Level Disparity in 5e?

[Iguanodon]

Newbie DM here. For the first time, I'm faced with a situation where some of the PCs might end up with different amounts of experience points due to missing sessions, and this would result in a level difference for a little while. I know that in 5e, parties of characters with different levels still work, and everyone can still contribute meaningfully in and out of combat. However, this is a low level party and I'm not sure if that logic applies as much at low levels (especially regarding HP totals and archetypes).

Also, it might be too harsh to gimp the PCs' progression just because of scheduling issues. And it would be weird to level someone up right after a missed session (like they didn't work for it).

Some DMs (including most of the ones I've played under) just keep the same XP total for the whole group, and some DMs allow really big level differences (like starting new characters at level 1 in high level parties). I have yet to see any discussion about this on here yet, so I'll pose the question:

Level disparity in low level parties in 5e, yes or no?

[Douche]

If you want to encourage people to come to every session, then do this: The party levels up, one guy missed it. Have him be a level behind for that session. Next session he is caught up again.

It is a small, non-permanent punishment that will give players extra motivation to make every session.

[Rhaegar]

How big of a level disparity are you talking about. If it's just one level, players can catch up quickly just due to the experience curve, and the power difference is unlikely to be noticed. If the level difference is 3+ levels than definitely some people could feel a bit weaker.

You can always offer catch up experience where lower level players earn twice as much xp as higher levels. They may feel a little weaker for a little while, but they won't quite feel like you're giving them free levels without working for it. You can even give in game RP reasons as they are spending their evenings training under their higher level counterparts who offer them tips on how to be better adventurers.

[MaxWilson]

Newbie DM here. For the first time, I'm faced with a situation where some of the PCs might end up with different amounts of experience points due to missing sessions, and this would result in a level difference for a little while. I know that in 5e, parties of characters with different levels still work, and everyone can still contribute meaningfully in and out of combat. However, this is a low level party and I'm not sure if that logic applies as much at low levels (especially regarding HP totals and archetypes).

Also, it might be too harsh to gimp the PCs' progression just because of scheduling issues. And it would be weird to level someone up right after a missed session (like they didn't work for it).

Some DMs (including most of the ones I've played under) just keep the same XP total for the whole group, and some DMs allow really big level differences (like starting new characters at level 1 in high level parties). I have yet to see any discussion about this on here yet, so I'll pose the question:

Level disparity in low level parties in 5e, yes or no?

Yes. In fact I've run campaigns where I have the players roll 1d3 for their starting level instead of starting at level 1, specifically to create some level disparities in the short term. In fact it's not rare at my table to see low-level characters (1st through 3rd) in play at the same time as medium-high level characters (9th through 14th). My observation is that 1st level characters are fragile but still contribute; by the time you hit 3rd level you're quite useful; and you quickly hit 6th or 7th level and become a real powerhouse.

There've been combats where the 8th level Ranger NPC was unfortunately doing more damage and influencing the outcome more than the 10th level (I think) Paladin of Vengeance or the 9th(?) level Death Cleric, simply because he was consistently hitting each round and applying Sharpshooter damage + Colossus Slayer. I say "unfortunate" because I don't like having NPCs be the heroes of a particular battle, which is why I wasn't having him use his spells in combat (and was later secretly relieved when that NPC died in battle to an Intellect Devourer). But it does prove the point that a PC doesn't have anything to worry about at my table if a little bit of level disparity creeps in.

If your campaign is extremely combat-heavy and metagamey, encouraging heterogenous-levelled play might or might not work for you, but if your gut feel says you want to do it, give it a shot.

[Desamir]

If you want to encourage people to come to every session, then do this: The party levels up, one guy missed it. Have him be a level behind for that session. Next session he is caught up again.

It is a small, non-permanent punishment that will give players extra motivation to make every session.

IMO, if a player needs motivation other than "I get to play D&D" they shouldn't be playing. D&D is supposed to be fun. If a player is missing sessions for non-essential reasons, it's time to talk to the player about whether they want to continue playing, not impose punishments.

[MBControl]

I like level disparity. I think it makes things feel realistic. In every group there are those that are stronger and weaker. I even had some campaigns. Where the higher level characters would tease the lower level character (in good fun) about it. It made for some fun role play.

As far as the lower level disparity goes, I think that all characters from level 1-3 can be pretty squishy, and it takes a very short time to get by those levels and catch up out in the 4-6 levels.

Frankly our campaign has skipped lvls 1-3 anyway because the players find it boring. There are good arguments for and against this, so I'm not really suggesting that this is the solution.

[Iguanodon]

Thanks for the thoughts, guys. My real goal here is to avoid making the game feel unrewarding for anyone, through "free" levels or lack of progression.

I think I'll probably give all of any quest XP, and none of the combat XP, to anyone who misses a session. Still not sure how to handle leveling, though (especially at these low levels where getting an archetype is such a huge deal).

[mephnick]

IMO, if a player needs motivation other than "I get to play D&D" they shouldn't be playing. D&D is supposed to be fun. If a player is missing sessions for non-essential reasons, it's time to talk to the player about whether they want to continue playing, not impose punishments.

That's been my opinion for a while. I'm not going to punish some guy by denying him levels because he has to take care of his kids, just as I'd be pretty disappointed if I always had to play at half the level of the rest of the group because I actually have responsibilities. At the same time I understand how that might feel kind of lame to the people that show up every week. But my players are adults who understand that "we get to play D&D tonight" is the reward and the people missing out are already living the punishment.

But yes, level disparity isn't really a big deal if the group accepts it.

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for the thoughts, guys. My real goal here is to avoid making the game feel unrewarding for anyone, through "free" levels or lack of progression.

I think I'll probably give all of any quest XP, and none of the combat XP, to anyone who misses a session. Still not sure how to handle leveling, though (especially at these low levels where getting an archetype is such a huge deal).

I can guarantee you that anyone who misses sessions will not feel a lack of progression. If you're level 3 when everyone else is level 6, you will be levelling faster than everyone else due to the shape of the XP table. You could grant them 0% share of XP when they are not around and they won't feel a lack of progression, because the only times they're not progressing is when they're not in play.

That isn't to say that your idea of granting quest XP to absent players doesn't have merit--maybe you'd do that to avoid making them feel like they did all the quest work but unfairly missed the payoff because they weren't there for the conclusion. But there will be no problem with "lack of progression" if you have heterogenous levels. Probably the opposite in fact. When the other PCs are doing crazy dangerous things and taking on 13th-30th level threats, low levels seem to fly by and before you know it, the "new guy" is level 8! Or at least, that's how it looks to me as a DM. Maybe as a player it seems slower, but it's still only a few sessions.

[Noble_berserker]

The player is never going to catch up unless you give him extra xp. For example you need 21k xp to get to level 10 from 9 but only 15k xp to get level 11. I give them all the same experience regardless. However, if you want to reward showing up, or doing something interesting in-game, you could give them the highest available proficiency bonus (from the highest level character) and even the highest available hit dice. They are still behind in level but they won't feel useless if you try to challenge the highest level players.

[AstralFire]

I think that in 5E, unlike previous editions, level disparity can be a fun mechanic to toy with for a starting character. However, once your character is a seasoned adventurer, it really doesn't make sense to continue on with level disparity in a level based system, because missing a level is much bigger than buying an optional feature in a level-free system.

[Sitri]

For the game I run, I do a sort of organized play style experience system. Each session a person plays is worth a point and three points is worth a level. Not only do I find this much more simple, it removes the mentality from the party of "We should spend as much time as possible killing things so we level up faster."

I also rule that when a character dies the new character comes in at one level lower than the previous one, with no two characters ever being more than two levels apart. I have played too many games where character death is a good thing.

After reading this thread, I am thinking maybe I should have characters earn 1.5 points per session if they are lower level (which hasn't happened yet, pretty new game) as to reflect how they would be leveling faster under the traditional experience tables.