Level Titles

[Kingreaper]

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

Even there: What if I want to focus on abilities associated with the dragon school?
I have to become a Grand Master of Flowers anyway?

The problem with names by level is that they're never just names for levels of prowess, they always have other connotations.

ie. Evoker: One who uses Evocation
Lancer: One who uses Lances
Master of Winter: One who fights with a hard, slow, style


So the fact that there can't be a 16th level Master of Winter is just... odd.

 

[erf_beto]

They look cool but, really, just NO.

I think Prestige Classes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies and whatnot do a much better job to describe a character, mechanically and fluff-ly, instead of "forcing" a title into a character that may as well be doing the same thing since last level...

They should be roleplaying aids. Things that mark the character progression in the game world, not in the character sheet.

Plus, when it comes to translations, a lot of names will be taken in the name of pointless nostalgia, IMO.

 

[Khaalis]

Just NO!

1) The names were nonsensical mashing together of words from a thesaurus for the most part. Many of them made little to no sense at all anyway.

2) Titles should be made into a part of the reward structure of the game as part of a Reputation & Renown system. Aside from that, the "titles" used in AD&D would be better served being used as Themes and Builds in the Advanced Class Options section as well as whatever they call actual Advanced Classes (Prestige Classes, Expert Classes, Paragon Paths, Master Classes, etc.).

 

[Nikosandros]

No. I don't use them in AD&D and I see little reason for them to be in the next edition.

As others have already said, they often make little sense. A lawful good magic-user devoted to a church isn't really going to call himself a necromancer...

Specific guilds, churches and organizations will certainly have some titles, but IMHO they aren't a good idea for a whole class.

 

[Kingreaper]

No. I don't use them in AD&D and I see little reason for them to be in the next edition.

As others have already said, they often make little sense. A lawful good magic-user devoted to a church isn't really going to call himself a necromancer...

Especially if he specialised, and necromancy is one of his forbidden schools.

 

[grimslade]

Names have power and meaning.
Names for every level? No.
A Named level. The point at which there is a tier change or play shift? Absolutely.
It might be as simple as Master or or as an epithet "the Learned" for a wizard, or "Death's Prophet" for an assassin. It is something else for players to attain.
Two caveats.
Multiclassing. A 3E style system would lead to interesting combos. Say 5th level is named Armsmaster or Master of Arms as an epithet for fighter. And 5th level ranger is a Trailwalker. Bob the Ranger6/Ftr5/rog2 would be referred to as Trailwalker Bob, Master of Arms.
Setting specific. Names are setting specific, so a list in the class write up is not appropriate. There should be a section in the DMG in the world creation section and in setting splats.

 

[kitsune9]

I never used name titles myself. Never had players who said, "Well, I'm a 1st level footpad or "I'm a 9th level Lord". Given that 5e is probably going to make use of themes, those themes are going to need names and I don't see 5e having name titles and themes unless one becomes core and the other optional.

 

[Aldeon]

I don't see the harm as long as it is a purely out-of-game use like 4e using heroic, paragon, and epic tier.

As for in-game, nope nope. You should come up with that yourself as part of your campaign setting if you want, but definitely not necessary.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Keep 'em as an optional component... for nostalgia's sake and for poops & giggles. They are easily ignored but can add a little flavor to your game.

 

[Zireael]

I think named levels should stay as an option.

Having every level be named is not a good thing, however, as it leads to nonsensical titles, as mentioned before.

Re: multiclassing. Maybe make similar titles for similar classes (warrior/ranger/warblade/what have you).

Maybe one level every three or four should be named.