Level Titles

[Kzach]

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.

I vehemently disagree.

See? I'm fuming with vehemence!

Sure, level is an artificial construct for use outside of roleplaying, but at the same time that doesn't mean it has to be entirely separated from it. Part of gaining your name level was the fact that you had achieved, in game, a certain 'level' of prestige, renown, infamy and power. That is recognised by attaining a title. I see nothing wrong with that and think that it only serves to enhance the gaming experience.

I think that having a title every level is probably a bit too much but having 'brackets' of titles would certainly be cool. An additional system of qualification for those levels/titles could also be implemented so that you have to earn the title through an action or requirement in-game. For instance, to be a 'wizard', you might have to be donned as such by a circle of magi who recognise your personal power after succeeding at their challenges. Or perhaps a thieves' guild has to give acknowledge your skill and prowess through surviving their trap-laden gauntlet with the ruby at the end?

A title and challenge every five levels or so seems about right and would certainly add a cool factor to the character and the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

Honestly, better not.

I think in OD&D level titles are cool, but that's because the whole game has but a small bunch of classes.

If we wanna have 10+ base classes (plus non-core ones, variants, prestige or whatever) we seriously cannot afford to think of a title for each level, it would be just ridiculous and confusing.

 

[Mattachine]

If find that the level titles are a strange mishmash of terms found in a thesaurus.

Examples:

The 1st level fighter is a veteran? What about many old-school gamers who want 1st level characters to be bumpkins?

The magic-user goes from a conjurer to an evoker to thaumaturgist and . . . these terms all have significantly different meanings, which might not match the character at all.

Clerics have a variety of level titles that mix and match a variety of existing religions.

No thanks. It is the sort of thing that is dependent on campaigns and game worlds.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

There were a useful and sensible reasons for having class level titles in early D&D. However gamers should not have these forced upon their characters, if they are meaningless in their games. If nostalgia were the only reason for including them, a remembered joy, then I could understand keeping them as an option. Requiring story fluff OTOH, is what I take it you oppose.

Personally I'm for class rank level titles as an indication of rank with those titles always setting specific. Don't make them some arbitrary unchanging titles for everyone's game.

 

[Mattachine]

Also, why would some PCs get "titles" at all? A low level AD&D thief should get a title?

 

[Grydan]

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.

Try becoming the head of the Anglican church and calling yourself Pope. See how well that goes over. I mean, clearly, you can't rise any higher in the ranks of your organization, so you must have the same job title as someone else in a similar position...

Not all churches are going to follow the same ranking structure, use the same titles.
The ranks in one nation's military might not correspond directly to those in another's.
Not all thieve's guilds will follow a strict and commonly held ranking structure, nor are all rogues thieves, or all thieves in guilds.

Your campaign isn't likely to follow the same hierarchies as my campaign. Add in a third person, and their campaign is likely as different from both of ours as ours are from each other.

Creating a system of titles that fits two campaigns is a stretch. One that fits hundreds or thousands is fairly improbable.

As Ainamacar says, it takes up name space.

If "Swashbuckler" is a level name, then it can't be a class, or a theme, or a set of options, or even just a description of someone who swashes their buckler (or buckles their swashes).

If "Sergeant" is a level name, then either all sergeants in all campaigns, across all settings need to be that level, or you're creating unnecessary confusion. I want to be able to have sergeants who are first level PCs, 2nd level NPCs, 12th level NPCs who have been called out of retirement because the goblins are acting up again and boy did they piss off the wrong non-commissioned officer.

 

[tlantl]

Level names were something in the book that never got used at the table in all of the games I've run or played in. The only names we really ever used were name level titles. Even then only rarely.

I would say at one time those titles were things to attain. There weren't a whole lot of things to gain as you leveled unless you were a spell caster. The prestige of being a fighter lord meant something. It even came with some unwritten perks such as influence and power amongst the people who populated your world. This also came with lands and followers which brought added pressure and responsibility.

Perhaps having a title to aspire to and all the trappings that go with it would be something to consider, but just having a silly name attached to each class level doesn't seem that important to me.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yes, because they make D&D quirky and cool.

 

[Mattachine]

I didn't even like most name level titles back in AD&D. If a player brought a ranger to Ranger Knight or Ranger Lord, but the story never saw him knighted or given land, then why the title? Likewise, a roving, adventuring cleric might not have strong ties to a hierarchy, and not every thief is part of a guild.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, because they make D&D quirky and cool.

Funny... I always thought it was the players that did that.