What do you think about mixed level parties?

[Driftbourne]

All the SF and PF2e games I've paled in were organized play games and I've never even seen a party that wasn't mixed-level. Most games had a 3 to 4 level character level split. I'm guessing this is more common in organized play than in home games.

From my experience, I feel much safer playing the lowest-level character in a mixed party in Starfinder than I do in PF2e. The 3 action economy and +10 to crit make one-hit knock downs on low-level characters much more common in PF2e

With SF2e in the works, what are your thoughts on mixed parties?
What's your experience with split-level parties?
how well do you think they work?
What can help make them work better?

[Milo v3]

I don't think I'd play in a mixed level party of SF let alone PF/SF2e where level disparities are even more severe.

[DeathQuaker]

I've never played in organized play. I'm guessing they must use individual XP awards and ergo some characters level faster than others? Or is it that people can bring in their characters from previous organized play adventures and some might be different levels than others?

I hated mixed level parties way back in AD&D 2nd Ed when different characters leveled at different rates and it was intended to be balanced that way, so you always had mixed level parties. I understand why they did it that way, but personally found it overcomplicated, and even though things were supposed to be balanced power-wise, just the wide range of hit points everyone had made it a lot harder if you wanted to play a game where people weren't dying all the time (which mind you in AD&D character death was a much more likely thing--some liked that, I never cared for it).

In my own PF1 games as a GM I've always given the party story awards rather than individual calculations of XP, so everyone has always leveled at the same rate. Most if not all of my GMs have done the same, in person or PBP. This has always worked extremely well. I can't even honestly say I know what it's like to play in a game of mixed level groups in a Pathfinder or Starfinder group, and while I can't judge what I haven't tried, I can't say I'm itching to find out what it's like. Game and treasure balance seems to presume everyone is same or very close in level and as a GM, let alone as a player, I think I'd struggle with designing adventures for mixed level groups.

[Driftbourne]

DeathQuaker wrote:

I've never played in organized play. I'm guessing they must use individual XP awards and ergo some characters level faster than others? Or is it that people can bring in their characters from previous organized play adventures and some might be different levels than others?

Organized play scenarios are all single-session adventures. They have a level range like levels 1 to 4. So every game could be completely different players. All characters gain experience at the same rate regardless of level in organized play. typically, you level up every 3 scenarios.

[Dead Phoenix]

i've played pfs session with wildly different character levels and its crazy how much a difference level makes. warpriest clerics are good in general, but give them 2 levels on the rest of the party and the fights become (even more of a) joke. the existence of the level bump mechanic make its even more clear to me its something they have to work around to make society play work then something that is a viable form of play. and personally, when i first started running pf1 way back i did the whole 'you dont gain xp if you arent in the session' but eventually realized that just makes the experience worse for everyone involved. so yeah, the way pf2 works(and really, most d20 games i've played) i dont think mixed level parties are a good idea unless you want to suck the fun out of the combat for people who are to low level to help in combat or makes the enemies so easy the higher level people are given a challenge(which i guess, tbf, some people would enjoy).

[Calgon-3]

Split level parties are a challenge for GM's and suck the fun out of the game for the lower level players.

There's no fix for it short of making level less important in the game.

[breithauptclan]

Link to PF2 thread on the same topic. Since the core game mechanics are the same, the level difference problem will be the same.

Yes, playing with characters of different levels is not recommended. You can get away with 1 level difference, but even then it is still noticeable. 2 levels difference becomes very challenging, and 3 levels difference becomes a nearly insurmountable problem.

As was vaguely mentioned in that PF2 thread, PFS has the Level Bump and Mentor Boon mechanics to help compensate for a couple of levels difference in characters to try and smooth things out. Also the PF2 scenarios usually have a rather narrow level range - or often a couple of tiers that each have a very narrow level range.

[Driftbourne]

Good to know about the Level Bump and Mentor Boon mechanics in PF2e since that's the direction SF2e is going. Does seem to be more of an organized play issue than for home games.

There are some people who have commented saying they play both home games and organized play but between the people saying they have only played one way or the other it seems split between them, I've only played mixed-level parties and mixed parties that's sounds crazy.

[Metaphysician]

I would *highly* recommend against mixed level parties, at least ones involving more than a minimal gap in levels. While in theory you can still calculate APL as normal and thus build theoretically-balanced encounters, in practice? If one PC is four levels above the rest, either the typical individual enemy will be way too easy for the high level PC, or way too hard for the low level PCs. Ditto for non-combat challenges. You just won't be able to get around the fact that one party member will have vastly more capable than the rest.

The most I would suggest as viable is a two level *temporary* gap, with the expectation that the lagging PCs *will* catch up ( because they get double XP until then, or only they get milestone advancement, etc ). And even that is mostly for cases where the players might want time to acclimate to new characters. Which, not coincidentally, is the one case where I've used mixed levels in a game I ran: campaign changeover, and most of the players wanted to play new characters in what was otherwise going to be a mid-level start. Starting their characters at level 8 rather than 10 ( along with designing the first "region" as a somewhat easier 'tutorial' region ) was a mercy to them, rather than a reward to the one higher level PC.

[Sanityfaerie]

Mixed level parties are generally a bad idea. Organized Play embraces them because they're pretty much necessary to the overall functioning of that system, but even there, things can get kind of dicey if you happen to be a level 1 who's coming along on an adventure that's been buffed to level 3/4... and that's with the autoupgrade math-fix benefits that PFS gives you in those sorts of situations

[jongore]

Mixed-level parties are more common in organized play than home games and can be more dangerous for low-level characters in Pathfinder 2e due to the 3 action economy and +10 to crit. In Starfinder, mixed-level parties can work well as long as difficulty is adjusted and low-level characters are given opportunities to contribute. To make them work better, consider using tiers, awarding bonus experience to low-level characters, and designing encounters that challenge the whole party.