How many sessions to level up?

[LucianoAr]

probably one of the most rewarding features of roleplaying is leveling up your character, right?

wll ive played a few sessions (around 7 sessions each) with two separate tables now, and with one were close to lvl 5 and with the other were close to lvl 3.

thats a huge difference.

ive noticed most dms give experience mostly on a gut feeling, and not necessarily related to combat/raw rules, but how do you guys manage this? (i have no exp as a DM, just as player, and i guess theres a thing like generous dms and cheap ones too)

[MadGrady]

When I DM, I typically like to level every 2-3 games. If we end in the middle of an encounter (for whatever reason), then that is pushed back a game.

I prefer more of a milestone approach vs an xp grind. Encounters are more fluid when I plan them (don't use a builder), and enemy stats will vary according to my needs and for fun.

My current game that I am actually playing in, we level every 2 games. We typically only go to about level 10-12, so this works out well for us. If you were playing in higher levels, I would recommend a slower pace.

EDIT ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: I've played a campaign where we leveled after every game. This was too fast for the basic reason that it takes at least one to two games at a certain level to get the hang of new class features.

We play about 2-3 times a month, so it's a long enough period in-between to not feel too fast, but the rewards come quick enough (in a ding every 2-games style) to keep the feel of that growth in power.

[azoetia]

I employ narrative leveling in my games and don't use XP at all. Characters level all together when they accomplish some sort of story goal that takes a lot of work, usually every third session or so.

[Ramshack]

I normally go with a Milestone Approach. It's easy to build continuous campaigns knowing when you're going to level the group. That being said if we start at level 1 I almost always end the first session with a level up. The second session I almost always boost them to 3 and then it's normally 2 sessions to 4, 3 sessions to 5 and I try to keep that pace afterwards.

The quick boosts to level 2 and 3 is as much for the players benefit as it is mine. Sure the players want new abilities and powers etc, but it really allows me to build some depth into the encounters once I know they can survive a few hits :)

[archaeo]

probably one of the most rewarding features of roleplaying is leveling up your character, right?


Well, ideally, the most rewarding features of roleplaying is just playing the game itself. A good campaign doesn't need to dole out increased power in order to keep players engaged, and as far as E6 and other variants go, years of D&D experience suggest that many campaigns work well even without leveling at all.

But that said, leveling up is a really cool bonus and, in a normal campaign, should happen with reasonable regularity.


ive noticed most dms give experience mostly on a gut feeling, and not necessarily related to combat/raw rules, but how do you guys manage this? (i have no exp as a DM, just as player, and i guess theres a thing like generous dms and cheap ones too)

Well, many DMs don't feel like doing all the XP bookkeeping. It's a bit of a waste, especially when granting levels via milestone can be easier and involve the players more in creating backstory for the additional abilities.

Deciding on the pace of leveling is an important topic to discuss with the entire table before a campaign starts.

[mephnick]

I like a fairly slow levelling process if I'm playing every week or two, and I also base it on milestones. I feel it's a little more rewarding and consistent if you have to play with your new abilities for a while before being rewarded with something new, otherwise I find people start talking like "well i'll just take this now, cause next level I'm going to get this anyway". I feel slowing it down lets players create characters more naturally, rather than just checking off a list and waiting for each check mark.

This would probably be very annoying to players who plan out all 20 levels and don't really care how the character is going to play at any individual level.

[MaxWilson]

The reason I like story-based levelling is it gets you away from the "kill all the monsters/no sneaking past/no surrenders" mentality that XP-from-killing-things fosters. Also it strikes me as more realistic. "For this adventure, you're Conan in his early years, so you're a 4th level barbarian." "For this adventure, it's a few years later and you've been working as a mercenary captain, so you're a 4th level barbarian/8th level fighter." Obviously you can't do exactly that same thing with a party, but I like the style and the pacing it engenders. Becoming an archmage isn't just a matter of killing lots of things over the course of a two-year span, it's a matter of decades of study.

I've never tried milestone-based levelling but I could imagine it feeling kind of similar, if the milestones are discrete enough. "You spend a few months in Rivendell digesting your past experiences and talking to Elrond and his buds for advice. Everybody gains a level."

Edit: spelling of "discrete".

[Steel Mirror]

I tend to use narrative based xp for every system but D&D. D&D for me is its own animal. Maybe it's because I cut my teeth on D&D back in my high school days, and back then we played a very murderhobo style that sort of stuck with me down the years, even though I like to think that my current games are a little more complex. Maybe it's because D&D is probably the rules-heaviest of any of the games I run, so I just feel like using the provided xp rules is the path of least resistance. Maybe there is a part of me that sort of likes that, in a world of clever indie games with off-beat sensibilities and self-aware philosophies, there is still a game where monsters are walking pinatas of loot and xp to be overcome with extreme prejudice.

I dunno, but the upshot is that I have been using the xp guidelines for 5E, and so far the average xp per session has been about 1 level's worth, give or take. Mostly give. It seems to even out after the first few levels though, so that you make it to 5th or so really quickly and then settle down to a level every session or two.

[Shining Wrath]

If you look at the XP tables for 5e, it's pretty clear that levels 1-4 are supposed to be quick. After that it becomes more of a slog.

[BRKNdevil]

I use the XP system, but i also award the players if they manage to get past the encounter the same amount if the manage it without fighting, and depending on the nature of the fighters, i add addition chances to gain the loot they may have gained by having the individual groups have more to them, "hey look! some monsters!" such that a group of undead may be a group of defenders to their homeland long after it and they have passed into history. Goblinoid groups could be part of some bandit ring or if a hobgoblin warlord is involved, an army squad and thus information of such things to a group of npc's of the local humanoid civilization would give them a bounty of the same that would be given as loot.

[TheOOB]

I typically just say the party levels up every 2-3 sessions and call it good. They may level up quicker if I want them at a certain power level for an even I want to run, or slower if I'm running a longer chain of adventures and don't want them too outclass the threats they're facing. I dislike the XP system because I feel it takes power away from the DM.

[Sindeloke]

I saw a suggestion when 5e was in beta, either here or on the WotC boards, that leveling should follow the proficiency bonus - as in, level 1 to 2 takes 2 sessions, 19 to 20 takes six. It's a great guideline IMO, and I'll be loosely following it with my group. It fits nicely with my usual technique of giving a level when a current quest is resolved, since my low-level quests tend to take about two sessions already.

[MadGrady]

I saw a suggestion when 5e was in beta, either here or on the WotC boards, that leveling should follow the proficiency bonus - as in, level 1 to 2 takes 2 sessions, 19 to 20 takes six. It's a great guideline IMO, and I'll be loosely following it with my group. It fits nicely with my usual technique of giving a level when a current quest is resolved, since my low-level quests tend to take about two sessions already.

Ooo, I actually like this too. This is something I will have to test out.

[Easy_Lee]

It's also good to note that players don't have to level up to improve. Getting a new item, learning a new spell, a mystic tome that teaches a feat...there are lots of ways to keep the players interested and growing in between levels.

[Balain]

Currently I am running the hoard of the Dragon. Awarding xp for fights with some bonus xp based on the book. So far the party has been levelling roughly the same as the the milestone levelling in the book.


I like the level based on proficiency

[Chaosvii7]

Pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere that they designed it so that players should hit level 2 in one session and level 3 in two sessions, and then every subsequent level thereafter takes about 3 - 5 sessions. But that's boring, so I'd say just do it by proficiency bonus like everybody else suggested.

[Greylind]

Pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere that they designed it so that players should hit level 2 in one session and level 3 in two sessions, and then every subsequent level thereafter takes about 3 - 5 sessions. But that's boring, so I'd say just do it by proficiency bonus like everybody else suggested.

It takes the same xp to level from 1 to 2 as is recommended as the per-day limit/goal in xp from encounters. Pretty sure 1st level is intended as you say to be over and done with in one session.

[mrfish]

I follow the exp given for each monster and the multipliers for numbers. Last session I also gave them enough to boost them to 4th level, simply because I want to try d&d next from 6th-10th, my favourite levels in 3.5/PF. So far they´ve gained a level each session.

I´ve tried to change things as to how I run d20, seeing as I´m playing with different people and trying to change the style of my games to fit the short time were able to play. Basically one large encounter each session, a dungeon or something similar, and less intrigue and investigation. Makes it easier to just use the exp for each monster and little else.

[LaserFace]

For my group, I've just been awarding xp based on whatever monsters I throw at them, and it seems organic enough. Although, I stopped caring about level progression a long time ago. My monsters are designed between session periods, and I just give them enemies who are within their current range.

Our group hasn't had what I'd expect is a typical experience, though. We started at level 1, but by the time we got to level 2, the party had convinced me that we don't really need to play the "newbie" levels, and they wanted a few more mechanics to further define individual members. I figured it can't hurt, so we just all jumped to level 3. Seems like nobody has had any regrets, although I should note my group is mostly experienced players.

Anyway, I continue to design encounters based on what I find thematically appropriate, put them into a fair range of difficulty, and just award xp as per their values. Tomorrow we'll have our (I think) 6th session, but I'm guessing at this rate, they'll be level 3 for another session after that. Seems about the same rate as what some folks here are suggesting is appropriate; I'll probably stick to what I'm doing unless I get complaints. I can see numerous methods working, depending on the desires of the party.

I found it funny when I first learned level 1 is typically a one-session-dealio. Didn't seem strange, I just only had a single fight with some incompetent bandits. We spent most of the time on NPC interaction and such.

[MadGrady]

For my group, I've just been awarding xp based on whatever monsters I throw at them, and it seems organic enough. Although, I stopped caring about level progression a long time ago. My monsters are designed between session periods, and I just give them enemies who are within their current range.

Our group hasn't had what I'd expect is a typical experience, though. We started at level 1, but by the time we got to level 2, the party had convinced me that we don't really need to play the "newbie" levels, and they wanted a few more mechanics to further define individual members. I figured it can't hurt, so we just all jumped to level 3. Seems like nobody has had any regrets, although I should note my group is mostly experienced players.

Anyway, I continue to design encounters based on what I find thematically appropriate, put them into a fair range of difficulty, and just award xp as per their values. Tomorrow we'll have our (I think) 6th session, but I'm guessing at this rate, they'll be level 3 for another session after that. Seems about the same rate as what some folks here are suggesting is appropriate; I'll probably stick to what I'm doing unless I get complaints. I can see numerous methods working, depending on the desires of the party.

I found it funny when I first learned level 1 is typically a one-session-dealio. Didn't seem strange, I just only had a single fight with some incompetent bandits. We spent most of the time on NPC interaction and such.

That's what I love about all of these systems (5e and beyond). Just do what works for your group. If your group loves fast leveling, then man go for it. If they want to have a slower more natural progression, then go for it.

And yes, I was also surprised that level 1 was just 1 session.

[iskoaya]

i have run a few 5e games on roll20, and i have now chosen to award XP/levels between adventures not between sessions. after designing some small adventures to last a few 2-3 hour sessions each, it sucks that half way through the players basically start to curb stomp all my bad guys with new tactics/tools/abilities, so i now award exp/levels after completion of the adventure, not during.