Level Titles

[Libramarian]

In 1e, classes get a unique appellation for each level attained (until "name level" when you get your final title). This is where the XP titles here come from.

Fighter 6: Myrmidon. Ranger 7: Pathfinder. Magic-User 4: Theurgist.

You are apparently supposed to use these titles in-game and never refer to PCs by a level number. I've never actually done that but I still like them.

For my current AD&D game I had fun replacing a couple of the less interesting ones. Illusionist 2: Pettifogger.

Should D&D Next have them?

 

[Kynn]

No, there's no reason for these apart from pointless nostalgia. They weren't even useful or sensible in AD&D, so there's no reason to carry them over into D&D Next.

Characters shouldn't know what level they are.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Of course, I do, but anyone reading this post is going to be all ROLLEYES OF COURSE THE DELVER DOES OLD GAMER IS OLD HULAHALGHAGHALGHA - and completely miss the point. Level titles are cool, and add a level(!) of "jive" to the game internals. Why wouldn't thieves' guilds have level titles? Or magic users' guilds? Tell you what, join the priesthood and start calling yourself "Pope" and then when they bust your chops say "Eh, nobody uses those names anyway. Bishop, pope, whatever. I'm...like 1st level anyway, so that's just what I'll say."

Even fighter level titles mean things: a 1st level AD&D fighter is a veteran, which means (as I've said elsewhere) he's already survived a life in the peasant levies, work as a linkboy, or bearer, or what-have-you. As various mercenary guilds train him, they'll give him a "rank" - and upward and onward it goes.

I say: keep the level titles.

 

[delericho]

No. I don't mind them, particularly, but I see no great reason for bringing them back. And as Kynn said, they don't actually make a lot of in-game sense - especially when playing a setting that doesn't adhere to the pseudo-medieval European model.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'd like to see them as options in the DMG like the sovereign list in DMG 1e.

Some of the title progressions are fine bit Fighter has a few too precise ones. Wizard was all over every magic type's turf and Lama just doesn't fit with the Cleric progression.

Lists of titles as options.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Level titles are cool, and add a level(!) of "jive" to the game internals. Why wouldn't thieves' guilds have level titles? Or magic users' guilds?

Well those guilds would certainly have titles, but I've never exactly been fond of the idea of thieves and mages even having guilds in the first place. I certainly don't like the assumptions that the PCs must be part of said guilds. Level titles that play into that would be unwelcome, and level titles don't exactly make a lot of sense in any other respect.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Level titles, as a piece of nostalgia, would be a fun Dragon magazine article (maybe for April 1st). I'd keep the existing 1e titles. It'd be fun to see what odd synonymic titles would be concocted for the newer classes: Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, etc.

Some of the titles could conceivably have in-story significance, such as the level-titles of the 1e Bard, Druid, and Monk. At least in Oerth.

I'm trying to think if there has ever been any in-story reference to level titles, or even character levels in any D&D product. The closest I remember is the dungeon world in an Outer Plane of the Mystara cosmos which actually has 36 levels: one for each character level (BECMI went up to level 36). This implied that the 36 character levels had some sort of cosmic in-game significance.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I´d like to have name tiers... each level is a bit much. But some titles are ok i guess.

 

[El Mahdi]

I said Yes, because it really doesn't matter one way or the other. If you like them, you'll use them. If you don't, you won't.

If they're different titles than older editions, older players will likely just use the titles they prefer.

To me, it makes no difference either way.

 

[Ainamacar]

I said Yes, because it really doesn't matter one way or the other. If you like them, you'll use them. If you don't, you won't.

I think it's a stretch to say their inclusion wouldn't matter at all. Wouldn't level titles eventually constrain the name space of new game elements? I'd guess so, especially for classes. Certainly not all the time, but enough to make me hesitant to come up with 10 new names each for sorcerer, warlock, and wizard that I'm sure I wouldn't want to use later. I sympathize with those who want them, because they can be charming. As a Dragon article, themed to different settings? Yes, absolutely, go for it. As something next to the level column in the PHB? I just think it's wiser to leave them off before we start seeing new classes get a Donkeyhorse name we hate because the one that made the most sense already refers to level 8 warlords.