Xanathar's 18 Pages of What??

[Zardnaar]

I am a fan of titles − especially correlating with the tiers. Make up your own. Think about your D&D class.

Levels 1 to 4: student tier
Examples of titles: Student So-and-so of the College of Such-and-such. Page of Sire/Dame So-and-so. Apprentice So-and-so of Wizard So-and-so. Apprentice of the Such-and-such Guild.

Levels 5 to 8: professional tier
Examples of titles: Journeyer of Guild. Squire of Sire/Dame of Lord/Lady. Merchant of. Adventurer of. Artisan of.

Levels 9 to 12: master tier
Examples of titles: Master of Guild. Knighthood of. Sire/Dame So-and-so Wizard of. Chief of.

Levels 13 to 16: leader tier
Examples of titles: Archon, Archwizard, Archdruid, Archon Wizard, Noble, Lord/Lady, Grandmaster, Prince/Princess. His/Her Holiness. Highness. Majesty. Jarl. Royal. King/Queen. Monarch. Imperial.

Levels 17-20: legend tier
Examples of titles: The Great. Magnificent. Marvelous. Wondrous. Exalted. Supreme.



Have great fun with titles. They can correspond to traditional cultures, poetic stylizing, or be idiosyncratic innovations to defines ones own personal power. For example, a Norse tradition apparently has the jarl of the elves go by the title ‘Songster’ (lióði), correlating to the elves as a democracy of mages, who choose a leader known to sing (gala) powerful magical song (lióð).

Titles can be flamboyant or discrete. And a character can have MANY titles. All you need is other people to recite them for you.

I meant titles like Khan, Padishah, Viscount etc. 1E and 2E
had stuff like that in them. I get inspiration (advantage on D&D campaign design) from reading the AD&D DMG's.

 

[Yaarel]

I meant titles like Khan, Padishah, Viscount etc. 1E and 2E
had stuff like that in them. I get inspiration (advantage on D&D campaign design) from reading the AD&D DMG's.

Yeah. These too.

Khan, Padisha, Viscount, etcetera.

They are just ways of saying ‘Leader’ in various languages. Especially use them if the leadership style of your character corresponds to that kind of culture.



The cool thing is. In a medievalesque formal context, even low level characters may be announced and sometimes addressed by formal titles. So think about what these might be.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah. These too.

Khan, Padisha, Viscount, etcetera.

They are just ways of saying ‘Leader’ in various languages. Especially use them if the leadership style of your character corresponds to that kind of culture.



The cool thing is. In a medievalesque formal context, even low level characters may be announced and sometimes addressed by formal titles. So think about what these might be.

In D&D players associate power with personal power. Most rulers would be level one or CR1 or less. But no they have to be a high level whatever.

 

[Yaarel]

In D&D players associate power with personal power. Most rulers would be level one or CR1 or less. But no they have to be a high level whatever.

In my settings, leaders normally have to demonstrate their competence. So are at least level 9, preferably 13.

In situations where a monarch dies young, and a child inherits the throne. They normally havent ‘grown into’ their leadership position yet. They will have a governor or some such looking after them, who will be at least level 9, preferably 13.

Any leader of more than a hundred thousand people, will be of master or leader tier.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In my settings, leaders normally have to demonstrate their competence. So are at least level 9, preferably 13.

Don't you think it devalues the threat of a rampaging dragon or giant (and the importance of PCs) if any normal leader could be reasonably expected to kick the monster's ass in personal combat?

9th-13th level is high, is what I'm saying.

 

[Yaarel]

I have something like this in mind for the number of people a leader is responsible to, but it depends on the situation.

Student: 1
Professional: 100
Master: 10 000 (town or tribe or army)
Leader: 1 000 000 (nation or great city)

 

[Zardnaar]

In my settings, leaders normally have to demonstrate their competence. So are at least level 9, preferably 13.

In situations where a monarch dies young, and a child inherits the throne. They normally havent ‘grown into’ their leadership position yet. They will have a governor or some such looking after them, who will be at least level 9, preferably 13.

Any leader of more than a hundred thousand people, will be of master or leader tier.

The way I look at it is you may not want somehting like Alexander the great or a navy seal running the country over someone like Queen Elizabeth II who may just be an NPC noble.

Reality is the bureaucracy really runs the country a good/infamous leader might be intelligent or charismatic. Doesn't mean they are any good in a fight. Often the office makes the man so to speak, was it Louis the VI who had less political power/wealth etc than the Duke of Orleans? And a few leaders can't punch their way out of the proverbial soggy wet paper bag. Some crap rulers might not be anything more than a level 0 (CR 1/8th)human with no score higher than 10.

The King or Queen might be weak, the elite bodyguards might be level 8 or so (Lawful) along with the champion who is a level 15+ Paladin/Knight/Court wizard etc.

Also gives rulers reasons to be fearful of assassins who can 1 shot them via sneak attack.

 

[Yaarel]

The way I look at it is you may not want somehting like Alexander the great or a navy seal running the country over someone like Queen Elizabeth II who may just be an NPC noble.

Reality is the bureaucracy really runs the country a good/infamous leader might be intelligent or charismatic. Doesn't mean they are any good in a fight. Often the office makes the man so to speak, was it Louis the VI who had less political power/wealth etc than the Duke of Orleans? And a few leaders can't punch their way out of the proverbial soggy wet paper bag. Some crap rulers might not be anything more than a level 0 (CR 1/8th)human with no score higher than 10.

To be fair Elizabeth 2 is a competent leader (and businesswoman).

But even if a monarchy had an incompetent monarch, there will be advisors and generals ‘behind the throne’ who are high level.



In the premodern world, most leaders literally had to fight, and were often personally fighting wars. Often they became leaders because of fame during war.

In a fantasy setting, extend this to magical warfare. (Norse elves are sorta like bards, or psions with telepathy, prescience, psychoportation, and psychometabolism.)

Even in times of peace, a great leader may well be a great bard.

 

[Zardnaar]

To be fair Elizabeth 2 is a competent leader (and businesswoman).

But even if a monarchy had an incompetent monarch, there will be advisors and generals ‘behind the throne’ who are high level.



In the premodern world, most leaders literally had to fight, and were often personally fighting wars. Often they became leaders because of fame during war.

In a fantasy setting, extend this to magical warfare. (Norse elves are sorta like bards, or psions with telepathy, prescience, psychoportation, and psychometabolism.)

Even in times of peace, a great leader may well be a great bard.

Leaders actually fighting has been rare, the last time it happened (for England at least) was centuries ago. Leaders being "generals" is a bit more common, grabbing a sword or gun is a lot more rare.

 

[Yaarel]

Leaders actually fighting has been rare, the last time it happened (for England at least) was centuries ago. Leaders being "generals" is a bit more common, grabbing a sword or gun is a lot more rare.

But think of premodern ages: bronze, iron, classical, post-classical, medieval.

Even in the renaissance that starts the modern age.

The leaders were normatively warriors. The feudal systems presuppose a warrior leader.