D&D 5E (2024) GMs: How long should it usually take to go from level 1 to 4?

[Basic Expert]

For 5e, I'd say 3-4 sessions of about 4 hours. Add a session or two if the scenario has heavier roleplaying or requires additional exposition to set up campaign detail.

Levels 1-2 in 5e are generally training-wheel levels and can easily be skipped. They are most useful to allow new players to learn the basics and to give a complete "zero to hero" arc.

I generally favor starting at 3rd now. The PCs are far more resilient, can handle more challenges, and have much needed crit resistance to allow for far more dynamic gameplay (even outside of expanded class features). Bumbling inchoate heroes don't do much for me.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I don't play 5e, but in earlier editions I preferred to start characters at 4th level (or even higher). So if I did ever abandon my stronghold position of "3.5e is peak D&D" and ran 5e, I'd do the same there.

So you could say that PCs in the games I run technically go from level 1 to level 4 in session zero.

 

[Charlaquin]

But by the same token... if the DM is using story milestones rather than XP... players still get a "progress bar" of sorts because they know what their quest is that they are on and can usually determine just how far along they are in getting closer to the end of it. And depending on the import of said quest... they will get an idea of whether the quest would be a "story" in and of itself, or whether it is just one part of a larger plotline (and one more likely to be considered a milestone.) So players in a milestone game do not have as precise a measurement as those who play under XP (your point being a good one), but they also aren't completely in the dark about it either. They also can see their actions bringing them closer to leveling up. "Finish the job, gain a level" as it were.

That seems very vague and unreliable as a “progress bar,” and also highly dependent on a structure where the party goes on discrete quests. I don’t think it would work at all for more freeform, sandboxy, location-based, or especially open-table play.

This would seem, to me, to be just a more robust, detailed way of saying what I had said.

But perhaps I should present that as a question:

If you realized, on session 3, that your players have simply moved in different directions and speeds compared to your expectations, would you truly try to dump just a metric buttload of XP on them solely in order to ensure that you did, in fact, get them to level (whatever) by the end of session 4? Or would you only do something like this if you realized that--say--they still weren't level 4 after 8 or 10 (or whatever, pick any large-ish number) sessions had already elapsed?

I would notice by the end of session 1 that the players were behind what I had expected for the session, quite easily because they wouldn’t have gotten through as many encounters as I had planned for. I would then compensate in the next session by either trying to keep the action moving at a faster pace so we could get through more content in the time available, or by increasing the XP budget of the encounters, or both. If despite that, the players continued to fall further behind the expected XP gain per session, I would probably adjust my expectations for that group and start planning around it taking them more sessions to level up.

Because what you said made me think you were entirely in the latter camp. Only paying attention to session count if it has become an actual problem, and otherwise...not caring, because XP total is what does this thing, not session-time elapsed. If I have misunderstood that, I apologize.

Oh, no apologies necessary. I figure it’s the point of asking these questions to form a better understanding of other people’s approaches.

For me, XP earned is ultimately what determines when the players level up. In that sense, sure, it’s the only thing that matters. But, I do think having a number of sessions in mind to aim for them to be able to gain that XP is very valuable, so saying XP is “all that matters” feels reductive. A target number of sessions serves as a good gut check, to give me concrete data about the pacing of play, so I can make adjustments if things are moving too slow, or too fast, or if I need to realign my expectations about the pace the group wants to go at.

 

[Celebrim]

In general, 1 to 2 sessions per level cumulative with level. Leveling should slow down over time and not be the focus of play. Early advancement being quick is OK because it often takes a few levels before a character really feels distinctive and able to fulfill the desired heroic role, but fast level is bad for several reasons. First, because a player should get comfortable with utilizing their abilities before they get new ones. There should always be at least one encounter where the new spell, new feat, or new ability mattered before they move on. Secondly, because all games that use dice for fortune have sweet spots where the game is most balanced and the differences between abilities not too great and the fortune dice are reliable but skill is not yet overwhelming random chance. You want to stay in that sweet spot for as long as possible. If high level play is problematic or grinding, but don't be in a hurry to get there. Enjoy the ride.

And in the long run, you just don't want the game to be about mechanics and mechanical progress. Once play creates backstory and relationships and goals naturally and organically, you shouldn't need the lure of the next level up to play. And those late campaign level ups should be thrills, but not the purpose of play.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted Milestone because that is what I prefer. However, I like a level to be roughly 3-4 sessions if I had to choose otherwise.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That seems very vague and unreliable as a “progress bar,” and also highly dependent on a structure where the party goes on discrete quests. I don’t think it would work at all for more freeform, sandboxy, location-based, or especially open-table play.

Agreed, it does not have the same solidity that XP counts do because you are beholden to guesstimating how long the quest you are on might last and how many of these quests equal a milestone. I don't disagree at all. But my point was really that there was at least something there for players to hang their hat on when using milestones. It ain't as good a measuring stick as XP absolutely... but it's also not keeping players completely in the dark. So for those players who care about knowing when they are going to advance... in neither case will it be a complete surprise.

 

[Charlaquin]

Agreed, it does not have the same solidity that XP counts do because you are beholden to guesstimating how long the quest you are on might last and how many of these quests equal a milestone. I don't disagree at all. But my point was really that there was at least something there for players to hang their hat on when using milestones. It ain't as good a measuring stick as XP absolutely... but it's also not keeping players completely in the dark. So for those players who care about knowing when they are going to advance... in neither case will it be a complete surprise.

Oh, for sure. It’s not like it’s totally impossible to predict when the next level might come without XP to give you a clue. I just think XP communicates it more clearly, and with numbers, which as we all know, people really like to make go up.

 

[Zardnaar]

As a couple examples from Sly Flourish's webpage:

• 2018 poll of 2444 respondents found 56% use Milestone vs 26% use XP (and 18% other)
• 2020 poll of 6009 respondents found 66% prefer Milestone vs 21% prefer XP (and 13% other)
• 2022 poll of 6008 respondents found 83% use Milestones defined by the DMG or DM vs 15% use XP (and 3% other)

Dungeons & Dragons Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook Poll Results

In October 2016 I ran a Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition survey of 6,600 dungeon masters to better understand how DMs prepare and run their games. I wasn't happy to stop there, however. Since then I'v...

slyflourish.com

The bookkeeping of xp is about as fun as tracking ammo, water skins, and food supplies of old school D&D. Milestone and never looked back.

We played some 1E adventures somewhat recently.

The book keeping was a big turn off. Amount of loot was insane.

Still has fun until level 6 or 7.

 

[TheSword]

I am given to understand that a typical session for nearly all people who play is no more than 5 hours and no less than 2 hours, typically 3-4, with some wiggle room (e.g. if you end on a nice note at 3:45, you're not going to force 15 more minutes of play; if you are 90% done with a combat everyone is enjoying at 4:00, you might let it ride for another 5-15 minutes to see if you can get the thing wrapped up.)

Excellent. In that case 6 sessions. Vote cast.
One session to level two
Two sessions to level three
Three-Four sessions for all future levels.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

1-2 sessions to get to 2.
2-3 sessions to get to 3.
3-4 sessions to get to 4.

This is typical for my campaigns, too.