Level Titles
- Thread starter Libramarian
- Start date
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
I've been using them ever since the old BECM days. I like them; they are much less "meta" than referring to a character by his stats.
"Hail, traveler. I am Clarion, Acolyte of Pelor."
"Hail, traveler. I am Clarion, a 2nd level cleric of Pelor."
One of those just sounds better than the other.
"Hail, traveler. I am Clarion, Acolyte of Pelor."
"Hail, traveler. I am Clarion, a 2nd level cleric of Pelor."
One of those just sounds better than the other.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
True, but there's no need to state your level.
Clarion, Acolyte of Pelor, and Clarion, Cleric of Pelor(even if your character is only lvl 2) really aren't that far apart.
That said, having titles also assumes that wherever you get your training from gives ranks. Your Barbarian might only be known as "Bob" from lvl 1 to lvl 20 when he becomes "Chieftan Bob" or "Warleader Bob". Likewise, institutions may reward titles on the basis of particular service, not just general knowledge increases.
So Clarion could be an acolyte from lvl 1 to level 6, until he passes the Test of Light and becomes something else.
Titles are cool, no doubt, but they should have some tie to the actual game, you shouldn't just GET a title for being lvl 3 instead of lvl 1.
No.
Limit the pages of soft fluff in the book.
Plus it encourages thesaurus nonsense titles and limits setting fluff.
"This is the Pathfinders Hall"
"So everyone here is a ranger high enough to have an animal companion?"
"No. Many of us are fighters and rogues."
"But...but you are pathfinders. Pathfinders are rangers."
Limit the pages of soft fluff in the book.
Plus it encourages thesaurus nonsense titles and limits setting fluff.
"This is the Pathfinders Hall"
"So everyone here is a ranger high enough to have an animal companion?"
"No. Many of us are fighters and rogues."
"But...but you are pathfinders. Pathfinders are rangers."
The Little Raven
First Post
This. I liked them when I was younger because there were less classes (and less to them) and it just felt cool to get a sort of title as you leveled.
However, in a game that is starting with 15 core classes that will have varied levels of complexity and will have more in future supplements, I don't think they're a good idea as a core element. Maybe a D&DNext article or something can introduce them for people who want to use them.
Kingreaper
Adventurer
Which of these sounds better: "I am a master of dragons for I study the dragon style" or "I am a master of dragons because I've not got enough XP to become a master of the north wind yet"
Being called an Acolyte only sounds better because it doesn't seem like it's referring to their level (which is a game construct)
When you tie the concept of an acolyte: "One who assists the celebrant in the performance of liturgical rites." to only 2nd level clerics you're A) damaging the setting and B) Making "Acolyte" into a game construct instead of an in-setting thing.
And it leads to ridiculous things such as the fighter who's never used a sword, who's somehow a swordsman.
The wizard who refuses to ever use Necromancy, considering it evil, becoming a Necromancer.
Last edited:
Endur
First Post
I think level titles are only appropriate IF you do something to earn the title besides gaining exp.
For example, in some rules of AD&D, you had to defeat an opponent to advance a level (monks, druids, etc. of certain levels). In that case, the title indicated you accomplished something ... there was only one (or a few) people with that title.
Name titles (such as Lord, etc.) for hitting essentially the end level of the class (9th level fighter was the last d10 hit dice for a fighter and was also where fighters gained a keep and followers) also make sense since the fighter class changes significantly at that level.
The general titles (such as hero for a 4th level fighter, superhero for an 8th level fighter) are cool, but too complicated to remember. So I don't recommend this approach to titles.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Which is rather the point - providing a term which can be used in-game to substitute for "level" without blowing verisimilitude sky high. Using the level title and then STILL making further meta-game reference to experience points seems like deliberate misuse of the concept.
"Acolyte can also be more loosely defined as "one who assists" and doesn't HAVE to exclude its use as a specific in-setting job description. But yes, level titles do rather "stick their nose into" that part of a game setting.
You think a British Grenadier is primarily concerned with throwing grenades? You think a teamster is still narrowly defined as someone who drives a team of horses and not just a freight/passenger transport vehicle? The magical category of necromantic spells includes (or used to in previous editions) HEALING spells, especially raising and resurrecting the dead. Even if it didn't it would/should still be less about creating and commanding the undead as the "Evil" label suggests, than about simply speaking with the dead to divine the future as the dictionary definition would have it.
Yes, you're right that some of the old-edition level titles are too commonly wanted to imply secondary meanings or as level-independent job descriptions. And that they are better used when associated directly with in-game guilds or organizations that CONFER these titles. But _I_ still think they're fun.
Mattachine
Adventurer
By the way, whether someone thinks that an aspect of the game is fun is not necessarily the same as thinking that that aspect belongs in the next edition.
For instance, I really had fun with druidic combat to rise in levels in AD&D. I don't think it should be a standard part of 5e, though.
For instance, I really had fun with druidic combat to rise in levels in AD&D. I don't think it should be a standard part of 5e, though.
