How do you all deal with trying to give the PCs in your party an idea of the relative skill of NPCs? A long, long time ago (but in this galaxy) I had a list of titles per class based on level for characters. Something like:
Cleric 1. Proselyte, 2. Acolyte, 3. Healer, 4. Brother/Sister, 5. Friar and ending with Grand ArchPatriarch/Matriarch Bard 1. Rhymester, 2. Versifier, 3. Lyrist and ending with Grand Master of Dreams Wizard (Generic) 1. Novitiate, 2. Neophyte, 3. Incanter, 4. Occultist and ending with High Arch-Mage Wizard (Enchanter) 1. Bewilderer, 2. Infatuator, 3. Suggester, 4. Hypnotist and ending with Grand Master Enchanter
Is this something players/DMs would be interested in? Or how do you do it?
I can't really say that I spend much time thinking about this. My NPCs rarely have levels in anything, and the ones that are in some hierarchical trade are generally described by their peers (if it's important enough for the players to know) or have their skills seen firsthand by the party - in combat, in a forge, at a town hall meeting, etc. I also run intrigue campaigns and it generally suits the narrative to conceal NPC abilities like that.
Level titles existed in 1e. You could probably google them. Or just use the titles they give out here for post counts, they come straight from those lists.
I can't really say that I spend much time thinking about this. My NPCs rarely have levels in anything, and the ones that are in some hierarchical trade are generally described by their peers (if it's important enough for the players to know) or have their skills seen firsthand by the party - in combat, in a forge, at a town hall meeting, etc. I also run intrigue campaigns and it generally suits the narrative to conceal NPC abilities like that.
Yeah, this. I don't have any in world or meta system that universally "announces" an NPC's ability. If I want to straight up reveal a NPCs threat level I'd say something about how heavily armed they are or not. Like a newbie conscript with a bunch of battle rattle but keeps shifting around in the gear and doesn't seem very fluid in managing it. Or describe someone's build as layered with tense muscle giving a sense the dude's very accustomed to resorting to violence. For someone more "slick" like a rogue, describe them working the crowd, being alert, clearly having their eyes on exit points and accomplices. A bard's ability can be reflected in their performance, natch, or how welcomed they are by the public at large. Magic users you use others deference to their knowledge and expertise. Etc.
Another descriptor to throw into the mix is describing how the NPC perceives the PCs. Are they welcoming, dismissive, wary? Is the dismissiveness arrogant or do they look they can back up that superior attitude (can also be both). Is the caution because the NPC is themself afraid or does it seem to be the result of a lot of experience in these sorts of encounters.
Basically, ranks and titles speak to social order more than ability, and moreso esoteric orders once we start looking at guilds and orders and cults. Admittedly D&D muddles that through the PC leveling system and tiers of NPCs. Of course, those social orders do give good social gaming opportunity if you have a world where letters of introduction and letters of credit or marque etc. are in circulation ... though such commissionings do get obtained by people who shouldn't really have their charge but do so because of social privilege.
So, whatever the costuming and credit report says aside, beyond the tells I described, players don't really know who they're up against or consorting with or bargaining till they touch steel, match wits, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I can't really say that I spend much time thinking about this. My NPCs rarely have levels in anything, and the ones that are in some hierarchical trade are generally described by their peers (if it's important enough for the players to know) or have their skills seen firsthand by the party - in combat, in a forge, at a town hall meeting, etc. I also run intrigue campaigns and it generally suits the narrative to conceal NPC abilities like that.
Yeah, this. I don't have any in world or meta system that universally "announces" an NPC's ability. If I want to straight up reveal a NPCs threat level I'd say something about how heavily armed they are or not. Like a newbie conscript with a bunch of battle rattle but keeps shifting around in the gear and doesn't seem very fluid in managing it. Or describe someone's build as layered with tense muscle giving a sense the dude's very accustomed to resorting to violence. For someone more "slick" like a rogue, describe them working the crowd, being alert, clearly having their eyes on exit points and accomplices. A bard's ability can be reflected in their performance, natch, or how welcomed they are by the public at large. Magic users you use others deference to their knowledge and expertise. Etc.
Another descriptor to throw into the mix is describing how the NPC perceives the PCs. Are they welcoming, dismissive, wary? Is the dismissiveness arrogant or do they look they can back up that superior attitude (can also be both). Is the caution because the NPC is themself afraid or does it seem to be the result of a lot of experience in these sorts of encounters.
Basically, ranks and titles speak to social order more than ability, and moreso esoteric orders once we start looking at guilds and orders and cults. Admittedly D&D muddles that through the PC leveling system and tiers of NPCs. Of course, those social orders do give good social gaming opportunity if you have a world where letters of introduction and letters of credit or marque etc. are in circulation ... though such commissionings do get obtained by people who shouldn't really have their charge but do so because of social privilege.
So, whatever the costuming and credit report says aside, beyond the tells I described, players don't really know who they're up against or consorting with or bargaining till they touch steel, match wits, etc.
I agree with the approach you use - and it saves me a lot of work coming up with titles.
I use "Degrees of Mastery". When someone asks "how good is" or "how experienced is" such and such, folks will say "well, I think they are an X,.
No one ever uses the word level, lol. This is a simple set up, and allows me to tie it into some game mechanics as well as have (should I need it) differences in quality.
Degrees of Mastery
Novice
1 to 4
Professional
5 to 8
Adept
9 to 12
Master
13 to 16
Arch-
17 to 20
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I should note that when facing someone down, unless you talked to someone else, odds are good the players won't know.
And while it was cool way back when to kinda have some of those, they also became a pain in the butt -- so I use classes as a kind of Profession (and NPC classes include Physic, Sage or Oracle, and Merchant), and then the above.
This gives me a kind of inbetween way of what everyone else has said so far (now that I bothered to read the short thread). There are practical terms to use to convey one's comparative level to someone else, a way to add color to encounters, a way to do things like:
"well, that particular sword was made by a master, while this one here, which you can afford, was made by an apprentice. Now, this one, right here, was made by an Adept who trained under the great Smithies of Smokebelch, and I think would do you just fine. Bit pricier, if you take my meaning, but superior to the apprentice one and just as fine as the Master's work."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Titles by level are irrelevant. Titles should be about ranking and proving worthiness in a guild or similar group of people.
Not sure I agree. If you level up by XP or by milestones, are you not proving worthiness?
So I'm level 20 fighter, I join the fighters guild, and from day 1, I'm arch-fighter and taking the lead of the guild? Okay, sure!
Proving worthiness to yourself, or to your group or to your king isn't the same as proving worthiness to everyone. Titles should be given, not automatically attributed.
Titles by level are irrelevant. Titles should be about ranking and proving worthiness in a guild or similar group of people.
Not sure I agree. If you level up by XP or by milestones, are you not proving worthiness?
So I'm level 20 fighter, I join the fighters guild, and from day 1, I'm arch-fighter and taking the lead of the guild? Okay, sure!
Proving worthiness to yourself, or to your group or to your king isn't the same as proving worthiness to everyone. Titles should be given, not automatically attributed.
Who said you take the lead of the guild? There could already be an equally good fighter already there. And just because you are at that level doesn't mean you have interest in, or skills for, leading a guild.
Titles by level are irrelevant. Titles should be about ranking and proving worthiness in a guild or similar group of people.
Not sure I agree. If you level up by XP or by milestones, are you not proving worthiness?
So I'm level 20 fighter, I join the fighters guild, and from day 1, I'm arch-fighter and taking the lead of the guild? Okay, sure!
Proving worthiness to yourself, or to your group or to your king isn't the same as proving worthiness to everyone. Titles should be given, not automatically attributed.
Who said you take the lead of the guild? There could already be an equally good fighter already there. And just because you are at that level doesn't mean you have interest in, or skills for, leading a guild.
But that’s what a title can imply. It’s an external recognition of status, typically from an institution of some form, not an objective assessment bestowed some impartial cosmic assessor.
Titles by level are irrelevant. Titles should be about ranking and proving worthiness in a guild or similar group of people.
Not sure I agree. If you level up by XP or by milestones, are you not proving worthiness?
So I'm level 20 fighter, I join the fighters guild, and from day 1, I'm arch-fighter and taking the lead of the guild? Okay, sure!
Proving worthiness to yourself, or to your group or to your king isn't the same as proving worthiness to everyone. Titles should be given, not automatically attributed.
Who said you take the lead of the guild? There could already be an equally good fighter already there. And just because you are at that level doesn't mean you have interest in, or skills for, leading a guild.
But that’s what a title can imply. It’s an external recognition of status, typically from an institution of some form, not an objective assessment bestowed some impartial cosmic assessor.
And in medieval times, titles were also attributed to skill levels, so you would go from an apprentice to a journeyman to a master. The highest ranking/most skilled practitioner of some craft does not necessarily run the guild, nor may they even be in one. Look at the Blackstaff in Waterdeep - not the most powerful mage in Waterdeep but has the title of Blackstaff bestowed upon her. The title could be that you have reached some level of skill. You can be a master smith and not run a smithing guild.
Titles by level are irrelevant. Titles should be about ranking and proving worthiness in a guild or similar group of people.
Not sure I agree. If you level up by XP or by milestones, are you not proving worthiness?
So I'm level 20 fighter, I join the fighters guild, and from day 1, I'm arch-fighter and taking the lead of the guild? Okay, sure!
Proving worthiness to yourself, or to your group or to your king isn't the same as proving worthiness to everyone. Titles should be given, not automatically attributed.
Who said you take the lead of the guild? There could already be an equally good fighter already there. And just because you are at that level doesn't mean you have interest in, or skills for, leading a guild.
But that’s what a title can imply. It’s an external recognition of status, typically from an institution of some form, not an objective assessment bestowed some impartial cosmic assessor.
And in medieval times, titles were also attributed to skill levels, so you would go from an apprentice to a journeyman to a master. The highest ranking/most skilled practitioner of some craft does not necessarily run the guild, nor may they even be in one. Look at the Blackstaff in Waterdeep - not the most powerful mage in Waterdeep but has the title of Blackstaff bestowed upon her. The title could be that you have reached some level of skill. You can be a master smith and not run a smithing guild.
Perhaps, but that mastery would typically be bestowed on you under the auspices of a guild. I’m not saying they cannot also be used as an indication of skill, but they are not automatic and universal
Titles by level are irrelevant. Titles should be about ranking and proving worthiness in a guild or similar group of people.
Not sure I agree. If you level up by XP or by milestones, are you not proving worthiness?
So I'm level 20 fighter, I join the fighters guild, and from day 1, I'm arch-fighter and taking the lead of the guild? Okay, sure!
Proving worthiness to yourself, or to your group or to your king isn't the same as proving worthiness to everyone. Titles should be given, not automatically attributed.
Who said you take the lead of the guild? There could already be an equally good fighter already there. And just because you are at that level doesn't mean you have interest in, or skills for, leading a guild.
But that’s what a title can imply. It’s an external recognition of status, typically from an institution of some form, not an objective assessment bestowed some impartial cosmic assessor.
And in medieval times, titles were also attributed to skill levels, so you would go from an apprentice to a journeyman to a master. The highest ranking/most skilled practitioner of some craft does not necessarily run the guild, nor may they even be in one. Look at the Blackstaff in Waterdeep - not the most powerful mage in Waterdeep but has the title of Blackstaff bestowed upon her. The title could be that you have reached some level of skill. You can be a master smith and not run a smithing guild.
So Ace seems to be dissing academically derived titles, but Marigold is right that the medieval guild/craft system, which still exists in the modern trade system within organized labor have titles based on demonstrable skills developed by time in a given trade. Maritime trades, and even navies use "ratings" for particular skills and will list desired ratings for crew members to sign onto ships. These "levels" actually are in fact as close to objective standards as a human can have. Shooting qualifications have marksmen, experts and sharpshooters, you either land the rounds in the five ring or you do not. Electricians you can either wire up a house or you can't. Competencies can in fact have metrics.
All that said, while yes some fields will encourage its members to publicly sport its honorifics, other fields opt for a more "quiet professional" bearing, so ranking isn't often made explicit to outsiders or there may be no formal designation within the group. It's more a world building thing whether a character intersects with a title system than an essential to the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I’m not outright dismissing them, just pointing out that they are affected by factors outside of an individual’s actual objective competencies, which is why they would not automatically be applicable to, say, a Wizard or Cleric of a given level.
I’m not outright dismissing them, just pointing out that they are affected by factors outside of an individual’s actual objective competencies, which is why they would not automatically be applicable to, say, a Wizard or Cleric of a given level.
Yes, definitely with the "studious" classes where their rank may be attached to an academic institutions (wizards, some clerics) or a religious order (clerics, some wizards). Actually I'm pretty sure in the write up of the Cleric class they make clear that they may be other ordained people in a religious order with higher authority over the conduct of the order who don't have any of the divine magic features of the Cleric. There's rank by social/political factors and I don't think you see it much in 5e anymore but in prior editions it wasn't uncommon for importantly ranked NPCs to not have leveled class features and hit points in the 4-6 range.
Like I said a title could be a true "measure" of ability, if the title system belonged to some sort of internally or externally regulated trade with demonstrable capacities (this could be spell casting, but there's lots of IRL association with trades). Or it could simply be honorifics. There's also the possibility that hierarchy and title is dealt with through actual skill tests, Wizard duels are a trope.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How do you all deal with trying to give the PCs in your party an idea of the relative skill of NPCs? A long, long time ago (but in this galaxy) I had a list of titles per class based on level for characters. Something like:
Cleric 1. Proselyte, 2. Acolyte, 3. Healer, 4. Brother/Sister, 5. Friar and ending with Grand ArchPatriarch/Matriarch
Bard 1. Rhymester, 2. Versifier, 3. Lyrist and ending with Grand Master of Dreams
Wizard (Generic) 1. Novitiate, 2. Neophyte, 3. Incanter, 4. Occultist and ending with High Arch-Mage
Wizard (Enchanter) 1. Bewilderer, 2. Infatuator, 3. Suggester, 4. Hypnotist and ending with Grand Master Enchanter
Is this something players/DMs would be interested in? Or how do you do it?
I can't really say that I spend much time thinking about this. My NPCs rarely have levels in anything, and the ones that are in some hierarchical trade are generally described by their peers (if it's important enough for the players to know) or have their skills seen firsthand by the party - in combat, in a forge, at a town hall meeting, etc. I also run intrigue campaigns and it generally suits the narrative to conceal NPC abilities like that.
Titles by level are irrelevant. Titles should be about ranking and proving worthiness in a guild or similar group of people.
Level titles existed in 1e. You could probably google them. Or just use the titles they give out here for post counts, they come straight from those lists.
Yeah, this. I don't have any in world or meta system that universally "announces" an NPC's ability. If I want to straight up reveal a NPCs threat level I'd say something about how heavily armed they are or not. Like a newbie conscript with a bunch of battle rattle but keeps shifting around in the gear and doesn't seem very fluid in managing it. Or describe someone's build as layered with tense muscle giving a sense the dude's very accustomed to resorting to violence. For someone more "slick" like a rogue, describe them working the crowd, being alert, clearly having their eyes on exit points and accomplices. A bard's ability can be reflected in their performance, natch, or how welcomed they are by the public at large. Magic users you use others deference to their knowledge and expertise. Etc.
Another descriptor to throw into the mix is describing how the NPC perceives the PCs. Are they welcoming, dismissive, wary? Is the dismissiveness arrogant or do they look they can back up that superior attitude (can also be both). Is the caution because the NPC is themself afraid or does it seem to be the result of a lot of experience in these sorts of encounters.
Basically, ranks and titles speak to social order more than ability, and moreso esoteric orders once we start looking at guilds and orders and cults. Admittedly D&D muddles that through the PC leveling system and tiers of NPCs. Of course, those social orders do give good social gaming opportunity if you have a world where letters of introduction and letters of credit or marque etc. are in circulation ... though such commissionings do get obtained by people who shouldn't really have their charge but do so because of social privilege.
So, whatever the costuming and credit report says aside, beyond the tells I described, players don't really know who they're up against or consorting with or bargaining till they touch steel, match wits, etc.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Not sure I agree. If you level up by XP or by milestones, are you not proving worthiness?
I agree with the approach you use - and it saves me a lot of work coming up with titles.
I use "Degrees of Mastery". When someone asks "how good is" or "how experienced is" such and such, folks will say "well, I think they are an X,.
No one ever uses the word level, lol. This is a simple set up, and allows me to tie it into some game mechanics as well as have (should I need it) differences in quality.
Degrees of Mastery
Novice
1 to 4
Professional
5 to 8
Adept
9 to 12
Master
13 to 16
Arch-
17 to 20
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I should note that when facing someone down, unless you talked to someone else, odds are good the players won't know.
And while it was cool way back when to kinda have some of those, they also became a pain in the butt -- so I use classes as a kind of Profession (and NPC classes include Physic, Sage or Oracle, and Merchant), and then the above.
This gives me a kind of inbetween way of what everyone else has said so far (now that I bothered to read the short thread). There are practical terms to use to convey one's comparative level to someone else, a way to add color to encounters, a way to do things like:
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I like that - may have to use that!
Feel free!
The level before Novice is Apprentice. While one can apprentice at any age, the norm is 15 or so.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
So I'm level 20 fighter, I join the fighters guild, and from day 1, I'm arch-fighter and taking the lead of the guild? Okay, sure!
Proving worthiness to yourself, or to your group or to your king isn't the same as proving worthiness to everyone. Titles should be given, not automatically attributed.
Some popular is Hero of the People
Who said you take the lead of the guild? There could already be an equally good fighter already there. And just because you are at that level doesn't mean you have interest in, or skills for, leading a guild.
But that’s what a title can imply. It’s an external recognition of status, typically from an institution of some form, not an objective assessment bestowed some impartial cosmic assessor.
And in medieval times, titles were also attributed to skill levels, so you would go from an apprentice to a journeyman to a master. The highest ranking/most skilled practitioner of some craft does not necessarily run the guild, nor may they even be in one. Look at the Blackstaff in Waterdeep - not the most powerful mage in Waterdeep but has the title of Blackstaff bestowed upon her. The title could be that you have reached some level of skill. You can be a master smith and not run a smithing guild.
Perhaps, but that mastery would typically be bestowed on you under the auspices of a guild. I’m not saying they cannot also be used as an indication of skill, but they are not automatic and universal
So Ace seems to be dissing academically derived titles, but Marigold is right that the medieval guild/craft system, which still exists in the modern trade system within organized labor have titles based on demonstrable skills developed by time in a given trade. Maritime trades, and even navies use "ratings" for particular skills and will list desired ratings for crew members to sign onto ships. These "levels" actually are in fact as close to objective standards as a human can have. Shooting qualifications have marksmen, experts and sharpshooters, you either land the rounds in the five ring or you do not. Electricians you can either wire up a house or you can't. Competencies can in fact have metrics.
All that said, while yes some fields will encourage its members to publicly sport its honorifics, other fields opt for a more "quiet professional" bearing, so ranking isn't often made explicit to outsiders or there may be no formal designation within the group. It's more a world building thing whether a character intersects with a title system than an essential to the game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I’m not outright dismissing them, just pointing out that they are affected by factors outside of an individual’s actual objective competencies, which is why they would not automatically be applicable to, say, a Wizard or Cleric of a given level.
Yes, definitely with the "studious" classes where their rank may be attached to an academic institutions (wizards, some clerics) or a religious order (clerics, some wizards). Actually I'm pretty sure in the write up of the Cleric class they make clear that they may be other ordained people in a religious order with higher authority over the conduct of the order who don't have any of the divine magic features of the Cleric. There's rank by social/political factors and I don't think you see it much in 5e anymore but in prior editions it wasn't uncommon for importantly ranked NPCs to not have leveled class features and hit points in the 4-6 range.
Like I said a title could be a true "measure" of ability, if the title system belonged to some sort of internally or externally regulated trade with demonstrable capacities (this could be spell casting, but there's lots of IRL association with trades). Or it could simply be honorifics. There's also the possibility that hierarchy and title is dealt with through actual skill tests, Wizard duels are a trope.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.