How long does it take to level from 1 to 20?

[Coidzor]

I remember it was calculated out at one point based upon the average CR and expected encounters per day and was supposed to be a couple of months, but searching around has failed to yield any of the posts I remember that addressed it or had the actual hard number itself.

[Ashtagon]

Nominally, the game is based around 4 encounters per adventure day, and 13 1/3 encounters per level.

13.333 x 20 / 4 = 66.666 days

That's about 2 months, assuming no down time.

[Florian]

I remember it was calculated out at one point based upon the average CR and expected encounters per day and was supposed to be a couple of months, but searching around has failed to yield any of the posts I remember that addressed it or had the actual hard number itself.

It´s the theory behind the whole CR system: Equal CR should be beaten easily, but drain roughly 25% of resources. So an "adventuring days" should sum up to around 4 equal CR encounters before a rest, with roughly 14 equal CR encounters / 4 "adventuring days" to a level up. Keeping the 4 hour con slot in mind as a measure stick, you should manage one level up every forth session, so once per month if you game weekly.

[Fizban]

Of course that's ignoring the fact that 20% of encounters are supposed to be above the party level, with 5% of those at +5 or more, meaning the "average" adventurer is dead after 20, 40 encounters tops. And the fact that healing up (including the reversal of serious status effects) so you actually face each day at full strength is going to require off days to recover spell slots. That ought to bring you up to 4 months minimum for the luckiest party alive in a megadungeon that furnishes them with the perfect gear and absolute safety while resting.

[Eldariel]

Of course that's ignoring the fact that 20% of encounters are supposed to be above the party level, with 5% of those at +5 or more, meaning the "average" adventurer is dead after 20, 40 encounters tops. And the fact that healing up (including the reversal of serious status effects) so you actually face each day at full strength is going to require off days to recover spell slots. That ought to bring you up to 4 months minimum for the luckiest party alive in a megadungeon that furnishes them with the perfect gear and absolute safety while resting.

Well, that 5% is supposed to be about escaping or surviving, not winning. And ECL+4 CR is still beatable (sometimes ridiculously easy due to CR being a bit silly). It's possible for an average party run by guidelines to hit 20 without deaths avoiding the overpowering encounters.

[Fizban]

If you assume they always escape and adjust the time total accordingly, sure. If you want to give them at least dozen ifs.

The point being, a party of PCs can do it most of the time, because they're Player characters. Most (good) DMs don't want their players to fail, and don't actually follow the encounter guidelines (the latter not being so good). Most players optimize way harder than the game assumes and have years of tactical gaming experience from a variety of sources. But an actual "average" party of adventurers should die horribly in very short order.

[Crake]

Nominally, the game is based around 4 encounters per adventure day, and 13 1/3 encounters per level.

13.333 x 20 / 4 = 66.666 days

That's about 2 months, assuming no down time.

That should actually be x19, becasue 1-20 is 19 levelups, not 20, so it ends up being 63.333 days, but yeah, still about 2 months, assuming a) nothing but CR appropriate encounters, 4 encounters per day, no deaths in the party, and no downtime.

[Florian]

If you assume they always escape and adjust the time total accordingly, sure. If you want to give them at least dozen ifs.

The point being, a party of PCs can do it most of the time, because they're Player characters. Most (good) DMs don't want their players to fail, and don't actually follow the encounter guidelines (the latter not being so good). Most players optimize way harder than the game assumes and have years of tactical gaming experience from a variety of sources. But an actual "average" party of adventurers should die horribly in very short order.

All of those are pretty strong indicators of not having understood the CR system and what it shall do at all, mixed in with a lack of understanding how the overall system works.

On the gm side, CR mainly serves to create a narrative framework of how a string of "fair and balanced" encounters should look like by giving a tool for pre-determining the outcome of an encounter. For this to work, it´s necessary to understand that CR = APL should mean the characters will win easily, when both sides play with the same tactical level of ability. It also means understanding when the CR rating of a creature or trap is tied to the "organization" entry for that creature (ex: A Quasit is a brutal CR2 encounter but a flock of them are a fitting addition to "shore up" an encounter with a Babau to make it EL 7 or 8). Referencing another, still ongoing discussion, it also means understanding that you should play some monsters "dumb" but fitting to their fluff, with the added abilities being there to make the critter more dangerous if the encounter turns out to easy for that CR (the creature being the "fluff", not the sum of mechanical abilities).

So, yes, basically we want our players to succeed and have a nice gaming experience by doing so, while creating the illusion that their characters actually were in danger and it was their tactical ability that made the difference. (It´s apparently not that uncommon to create a string of "epic" encounters using a group of mechanical inferior "minions" to shore up EXP gain without any real resource expenditure necessary before throwing in the apparent BBEG that can be beaten by superior economy of actions, which is most of the time the real deciding factor)

On the player side, what "hardcore optimizers" don´t get is that over-optimization is senseless when still wanting "fair and balanced" encounters, as you might raise one or to aspects of performance way over the expected level, but the overall class structure can´t hold up for this too long, especially if the gm starts to target weaknesses.

[Eldariel]

All of those are pretty strong indicators of not having understood the CR system and what it shall do at all, mixed in with a lack of understanding how the overall system works.

On the gm side, CR mainly serves to create a narrative framework of how a string of "fair and balanced" encounters should look like by giving a tool for pre-determining the outcome of an encounter. For this to work, it´s necessary to understand that CR = APL should mean the characters will win easily, when both sides play with the same tactical level of ability. It also means understanding when the CR rating of a creature or trap is tied to the "organization" entry for that creature (ex: A Quasit is a brutal CR2 encounter but a flock of them are a fitting addition to "shore up" an encounter with a Babau to make it EL 7 or 8). Referencing another, still ongoing discussion, it also means understanding that you should play some monsters "dumb" but fitting to their fluff, with the added abilities being there to make the critter more dangerous if the encounter turns out to easy for that CR (the creature being the "fluff", not the sum of mechanical abilities).

So, yes, basically we want our players to succeed and have a nice gaming experience by doing so, while creating the illusion that their characters actually were in danger and it was their tactical ability that made the difference. (It´s apparently not that uncommon to create a string of "epic" encounters using a group of mechanical inferior "minions" to shore up EXP gain without any real resource expenditure necessary before throwing in the apparent BBEG that can be beaten by superior economy of actions, which is most of the time the real deciding factor)

I definitely find that the danger shouldn't be an illusion, but that's of course down to player preference. I feel the occasional failure and common near death really raises the dopamine dose from actually succeeding at something; the same concept that makes e.g. Dark Souls is so popular and indeed, why old Nintendo games are still fondly thought of. It's also in D&D history, and I find it the best way to run games still. Give the players the reins of success or failure and focus on running the world as logic dictates based on their actions. Not every group of assassins is level appropriate. Indeed, organisations that have information advantage over the party will precisely try and make the group of assassins powerful enough as to ensure kills.

But the PCs might've held back and hidden some of their power leaving them underestimated, or fed false information through mental manipulation and bluff. Or perhaps they actually have the information advantage over the attacking party and thus lure the assassins into a trap, taking down some of the big shots from the enemy organisation in the progress, potentially doing enough damage to bring the enemy to their knees. It's important to realise that the party themselves has the control of how tough an encounter they're up against based on how they act, and indeed, they're doing their own part writing the story. I find the DM should settle for the role of the arbiter and let the PCs write their story instead of just brute forcing the story he wants to tell. Cooperative story telling, not DM telling a story and the players watching in awe. The DM gives the settings and the PCs weave the details.

[Florian]

I definitely find that the danger shouldn't be an illusion, but that's of course down to player preference. I feel the occasional failure and common near death really raises the dopamine dose from actually succeeding at something; the same concept that makes e.g. Dark Souls is so popular and indeed, why old Nintendo games are still fondly thought of. It's also in D&D history, and I find it the best way to run games still. Give the players the reins of success or failure and focus on running the world as logic dictates based on their actions. Not every group of assassins is level appropriate. Indeed, organisations that have information advantage over the party will precisely try and make the group of assassins powerful enough as to ensure kills.

Kinda-sorta "false positive" answer. Brutal failure and the associated learning curve to overcome the adversary mainly serves to accentuate the accomplishment when you do it. That works when you have some sort of "save point", "spirit healer" or CRTL-L to fail, retry and overcome the challenge.

As single players, we might have fun playing four characters in Dungeon of the Endless, but experiencing perma-death when four people play one character each is ultimately less so.

[Eldariel]

Kinda-sorta "false positive" answer. Brutal failure and the associated learning curve to overcome the adversary mainly serves to accentuate the accomplishment when you do it. That works when you have some sort of "save point", "spirit healer" or CRTL-L to fail, retry and overcome the challenge.

As single players, we might have fun playing four characters in Dungeon of the Endless, but experiencing perma-death when four people play one character each is ultimately less so.

But in a system with Reincarnate, Raise Dead, Revivify, Last Breath, Planar Binding Wish and even True Resurrection, death is rarely permanent if even one PC or ally escapes alive. That's the very reason those spells exist in the first place.

Reading e.g. Silverclawshift's or Saph's campaign journals, the players seem to quite enjoy themselves and the stories seem to just benefit of deaths, failures, retries and changes with the characters. I've seen constant PC success lead mostly to boredom, lack of player engagement with the world, lack of long-running interest, etc. Failure fuels the drive to succeed, and PCs fail or succeed as a team.

Most importantly, if DM doesn't let the players reap what they sow, player agency suffers tremendously.