizards needed 3K (or whatever).

 

[S'mon]

5E has really tried to move away from it, but I've ran games with multiple levels. The key area are levels 5 and 11, because the power boost is pretty significant, making those under the bar obviously weaker comparatively. While some groups can work with it, a single lv 5 character will completely outshine a party of level 3 PCs. Having a split of levels 4/5 or 10/11 is much more manageable.

Yeah, level 5 is definitely a big break point, level 11 much less so though IME. I have one campaign with three active PC groups, PCs can switch between groups, the highest level PC is 10th (thanks to a Comet card from Deck of Many Things) so new PCs come in at 5th level. The current level spreads by group are 6-9, 7-10, and 7-8. Those all work fine in 5e.