Characters at Different Levels, Yay or Nay?

[jaydubs]

New characters starting at a lower level, and/or characters ending up at different levels due to fighting different things in game, players missing sessions, RP rewards, or any myriad of other reasons. While I personally dislike the practice, I've seen it in enough games that some people obviously see it as benefiting games.

Reasons I prefer characters being at the same level:
-It feels more fair for players not to have a big advantage just for having started earlier.
-Playing the game is enough of a reward, you don't need something above and beyond that.
-Losing a character is punishment enough. And starting at a lower level means you're more likely to lose another character.
-It's easier to balance for equal-leveled parties, and easier to keep all players engaged.

Some reasons I could see for differentiating levels:
-Can be used to reward/punish behavior seen as positive/negative. RP, attendance, etc.
-A reward for being a long-time player.
-Make death more threatening.
-Different experience playing the higher/lower level character.

There are probably some other reasons for both that I'm missing.

Which do you prefer? Why do you find that method better in practice? Does the answer change when you're a player vs a DM?

[Vitruviansquid]

99% of making characters at different levels work depends on the system. Making characters at different levels would probably fall flat on its face in DnD 4e, since the system's so tight with balance, and you become better at everything across the board every two levels.

[jaydubs]

Most of my experience is with 3.5/PF, so that's what I can speak to. There, level disparity is basically built into the system from level drain, raise dead penalties, and similar. And I've never particularly liked it.

My personal experience with purposeful XP differentials include:

Extra experience for good roleplaying and taking notes - it got some of us to do just that, but at the same time there were some issues. For instance, when the druid ended up with more HP than the barbarian (before wildshape) due to leveling up first. And while the DM liked my RPing so I got lots of bonus experience, I felt kind of bad for the people who didn't. The DM basically judging "that guy played his character better than you."

Had a different campaign where the new player joined 1 level under us. Since we were level 3, that 1 level made a big difference. She felt overshadowed due to it, and was clearly disappointed when she found out that was the case (I don't think the DM told her she wouldn't be starting same level before the game). She didn't come back for game 2.

Had a campaign where I was the one joining at a lower level. It was irritating to everyone, since the party had to babysit me due to low comparative hitpoints (and I was a melee character). The DM eventually just scrapped it.

So my experience from both sides has been neutral, negative, and negative. Anyone have any stories where differential experience was good?

[DM Nate]

All my players are the same level, and they all level up at the same time, when I say so (usually at the end of a story arc). It helps with bookkeeping and (as you say) doesn't lead to resentment or pessimism over being a lower level.

[jedipotter]

Which do you prefer? Why do you find that method better in practice? Does the answer change when you're a player vs a DM?

I go for the different levels. It is just about impossible to have a 100% balanced game where everyone is the same level. It often only happens at the start of a new campaign. After that, levels go all over the place.

And even if everyone was the same level....the same level is not the same power across all the classes....and even more so across optimization. A 12th level fighter is four levels higher then an 8th level cleric, though it is doubtful the fighter feels ''so powerful''. And you can have an optimized 5th level character doing 20 points of damage in a hit, and the 10th level character that can't even hit...and does like six damage when they do.

[Demidos]

New player's character's should start at the party level. Old players swapping out for a new character...well, that depends if you want to reward them for sticking with one character or if you dont mind them swapping out alot.

Just seems a bit odd to put new players, especially, at a disadvantage. Personally.

[Oneris]

I go for the different levels. It is just about impossible to have a 100% balanced game where everyone is the same level. It often only happens at the start of a new campaign. After that, levels go all over the place.

And even if everyone was the same level....the same level is not the same power across all the classes....and even more so across optimization. A 12th level fighter is four levels higher then an 8th level cleric, though it is doubtful the fighter feels ''so powerful''. And you can have an optimized 5th level character doing 20 points of damage in a hit, and the 10th level character that can't even hit...and does like six damage when they do.

I've always wondered if this would balance the party between different tier levels. Has anyone tried running a game with experience penalties for playing tier 1 and 2 characters, and exp boost for tier 4 and 5?

[Coidzor]

Depends far too much on the individual game to give a meaningful general answer.

[Yora]

In AD&D, I don't think it's a problem in any way. So many things you do are not, or only slightly affected by level. I just have it that every characters is always at least half the level of the PC with the highest level in the group. If a character lacks behind that for any reason, it gets moved up to that level.

[Prince Raven]

Personally I don't really think it's fair for the people who actually showed up to play to have a portion of their EXP drained away by party members who weren't even there to help them defeat the encounter.

[bjoern]

Myself, I prefer all the same. I think it encourages teamwork rather than kill hogging. It helps keep everyone together from the encounter killing wizard to the worthless monk with an invested back story.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by jaydubs
New characters starting at a lower level....

In my experience this problem is worst at very early levels, where the disparities can mean near-instant death for the lower-level characters.

This happened to my first 3.5 character, who was introduced at first level to a third-level party. The first thing he did was go off on a side trip with another first-level character, run by another new player. We didn't last long.

Our DM graciously allowed us to reuse the characters ("Your twin brothers join the party!") but we remained unproductively weak and vulnerable, and both characters were again killed off very quickly. (The other guy died from a couple of stirges, which was just embarrassing.) At that point our DM relented and allowed us to roll up third-level characters, after which we stayed on an even footing with the rest of the party for the next two years of the campaign.

That said, I think those issues were due more to the extreme fragility of low-level characters, not to mention new-player stupidity. Once characters get past fourth level or so, things tend to even out a little more. And there's nothing wrong with characters using sensible tactics to safeguard the less-durable members, no matter what their relative levels.

Player resentment is a different issue, and that really depends on the personalities and expectations of the players involved. I was pretty irritated when I lost two first-level characters in a row, but the fact is this was in September of 2003 and we were all just starting to get a handle on the 3.5 rules. Our DM stayed on top of the learning curve and it ended up being a great campaign.

[eggynack]

It seems probable that the high power characters would be more likely to gain and hold onto levels than lower power characters, as they'd be able to avoid death and other XP removal factors more easily. That's obviously not a particularly good thing. Granted, crafting works in the opposite direction, being most accessible to the wizards of the world, but that doesn't seem like a meaningful argument, as crafting presumably boosts power if you're using it. It's not a great part of the system, though at least the river-like nature of XP means that you're unlikely to enter an infinite feedback loop of suck. I could see the inverse working alright, perhaps using the old-school method of different XP curves, but it seems like a pretty awkward method of achieving balance. I'd prefer methods that deal with stuff more directly, all in all.

[Doug Lampert]

Personally I don't really think it's fair for the people who actually showed up to play to have a portion of their EXP drained away by party members who weren't even there to help them defeat the encounter.

Not a problem, you divide XP gained by the number of participants and that's the reward, as always.

If everybody is forced to be at equal XP then you simply award the same amount to those not present.

But if you do it this way then the penalty for those not present still exists, it's less gear. On some level you need to be willing to deal with XP differences.

[Brookshw]

I've always wondered if this would balance the party between different tier levels. Has anyone tried running a game with experience penalties for playing tier 1 and 2 characters, and exp boost for tier 4 and 5?

That's roughly how older editions handled it (roughly, clerics had it pretty easy but wizards needed a ton more xp to level than a fighter or rogue). It worked okay actually in general, I could see it working okay in 3.0/3.5 but I expect many people would object.

Back to the OP: I used to start new players/characters 1 level behind the party but gave it up ages ago. Still, in the course of a game if people occasionally get solo xp rewards its possible to have a one level variance (maybe more I suppose but that's not something I've had in my games). A single level has pretty negligible impact generally.

Back in Ye olden days I did play in groups that had levels varying between 1 and 10. It actually works but is a bit tricky to run for, higher level players don't get as many baddies. The best way to deal with it was a combination of powerful and weak opponents in the same encounter, team work, and more environmental challenges/puzzles.

[jaydubs]

Still, in the course of a game if people occasionally get solo xp rewards its possible to have a one level variance (maybe more I suppose but that's not something I've had in my games).

My initial impression is that that might cause players to go out in search of solo xp in an effort to "catch up." Or perhaps to pull ahead, in the case of some players. Do you find that a problem in practice?

[AMFV]

My initial impression is that that might cause players to go out in search of solo xp in an effort to "catch up." Or perhaps to pull ahead, in the case of some players. Do you find that a problem in practice?

Not typically. Normally because of the differing XP requirements for gaining levels. At least in the Editions I believe you're referencing, anything that's less than a three level gap will be adjusted out pretty quickly on it's own. Furthermore a 3-4 level gap in levels is somewhat assumed by design. So you'd see that as pretty standard.

I've not seen an issue with that sort of gap. Although anymore could conceivably cause problems. It's really too group dependent to be able to give you a solid answer though. Since different groups view things differently.

[Brookshw]

My initial impression is that that might cause players to go out in search of solo xp in an effort to "catch up." Or perhaps to pull ahead, in the case of some players. Do you find that a problem in practice?

I can see how that could be an issue but from my experiences it hasn't been one. Any searches for solo usually stop after parity returns. More often than not the varience gets overlooked by the players rather than split the groups focus. It can also be mitigated during the course of awarding xp, ie, giving out the next batch when it will get everyone to the same point (I tend to do xp every few sessions).

Sorry, on my phone or I'd elaborate further.

[DrK]

With the occasional solo encounter, crafting, or at higher levels raise deads I find that by ecl 10 the party spread is 9-11. But I try to keep everything +/-1 off the average. Same with people missing sessions, characters earn half xp. But can't drop too far behind.

Once you get past level 6 the effects aren't so severe and by 15+ its not noticeable compared to the respective strengths of PC builds.

New PCs I start equivalent to the lowest level PC in the party. But if they do a little bit of solo play, be it combat or RP and turn up diligente they catch up quick

[cobaltstarfire]

I don't personally care if there are level differences as long as they don't cause too much trouble.

And that can be really dependent on the game, a more RP heavy game doesn't really mind a slight difference in level in my experience since there is very little dice rolling. But a game that rely more on the roll of the die whether for fighting or passing checks, if the level difference were to cause the lower level characters to fail a bunch I'd probably find it frustrating and I wouldn't like it (as a player or a dm).

I'd like to also note that if I had a lower level simply because I missed a bunch of sessions, or didn't play pro-actively enough (the last table I played at regularly gave small bonus xp's at the end of each session) I don't think I'd mind that much, because I brought that on myself.

As a GM I don't think I'd mind my players being different levels from each other, although I'd start out the game with them all the same level, for my own sanity mostly.

[Segev]

It is certainly easiest to maintain the same level across the party. Older editions had different exp totals required to reach various levels depending on your class, however, and those were designed with having level disparities in mind. I actually think some amount of this could aid in rebalancing 3e a little bit: if it takes more exp for the full casters to level up, you could have a fighter level 10 or 12 in a party with wizards at level 7 or 9. The extra bonuses to saves and extra skill points and ranks could actually help bridge some of the gap. At the very least, the wizard can't have a planar bound minion that is more powerful than the fighter at being a tank. (Still likely wouldn't fix everything; there is just a point where spells overtake anything "mundanes" can do at any level.)

Anyway, there are a few things to keep in mind when considering having lower-level PCs mixed in with higher-level ones.

First off, the lower-level PCs are more fragile. Nonetheless, most parties in my experience try to give everybody a fair cut of loot, so they'll swiftly have more wealth than their "by level" recommendations would indicate. As well, unless the higher-level characters are not able to provide buffs, the lower-level PCs likely will share in higher-level buffs than normal.

This still doesn't stop them from being fragile, but it can keep them alive and help them contribute. The God Wizard, in particular, loves having more warm bodies on which to spread his magical bonuses, as even lower-level ones provide actions on behalf of the party. And in D&D (as in many games), action deficit kills.

Lower-level characters also gain exp faster than higher-level ones when facing the same CR. So they'll eventually catch up.


If you want to run different-level PCs in the same party, therefore, make sure the party is okay with it and will work together as a team. And encourage caution on the part of the low-level ones.

[Coidzor]

It is certainly easiest to maintain the same level across the party. Older editions had different exp totals required to reach various levels depending on your class, however, and those were designed with having level disparities in mind. I actually think some amount of this could aid in rebalancing 3e a little bit: if it takes more exp for the full casters to level up, you could have a fighter level 10 or 12 in a party with wizards at level 7 or 9. The extra bonuses to saves and extra skill points and ranks could actually help bridge some of the gap. At the very least, the wizard can't have a planar bound minion that is more powerful than the fighter at being a tank. (Still likely wouldn't fix everything; there is just a point where spells overtake anything "mundanes" can do at any level.)

Seems like it'd play merry hell with multiclassing and PrCing, though.

[AMFV]

Seems like it'd play merry hell with multiclassing and PrCing, though.

Well you could always use the system from 2nd Edition for Multiclassing, you split your experience and advance both classes at once. Meeting the requirements that way. Although I'm not sure how that would work to be honest I'd have to do the math on it. Since lower level characters get more experience you shouldn't be too far behind.

PrCing though, I don't know for sure how that would work.

[Knaight]

99% of making characters at different levels work depends on the system. Making characters at different levels would probably fall flat on its face in DnD 4e, since the system's so tight with balance, and you become better at everything across the board every two levels.

Precisely this. One level in D&D 4e is substantial. One level in D&D 3e can be absolutely critical (the power difference between a level 4 wizard and a level 5 wizard is pretty immense). Torchbearer? Not so much. Then there are skill based games, where there aren't levels per se but there are different point totals or similar. A 15 point difference in GURPS isn't really all that huge, because of how it plays, and by the time 15 points are gained in GURPS a comparable D&D campaign would have picked up a level, more with later editions.

[Stellar_Magic]

Well, I don't have a problem with it usually. In Pathfinder, the way XP to level scales tends to make catching up with the group much easier, and overall the spread tends to be within just a few levels due to how level advancement works.

Not so sure about other systems though, and 4E definitely tends to be less adept at handling mixed levels due to how its designed, that's for sure.

[Brookshw]

Seems like it'd play merry hell with multiclassing and PrCing, though.

Probably. I can't quite recall anymore if kits required a slightly elevated xp cost over the base. I suppose you could try to align it with whatever base class has easiest access, assume starting xp for that class at time of entry then require the difference to get the next level, but that gets a bit convoluted for a lot of combinations.

[AMFV]

Precisely this. One level in D&D 4e is substantial. One level in D&D 3e can be absolutely critical (the power difference between a level 4 wizard and a level 5 wizard is pretty immense). Torchbearer? Not so much. Then there are skill based games, where there aren't levels per se but there are different point totals or similar. A 15 point difference in GURPS isn't really all that huge, because of how it plays, and by the time 15 points are gained in GURPS a comparable D&D campaign would have picked up a level, more with later editions.

This is certainly true. It's notable that some games were designed with the idea of players of different power (The Buffy RPG for example), where relative power was contrasted with narrative power. Playing a normal person gave you greater power to affect the narrative, and playing as a high powered slayer, left you unable to do so, with as much ability. So many systems have deliberate non-level power disparities often those make the games richer rather than poorer.

[Jormengand]

I've always wondered if this would balance the party between different tier levels. Has anyone tried running a game with experience penalties for playing tier 1 and 2 characters, and exp boost for tier 4 and 5?

Yes. Whatever posessed him to decide truenamer was Tier 6, I shall never know, but it kiiiinda made me destined to be hilariously OP.

It never got past 2nd level, though, so I don't actually know. Still, you have to be careful when working out what tier everything is if you're gonna do that.

[AMFV]

Yes. Whatever posessed him to decide truenamer was Tier 6, I shall never know, but it kiiiinda made me destined to be hilariously OP.

It never got past 2nd level, though, so I don't actually know. Still, you have to be careful when working out what tier everything is if you're gonna do that.

Actually the Truenamer has no Tier officially. It doesn't work as written and with optimization it always works perfectly. So it has no Tier, it just never functions as intended.

[LibraryOgre]

Some of this also depends on system. In AD&D, you WERE going to wind up at different levels, because you had different XP charts; it was one of the benefits of a thief that they could level quickly, and helped keep them in some degree of parity with clerics, fighters, and other classes (arguably it didn't do it well enough, but that's another question).

In Hackmaster, you don't have any resurrection magic at this time, and the system for introducing new characters is dependent upon your previous character donating XP and gear to them... if you haven't been making that investment in your future, you're going to start from level 1.