Incenjucar
Legend
Named titles only serve to remove potential name space, as the poster above said. It's also horribly meta-gamey. They're only going to force WotC to use terrible naming conventions.
Level Titles
- Thread starter Libramarian
- Start date
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I love 'em.
As a compromise, perhaps instead of hard-wiring the titles into each class and level they could give lists of suggestions for titles for each basic class type (warrior, divine, arcane, rogue) and general level that we could then fill in ourselves if we wanted. Thus:
Low-level warrior: Veteran, Brawler, Scout, Sergeant, Strongarm, Thug, Duellist, Soldier, Rider, Lancer, Bannerman, [and maybe 20 others I'm too lazy to dream up right now]
Low-level arcanist: Trickster, Prestidigitator, Spellbinder, [etc.]
Low-level divine caster: [a list]
Low-level rogue type: [another list]
Mid-level warrior: Swashbuckler, Marshall, Bladesman, [and a bunch of others]
Etc.
The high-level names would be easy: in many cases the class name e.g. Wizard, or a rank of some sort e.g. Lord/Lady for Fighter, for all levels above a certain point.
Outlier classes like Monk and Bard would still need their own list as they don't really fit in with any of the main groups.
Lan-"long ago a lord"-efan
As a compromise, perhaps instead of hard-wiring the titles into each class and level they could give lists of suggestions for titles for each basic class type (warrior, divine, arcane, rogue) and general level that we could then fill in ourselves if we wanted. Thus:
Low-level warrior: Veteran, Brawler, Scout, Sergeant, Strongarm, Thug, Duellist, Soldier, Rider, Lancer, Bannerman, [and maybe 20 others I'm too lazy to dream up right now]
Low-level arcanist: Trickster, Prestidigitator, Spellbinder, [etc.]
Low-level divine caster: [a list]
Low-level rogue type: [another list]
Mid-level warrior: Swashbuckler, Marshall, Bladesman, [and a bunch of others]
Etc.
The high-level names would be easy: in many cases the class name e.g. Wizard, or a rank of some sort e.g. Lord/Lady for Fighter, for all levels above a certain point.
Outlier classes like Monk and Bard would still need their own list as they don't really fit in with any of the main groups.
Lan-"long ago a lord"-efan
William Ronald
Explorer
I voted no, as some of the titles do not work well for certain characters or settings.
So, if I am running a cleric of Thor, the title lama does not work. Or if I am playing a character modeled after the Three Musketeers, the Strongarm do not fit.
The effort used for level titles, IMHO, could be better directed elsewhere.
So, if I am running a cleric of Thor, the title lama does not work. Or if I am playing a character modeled after the Three Musketeers, the Strongarm do not fit.
The effort used for level titles, IMHO, could be better directed elsewhere.
Tallifer
Hero
Titles are a terrific idea for members of a particular Order, Church, Guild, Company, Army, pirate crew, Wizardly Academy or Grove. They are unique and specific terms for responsibilities and offices within any organization. Oftentimes they are not at all hierarchical. (At my school the Head Teacher is no one's superior. In public schools the School Nurse, Lunch Lady, Janitor and Guidance Counselor all have clear roles and jobs, but no authority outside of their own sphere.)
Titles are a stupid idea for an entire class, particularly when said titles are a mish mash of completely different roles in society or from completely different cultures. Even as a teenager, the titles in AD&D were a complete joke.
Why would a Fighter necessarily progress from Duellist to Lancer to Bannerman? That is to say from Cerano de Begerac to Galahad to a Manchurian soldier? Even if the titles do not carry the cultural baggage, they still indicate quite different fighting styles.
There was a recent Dragon magazine article about Ranks and Titles in the Forgotten Realm of Cormyr: now that is the proper way to do titles. I would approve of more of that in future articles, especially for the Realms and Eberron since those worlds have so many complex and pseudo-modern societies.
Titles are a stupid idea for an entire class, particularly when said titles are a mish mash of completely different roles in society or from completely different cultures. Even as a teenager, the titles in AD&D were a complete joke.
Why would a Fighter necessarily progress from Duellist to Lancer to Bannerman? That is to say from Cerano de Begerac to Galahad to a Manchurian soldier? Even if the titles do not carry the cultural baggage, they still indicate quite different fighting styles.
There was a recent Dragon magazine article about Ranks and Titles in the Forgotten Realm of Cormyr: now that is the proper way to do titles. I would approve of more of that in future articles, especially for the Realms and Eberron since those worlds have so many complex and pseudo-modern societies.
Last edited:
I think this sums it up pretty well. It makes me sad to say so, because I also love the charm of those old level-titles... but Wizards already has trouble coming up with names that don't have "war" or "blade" or "sword" or "battle" in them. They don't need their options tightened even more.
(And it's worth noting that even Gary Gygax, Lord of the Infinite Thesaurus, struggled to fill up those lists. In 1E, the 5th-level slot in the cleric table is just blank. The druid table is padded out with "Initiate" nine times over. Monks become "Masters" at 6th level and spend the next 11 levels being Masters of directions, seasons, dragons, flowers, and superiority. From what the designers are saying, we're going to have something like 15 classes in the 5E PHB. Can you imagine trying to put level titles on all of them?)
CM
Adventurer
Titles should be earned entirely through in-game accomplishments. If a character is to be awarded the title Warden of the Blackwood or Sergeant-at-Arms it should be because of recognized accomplishments, not because he killed his thousandth orc.
Class level titles also imply a setting which is often just not appropriate.
Not to mention most of the magic-user titles have been co-opted by specialist mage and other arcane classes.
Magic-User
1: Prestidigitator
2: Evoker (specialist mage)
3: Conjurer (specialist mage)
4: Theurgist (prestige class)
5: Thaumaturgist (prestige class)
6: Magicician
7: Enchanter (specialist mage)
8: Warlock (arcane class)
9: Sorcerer (arcane class)
10: Necromancer (specialist mage/arcane class)
11: Wizard
12: Wizard (12th level)
13: Wizard (13th level)
14: Wizard (14th level)
15: Wizard (15th level)
16: Wizard (16th level)
17: Wizard (17th level)
18: Wizard (18th level or Arch-Mage) (epic destiny/prestige class)
Edit:
Actually, as an addendum I think there is one class where level titles were cool, and that's because the class already has a strong implied setting: The monk.
Monk
1: Novice
2: Initiate
3: Brother
4: Disciple
5: Immaculate
6: Master
7: Superior Master
8: Master of Dragons
9: Master of the North Wind
10: Master of the West Wind
11: Master of the South Wind
12: Master of the East Wind
13: Master of Winter
14: Master of Autumn
15: Master of Summer
16: Master of Spring
17: Grand Master of Flowers
Class level titles also imply a setting which is often just not appropriate.
Not to mention most of the magic-user titles have been co-opted by specialist mage and other arcane classes.
Magic-User
1: Prestidigitator
2: Evoker (specialist mage)
3: Conjurer (specialist mage)
4: Theurgist (prestige class)
5: Thaumaturgist (prestige class)
6: Magicician
7: Enchanter (specialist mage)
8: Warlock (arcane class)
9: Sorcerer (arcane class)
10: Necromancer (specialist mage/arcane class)
11: Wizard
12: Wizard (12th level)
13: Wizard (13th level)
14: Wizard (14th level)
15: Wizard (15th level)
16: Wizard (16th level)
17: Wizard (17th level)
18: Wizard (18th level or Arch-Mage) (epic destiny/prestige class)
Edit:
Actually, as an addendum I think there is one class where level titles were cool, and that's because the class already has a strong implied setting: The monk.
Monk
1: Novice
2: Initiate
3: Brother
4: Disciple
5: Immaculate
6: Master
7: Superior Master
8: Master of Dragons
9: Master of the North Wind
10: Master of the West Wind
11: Master of the South Wind
12: Master of the East Wind
13: Master of Winter
14: Master of Autumn
15: Master of Summer
16: Master of Spring
17: Grand Master of Flowers
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I say no, most of the time I advocate options, but a line has to be drawn at some point, titles are cool, but not always make sense and are setting-dependient by necessity. I would agree that at some point it would be cool to have "you get an unique title" or "you get an appropriate title" and "this is a list of appropriate titles, a,b,c.....z. You can still make your own". But I wouldn't hold my breath for something like that, I'd rather have the developers' time (and the dmg and PHB pages) used on the fine tunning of the mechanical rules than in fluff that a) is easy to houserule in or out anyway, b) best belongs to a side-note on setting books, c) just burns-up names that would be better for classes/themes and d) isn't appropriate for all classes, it doesn't make sense for a wandering minstrel that by definition respects no rules, frontiers or traditions to follow-up a hierarquical list of titles, however a unique apelative he/she gets after getting some reknown would.
After all what is more rewarding? a level-based-cookie-cutter title as "Duelist" or a unique title based on a exploit or particular facet of a particular character?
After all what is more rewarding? a level-based-cookie-cutter title as "Duelist" or a unique title based on a exploit or particular facet of a particular character?
Dice4Hire
First Post
I do not think level titles are needed again. They were fairly nonsensical from the start, and i do not know any group that actually used them an an appelation to a character's name.
Plus, not every character should or does go through the same stages of development, so no need for the same titles.
They were good for my vocabulary when I was a lad, though.
Plus, not every character should or does go through the same stages of development, so no need for the same titles.
They were good for my vocabulary when I was a lad, though.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
No. Unnecessary waste of design time and space. If players want titles they can either work for them with the specific campaign or be creative and create their own. Specific titles at certain intervals might be ok though, but not at every level. I would 5 as a minimum interval.
Last edited:
FireLance
Legend
I concur with previous posters who suggested that level titles should be tied to specific organizations, rather than applied to all members of a particular class regardless of background.
In addition, I would like for level titles to actually mean something. In 1e, for example, I had an order of wizards who had color-based ranks (and robes) awarded according to the highest level of spells the wizard could cast. One who could cast 3rd-level spells, for example, was awarded an orange robe and was allowed to use that as a title. So maybe titles could be awarded for mastery of particular schools, skills, or fighting styles, or for specific accomplishments.
In addition, I would like for level titles to actually mean something. In 1e, for example, I had an order of wizards who had color-based ranks (and robes) awarded according to the highest level of spells the wizard could cast. One who could cast 3rd-level spells, for example, was awarded an orange robe and was allowed to use that as a title. So maybe titles could be awarded for mastery of particular schools, skills, or fighting styles, or for specific accomplishments.
