[3.5] Level Gap for the new guy

[DragonBaneDM]

Joining my first 3.5 game in a looong time.

They've got a Wild Elf Warmage, a Half-Elf Ranger, a Drow Cleric, and a newly added Human Fighter.

Their Cleric is damage oriented, and they lack a second melee guy, so I decided to come in with an Aasimar Cleric, who plans on going the classic CoDzilla build, since it seemed fun. Staying with that character. Not here so you can talk me out of it.

Anyway, the Warmage and the Ranger are both Level 11, the Drow is 7, and the Fighter is 2. I'm coming in at 1, and I'm going to try and convince myself I'm perfectly okay for that.

Although any logical arguments that would persuade my DM to change that would be appreciated, what I'm really looking for tips is catching up. There's roleplay XP, taking advantage of that for sure.

Overall, what tips do you have for the new guy who wants to catch up with the big guns?

[MeeposFire]

For the DM

"It will make your life easier to get our levels closer".


For you be support and not a melee guy until you catch up a bit. Use ranged weapons and boost your allies that can actually mix it up until you are closer in level. Remember aid another might actually be useful for you since you probably be too vulnerable in combat and your BAB is to low to be really effective.

[DragonBaneDM]

For the DM

"It will make your life easier to get our levels closer".

Hm... It would?

[2xMachina]

No, no. NEVER put a lvl 1 with a lvl 11. It's imbalanced like hell.

The encounters would either:
1) Always kill the lvl 1 guy, or
2) Always get squashed by the lvl 11 with no challenge.

[MeeposFire]

Hm... It would?

Yea the bigger the difference in levels the harder it is to make encounters that can challenge the higher level players but does not destroy the lower level characters or make them feel useless while they wait to level. Think what kind of encounter that challenges level 11 characters that do not destroy a level 1. The OP's cleric will be unable to hit the creatures or the level 11 character will be bored from how easy the encounter becomes because you cater to lower level characters. A DM's job is much easier if the class is within 2-3 levels of each other. The father apart they get the harder it is to balance. Unless the DM is one that does not care about that stuff at all but then nothing will change your mind and you likely do not care as much about the fun of your player's anyway.

[kyoryu]

It's possible to mix very different levels together. It does take some work on the part of the DM.

Mainly, you need to make sure you have a reasonable mixture of mooks and lieutenants or bosses. The low-level guy's job is to take out the mooks, freeing up the high level folks to deal with the more serious threats.

My question is: why? If it's a long-term campaign with some level of character death/churn expected, okay. That's a very old-school type of thing. Most modern campaigns don't really function that way, and even the old-school games would typically have the 1st level newbie go out with a party closer to his level. In a more modern, narrative style game, it just don't make a lot of sense.

[MeeposFire]

It's possible to mix very different levels together. It does take some work on the part of the DM.

Mainly, you need to make sure you have a reasonable mixture of mooks and lieutenants or bosses. The low-level guy's job is to take out the mooks, freeing up the high level folks to deal with the more serious threats.

My question is: why? If it's a long-term campaign with some level of character death/churn expected, okay. That's a very old-school type of thing. Most modern campaigns don't really function that way, and even the old-school games would typically have the 1st level newbie go out with a party closer to his level. In a more modern, narrative style game, it just don't make a lot of sense.

A lot of work, hence why I said it would make the DM's life easier to not have them so far apart.

[2xMachina]

Any mook a lvl 1 can kill, is ignorable for a lvl 11.

They can sit there and laugh while the mook arrows miss them entirely, or deal pitiful damage. The most they'd do is cause movement problems.

IC, I'd just laugh, and push them out of the way (You're 10 years too early), and go straight for the boss, ignoring the idiots who think they can do anything against someone with 10 lvls above them. Even non-optimizers could pick up Great Cleave and cut them all down in 1 round.

[MeeposFire]

I remember in Farador this situation happened and the rogue sat in the bushes and killed just one guy who was dying already while the rest of the party killed an army. The rogue got all the money though but for most players that would have been very boring.

[Fitz10019]

Personally, I hate level gaps like this. I play to be a hero, on a team of heroes, not to be a sidekick. The DMG backs up this stance. As your DM to read the "Making a New Character" section, p. 42, and to consider how much the level 11 characters outshine everyone else.

If that fails:
Plan on being very tactical. You can use tanglefoot bags make it difficult for enemies to get out of being flanked. You can cast Summon Monster I just to give a flank. You and that 2nd level character should work to cover each others' backs.

[umbrapolaris]

if the fighter was a gnome , it would be easy... put the gnome on the back or the shoulder of the warmage ^^

[Xiander]

I would ask your GM why he punishes the newer players. Because esentially that is what he does. And any longwinded speech about having to earn your levels would just irritate me. The game is made to be played with characters of the same level or at least close. By having huge level gaps, he simply makes it harder for the new players to contribute.

[nedz]

If you are four levels behind or more: then your job is to carry the bags and hold the coats.
Seriously you are not going to have fun for quite some time, and surely thats the point of the game ?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'm in a similar but more palatable situation. Every new character joined at 2 levels below APL, but had to 'earn' the XP starting from zero. I am very glad that XP is a river. My dewd came in at level 5, and the first guy was almost level 9. He leveled, but then got level drained back down to 8, and since then (~6 sessions with lots of bonus XP) I got all the way to level 7's worth of XP.

It's worked out for me so far, but the potential problem with this system is that we also can't res people. That means if we suffer character death at a rate greater than half the rate of level advancement, the party de-levels (due to the average party level decreasing) until we're all back down to level 1 characters. Fortunately the lower-level portion party is optimized at least enough to survive, and only NPCs have died. All I'm saying is, it's a good thing that game is great in every other way...

[pres_man]

Most of the reasons have been mention already, but I'll be repetitive.

Challenges that are appropriate for the higher level characters are going to be impossible for the lower level characters. This is going to lead to boredom for the higher level players, if the challenges are too easy (if appropriate for low level characters) or frustration for the low level players (if appropriate for high level characters).

Also this leads to a vicious loop, where the low level characters can't handle the encounters and then die, thus end up getting even further behind, which means they will most likely die with the next character, getting further behind, ...

Also, how do you decide how much xp a 1st level character gets for a CR 11 challenge as the table doesn't account for that?

As a DM, I don't let the lowest character get more than 2 levels behind the next one, and no more than three levels behind the leader. Anything more than that is just a headache for the DM to deal with and the players to be frustrated.

[PersonMan]

Personally, I hate level gaps like this. I play to be a hero, on a team of heroes, not to be a sidekick. The DMG backs up this stance. As your DM to read the "Making a New Character" section, p. 42, and to consider how much the level 11 characters outshine everyone else.

If that fails:
Plan on being very tactical. You can use tanglefoot bags make it difficult for enemies to get out of being flanked. You can cast Summon Monster I just to give a flank. You and that 2nd level character should work to cover each others' backs.

+1.

Although, due to the extreme level gap...Well, I was going to say you'd catch up rather quickly due to getting huge piles of XP, but anything that's challenging the 11th level characters...is almost assuredly too high CR for you to even get XP from it.

If you can work out getting XP from these fights, I'd just advise staying in the back and doing general support stuff, buffing a big before combat really starts, etc. until the increased XP gain lets you catch up.

[Ernir]

Although any logical arguments that would persuade my DM to change that would be appreciated, what I'm really looking for tips is catching up. There's roleplay XP, taking advantage of that for sure.

Arguments? Don't have one, but you can tell him to read the sidebar on page 42 of the Dungeon Master's Guide.

a PC four or more levels behind the rest of the party is a recipe for trouble.

[Combat Reflexes]

My approach is rather inpulsive: when in doubt, reset group. Everyone loses levels until they reach the level of the lowest-level character.

[Greenish]

My approach is rather inpulsive: when in doubt, reset group. Everyone loses levels until they reach the level of the lowest-level character.

Ouch, that doesn't sound very fun.

[Hammerhead]

I think there's a difference in expectations regarding the type of game that's going to be played. This DM sounds like he buys into the old school D&D mentality where character survival is an anomaly, character development is almost unheard of and party balance isn't worth a second thought.

This isn't a mentality very well supported by 3e and its exhaustive character creation, and you might want to point that out to the DM. Putting players in a position to be quickly devoured means putting them in a position where they'll have to burn a lot more RL time building new characters than they would have in older games. That means time digging through books instead of having fun. 3e is a game where the players are more or less supposed to be coddled.

[Crow]

Our group does this regularly, though the largest gap that I've dealt with as a DM has been a level 1 coming in with level 9's.

If you have a DM that is unwilling to make the effort to integrate the lower-level character in a believable way in which they can realistically contribute to the game, then it will not work for your group. Luckily, our group doesn't have that problem. Plus we split quest xp evenly, so the characters that are behind catch up reasonably fast.

It is pretty well understood in our group that death means starting over at level 1 (level 2 with a page of backstory). This means it gets taken seriously, and heroic death is meaningful.

[Warlawk]

I'm not generally the type to do something like that, but I wouldn't have been able to help myself from laughing in the DMs face.

That's a joke, I wouldn't play in a game like that. Period. It's just not worth it.

It's a pain for the DM and not even worth building a character for. Stepping into combat with anything that can challenge the party is just suicide.

I really am having a hard time coming up with well thought out stances for this because it is just so ridiculous I never bothered to put any serious thought about it. The most I've ever seen played was a 3 level difference and that was back in 2E.

[DragonBaneDM]

Ouch, that doesn't sound very fun.

Seconded.

I love the advice about the tanglefoot bags and watching each other's backs. He and I are both RAs, and I might just show him this thread, and that sidebar, at that next staff meeting.

I'm also gonna be Lawful Neutral in a mostly Chaotic party. It'll be interesting... But I think I can make it work.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Y'know, I think people are overreacting to the level difference just a bit. Weren't there threads upon threads showing that a level 13 wizard was more than likely to beat a level 20 WBL user Fighter? As long as the high level characters aren't optimized and the low level characters shy away from the front line for a few levels (and seriously optimize) it should work. My group at one point had three level 5 characters each outperforming a level 9 character in combat, because the level 5s were warblade/druid/wizard and the level 9 was rogue.

[Combat Reflexes]

Ouch, that doesn't sound very fun.

Actually it is, because even a small difference in level (1-2) can seriously disrupt the balance in the party. As far as I know, balanced party equals fun for everyone. Lower levels are more fun to play at, too, but that might just be me

Also, can a DM even manage to have such level differences? the low-level characters are almost like Minions in the party. They won't get any time to shine except at RPing.

[nedz]

Actually it is, because even a small difference in level (1-2) can seriously disrupt the balance in the party. As far as I know, balanced party equals fun for everyone. Lower levels are more fun to play at, too, but that might just be me

I prefer low level games also (maybe I should run E6 ); but I doubt I'd get away with taking levels of PCs just because someone dies or a new player joins.
Actually level is not the bee all and end all of balance: Player skill, especially at character building, is more relevant; as is the choice of Tier etc.

Also, can a DM even manage to have such level differences? the low-level characters are almost like Minions in the party. They won't get any time to shine except at RPing.

I used to do this in 1E and 2E, at least at low to mid level, but the XP tables featured exponential progression so the low level characters would catch up quickly and (usually) only be 1 or 2 levels behind when the higher level PCs leveled.
In 3E,3.5,PF etc: the XP tables are quadratic. This means that they will never catch up.

Ed: sp

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Low level characters gain more XP per enemy than high level characters, so it's possible that a character with less XP one session to have more XP the next. I'd argue that it's easier for 3e characters to catch up.

[DragonBaneDM]

As long as the high level characters aren't optimized and the low level characters shy away from the front line for a few levels (and seriously optimize) it should work. My group at one point had three level 5 characters each outperforming a level 9 character in combat, because the level 5s were warblade/druid/wizard and the level 9 was rogue.

You've kinda hit the nail on the head here. I'm the most experienced member, and I've been cramming like crazy to get back into 3.5.

I'm looking at Persistent Bull's Strength starting at Level 6. Grabbing Craft Rod so that I can rock a Nightstick even if the DM won't give me one.

The other Cleric's never heard of Divine Metamagic before. Booyah.

I rolled pretty well for stats, even though I prefer point buy. Nothing below 11, nailed an 18 for Wis. Put that together with the fact that I'm tied for Highest Tiered class, and I think I'll be alright.

Poor Fighter. Gonna try to convert him so that I can use Faith Healing on someone other than myself. Don't wanna sound controlling, though. It's a good spell and St. Cuthbert is a good religion for a soldier to follow.

Gonna optimize like crazy and roleplay my Lawful Neutral heart out.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You can't persist bull's strength, touch range =/= fixed range. Consider using ice axe instead. You'll need extra turning to make night sticks. Get a lesser rod of extend for magic vestment on your armor and shield. Consider going lawful good for (greater) luminous armor.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Bull's Strength can be persisted if it's Ocular'd or Reach'd first.