Level titles

[Finarvyn]

I'm just curious if anyone has come up with an alternate list of level titles for the main character classes.

I ask because
1. It always seemed strange for a "veteran" to be the lowest level fighter,
2. Some of the level titles (such as Village Priest) seem to suggest a level of power found in an NPC while many do not. (I could see fighting man level names patterned after military rank, for example, so that a certain level fighter might correspond to a "captain" or "colonel" in the local army.)
3. Once you hit "name level" (Wizard, Wizard 12th, Wizard 13th, and so on) the names are boring and it might be fun to expand the table.

Anyway, so I was thinking of coming up with a new list of level titles and was looking for suggestions or to see if anyone has already done this....

[calithena]

I actually like 'veteran' as a title for first level fighter - it indicates that the first level fighter is no mere tyro, but a battle-scarred, hardened warrior who knows his stuff - just like an orc or other one hit die monster, he's a bad-ass.

But in general I think good level titles, substitute or original for new classes, are a good thing to add to the game.

[korgoth]

calithena said:

I actually like 'veteran' as a title for first level fighter - it indicates that the first level fighter is no mere tyro, but a battle-scarred, hardened warrior who knows his stuff - just like an orc or other one hit die monster, he's a bad-ass.

Likewise.

I think the Magic-User titles need some work... with the exception of "magician" and "wizard" I think they're not particularly generic.

Though I'm not a fan of the Cleric class, I like how the titles are suggestive of position within the hierarchy.

[Zulgyan]

I have modified titles to fix many of their "problems".

Fighting-Men
I Veteran
II Warrior
III Fighter
IV Hero
V Battler
VI Myrmidon
VII Champion
VIII Superhero
IX Lord
X Legend


Magic-Users
I Prestidigitator
II Conjurer
III Arcanist
IV Spellmaster
V Magician
VI Evoker
VII Thaumaturgist
VIII Magus
IX Sorcerer
X Mage
XI Wizard
XII Arch-mage


Clerics
I Acolyte
II Adept
III Devotee
IV Crusader
V Warrior-priest
VI Zealot
VII Templar
VIII Patriarch
IX High Patriarch
X Grand Patriarch


We had an interesting discussion about this some time ago: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=1192948324

1. It always seemed strange for a "veteran" to be the lowest level fighter,

I like the first level fighting men to be a "veteran", since it distinguishes him from the mere "men-at-arms" or "normal men", that are 0-level. A "veteran" is a guy who has survived a battle or two, but not really more than that IMO.

[Falconer]

Is 0-level a concept in OD&D?

[Zulgyan]

Well, you are right. Not really. They are not called "0-level", that's an AD&Dism. You are right.

But 1st level fighting men are different to "normal-men", who are just 1HD monsters with no abilities.

[Finarvyn]

Argh. Forgot about the discussion earlier (and I even participated).

Yeah, 0th level is an AD&D concept but if 1st level is a "veteran" than it makes sense that the common person would be 0th level.

[Zulgyan]

Consider that normal-men roll 1d6 for HPs. While a veteran rolls 1d6+1.

Considerer that fighting men enjoy the benefits of hight ability scores. While normal men don't have scores.

Also considerer that you might make up a special rule to enhance starting hps of the PC fighting men. Like max hp, or re-rolling 1s and 2s.

That's what makes 1st level fighting-men "veterans" IMO.

[jrients]

admin said:

3. Once you hit "name level" (Wizard, Wizard 12th, Wizard 13th, and so on) the names are boring and it might be fun to expand the table.

I have scratched into my copy of Men & Magic that a 16th level magic-user is a Super Wizard, named so in honor of the comic book character Stardust.

[Zulgyan]

OT: That has made me laugh as hell!! ;D

[Rhuvein]

calithena said:

I actually like 'veteran' as a title for first level fighter - it indicates that the first level fighter is no mere tyro, but a battle-scarred, hardened warrior who knows his stuff - just like an orc or other one hit die monster, he's a bad-ass.

But in general I think good level titles, substitute or original for new classes, are a good thing to add to the game.

Yeah, I think that "veteran" is one of the only ones that didn't feel right. Perhaps, "initiate" or "soldier" or "man of arms" or maybe plain old "adventurer" would be better.

[scogle]

Feb 12, 2008 22:10:48 GMT -6 calithena said:

I actually like 'veteran' as a title for first level fighter - it indicates that the first level fighter is no mere tyro, but a battle-scarred, hardened warrior who knows his stuff - just like an orc or other one hit die monster, he's a bad-ass.

But in general I think good level titles, substitute or original for new classes, are a good thing to add to the game.

Yeah; though the "hero mentality" is really apparent in AD&D, only becoming more obvious in each further addition, it existed to a lesser extent in OD&D as well. Look at the fighting capability tables.

A Veteran is a "man +1", or like a normal, run-of-the-mill soldier only +1. Mediums and Acolytes both have "man" for their fighting capability, i.e. they are as good as normal soldiers on the battlefield, normal citizens (though mediums aren't like "soldiers" since they can't wear armor).

[blackbarn]

There was a time I thought the level titles were a bit silly and not needed in the game. My thinking today is that they are fun, and a great addition. I don't really have a problem with any of them, and see a title (any title) as adding another level of interest to a character. I suppose if I were to revise them, I'd make the titles more appropriate to the individual campaign or game world being used. For magic-users this might be their ranking in some type of wizard's circle, clerics could have titles based on their particular religious organization, etc.

[scogle]

Jul 24, 2008 18:06:56 GMT -6 blackbarn said:

For magic-users this might be their ranking in some type of wizard's circle, clerics could have titles based on their particular religious organization, etc.

Interesting; this is also what they did in Blackmoor (Arneson-influenced/created) classes as well. The Druid, Monk, and Assassin would all have to defeat "bosses" to advance to the next level.

[Deleted]

I tend to agree with "Veteran" as well. He is experienced, just not at hero status and beyond, and a better combatant than a village peasant levie.

[Deleted]

I like what Zulgyan has done with the titles; however, I think that some of the levels should have multiple names that split it up for Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.

[oldgeezer]

Adding titles beyond Lord, Patriarch, and Wizard misses the point.

There was an endgame to OD&D. At that point, you quit dungeon crawling and became one of the serious powers in the world. That's when you built your stronghold.

Remember, Gary was a devoted student of medieval history as well, and full aware of the implications of the title of "Lord of Grimsby Dale" or whatever.

Or 'The Wizard of the Blue Tower'. Or "The Patriarch of the Church of St. Cuthbert in Greyhawk".

At that point, you were a magnate -- one of the Great People of the land.

That's what "name level" was all about.

[scottenkainen]

I had done some work "correcting" level titles to a more realistic hierarchical structure -- Catholic titles for clerics, military titles for fighters -- when running 1st ed. AD&D. But, if we had been playing OD&D so as to capture an Old School feel, then tinkering with the level titles would ruin their Old School-icity.

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper