About death and one of its potential consequences.

[Uccidere]

So we have this DM in our discord community who denies people characters to be at the party's level when they join in the game mid-campaign or need to make a new character. He simply stats that anyone joining in at anytime other than the very beginning will result in a character who will have a lower level.

The perplexing part is that he claims that this is a rule in the book, but a majority of us find that hard to believe simply by virtue of how counter productive that is in practice. What I'm curious about is what rule is he talking about if it is one.

[beowulf99]

Well, the rulebook disagrees with him.

CRB PG. 508 "Group Parity and Party Level" wrote:

It’s recommended that you keep all the player characters

at the same XP total. This makes it much easier to know
what challenges are suitable for your players. Having
characters at different levels can mean weaker characters
die more easily and their players feel less effective, which
in turn makes the game less fun for those players.
If you choose not to keep the whole group at the same
character level, you’ll need to select a party level to determine
your XP budget for encounters. Choose the level you think
best represents the party’s ability as a whole. Use the highest
level if only one or two characters are behind, or an average
if everyone is at a different level. If only one character is
two or more levels ahead, use a party level suitable for the
lower-level characters, and adjust the encounters as if there
were one additional PC for every 2 levels the higher-level
character has beyond the rest of the party.
Party members who are behind the party level gain
double the XP other characters do until they reach the
party’s level. When tracking individually, you’ll need to
decide whether party members get XP for missed sessions.

I mean, they leave it open for the party to be at disparate levels, but the very first sentence tells you that the developers recommend the party stays on parity. XP Awards note that even if a character is not present for an accomplishment, they should gain the XP for the accomplishment.

This is likely an old school perspective that is overall counterproductive in a game like Pathfinder 2. In PF2 a big part of balance is based on your level; you add your level to any trained check after all, so any DC you are likely to face will be based on the average party level. If you happen to be the character that is a level or two behind, you will just simply be less able to make that check. Monsters also follow this trend, so good luck having fun with a 5-10% chance to hit a given enemy.

I would recommend fighting the GM on that particular rule. If he is unwilling to give, I would find another GM. If he is claiming the rules support that decision in any material capacity, he probably does not have the best mastery of the game system. If he did he would understand exactly what he was imposing on any person he leaves behind in level.

[NielsenE]

I'm a big fan of milestone leveling, so having different party members at different levels would just be annoying. Plus I have a larger party (7) but any given week 1-2 people can't make it. I'm not going to track everyone's xp separately.

Dying is already enough of a 'penalty' there's no reason to make the new character worse, especially in 2e where it will just make them more likely to die again. Joining late and feeling under-powered and useless is a surefire way for the player to just quit.

So yes, in general I think its a bad idea, and its not one 'required' by the rules.

I can think of a two different situations where I would be OK playing in a campaign with the rule:
1) A very grim-dark setting, death is relatively common, with the result that all players are losing characters in a fair manner. Effectively leading to either 'slow' track or stagnant leveling. I don't think I'd enjoy a year+ campaign like this, but it would at least feel fair.

2) Using a roughly -500 exp penalty for new people joining/post-death character, but placing the penalized characters on fast exp track compared to the higher level. Expect to equalize in 2-3 play sessions.

[krazmuze]

This still of play that you earn your XP would work better in other editions that does not add level to most stats, so that there is more flexibility in survivable encounter math. Simply being down a level is increasing difficulty a step, which is not the case in prior editions. It can mean the difference between just needing a focus break vs. someone is going down in the fight.

Suggest waiting for the gamemastery guide for deleveled play. Deleveled math will change the feel of PF2 though, since its math for boss designs is heavily dependent on multiplying crits, without level they will not be threatening while numerous lackeys can now kill the party. So not something you can use with a prewritten adventure and existing bestiary.

Even if they decide to keep doing this as they are, they really need to follow the doubled catchup XP. Unlike other editions, XP in PF2e is relatively linear. You do not earn exponentially more XP for tackling things underlevel to quickly catchup.

[Ravingdork]

Yeah, that is not the norm in 2E. He's effectively punishing new players just for being new.

I dont think it's enough to walk away, particularly if the GM allows for a means of catching up, but it's certainly not ideal (but that's me; talk to your GM, or walk out, if it's important enough to you). It may well lead to additional challenges and balance problems if he insists on such a house rule.

[Henro]

Pathfinder 2E is not built for players at different levels at all. Even a 1-level difference is pretty large (though not completely insurmountable) but anything more than that is just completely off the rocker.

Now, there are certainly reasons to want different levels for different players, but if your DM feels this is a vital feature they should probably use a system that functions better with it.

[Kios]

From Archives of Nethys (Core Rulebook, pg 508):
If you choose not to keep the whole group at the same character level, you’ll need to select a party level to determine your XP budget for encounters. Choose the level you think best represents the party’s ability as a whole. Use the highest level if only one or two characters are behind, or an average if everyone is at a different level. If only one character is two or more levels ahead, use a party level suitable for the lower-level characters, and adjust the encounters as if there were one additional PC for every 2 levels the higher-level character has beyond the rest of the party.

Party members who are behind the party level gain double the XP other characters do until they reach the party’s level. When tracking individually, you’ll need to decide whether party members get XP for missed sessions.

My GM decided to penalize players who miss sessions by not rewarding them the XP they missed. This means unbalanced levels, but with double XP gain they catch up quickly.

Your GM should be giving the party easier encounters if your party's average level is lower and should not let you be more than a couple of levels behind.

[thorin001]

The encounter design and experience system really do not work with characters of differing levels.

[The King In Yellow]

I'm generally a fan of new players come in at party level, but if you change characters (either because of death or just wanting to change) your new character comes in one level below, and will catch up over the course of a few sessions. It makes death an actual penalty.

(Note, this only applies once the group gets into at least the 5-7 level range, and I generally give new players a grace period to alter their chars as well.)

[Ediwir]

Linkified from Archive of Nethys for quick Discord reference and copypasting purposes.