Knights titles from DLA - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Knights titles from DLA

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
valharic
Jul 13, 2004 14:56:03 In the old DLA book, for each lvl you obtained in the each of the Knighthoods there was a title like Squire, Knight, Knight Valorous, ECT. Do you think those titles still work with the 3.5ed PRC?
#2
ferratus
Jul 13, 2004 18:38:17 I would still use them, so I think so.

I might tweak some of the more goofy ones though. For example, there is a Knight of the Lily rank called "Black Bard".
#3
Dragonhelm
Jul 13, 2004 21:21:14 The problem comes with multiclassing. What happens if a knight takes another level of fighter, cleric, or some other class? He would have equal experience to a knight of the same level that didn't multiclass. Would he not have the same rights to a title?

In 3rd edition, it's best to use the old level titles as a role-playing tool. Base the titles on the experiences and deeds of the character.
#4
zombiegleemax
Jul 13, 2004 21:39:24 Agreed. I have added the titles of Knight-Captain (company level); Knight-Commander (Battalion); Knight Lord (Regiment) as ways of discerning just how many troops a Knight may command.
#5
valharic
Jul 13, 2004 21:48:02
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
In 3rd edition, it's best to use the old level titles as a role-playing tool. Base the titles on the experiences and deeds of the character.

I agree with that and was leaning towards that method.
#6
zombiegleemax
Jul 14, 2004 15:05:49 Also the titles used in DLA were common in ADnD since every class had a title for each level. However it is not like that in 3rd edtion so thats no included.
#7
zombiegleemax
Jul 14, 2004 15:38:23 Those old titles are nice but kind of outdated.
#8
ferratus
Jul 15, 2004 1:26:39
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The problem comes with multiclassing. What happens if a knight takes another level of fighter, cleric, or some other class? He would have equal experience to a knight of the same level that didn't multiclass. Would he not have the same rights to a title?

I think there is a case to view rules sometimes as an iron clad thing, and when flavour text is in the rules to veiw that as an iron clad thing too.

By ignoring the idea of ranks, you also deprive a player's sense of a his approximate place in the organization. You lose that sense of rising status and political power which was part of making a Knight of Solamnia fun to play. Plus, ranks also in old DLA had guidelines on how much support or resources you could get from the knighthood.

The fact that knights who multiclass have a lower rank in the organization doesn't bother me so much. With those other classes he has other things he wants to do rather than advance in the Knighthood. Why should, for example, a Knight/Rogue get all the perks of both roles. Why shouldn't the player who has concentrated as a Knight of the Crown be rewarded with a higher rank?
#9
zombiegleemax
Jul 17, 2004 4:48:39 I like the titles, I would use them if any of my players were knights... Getting to level 7 is more exciting when they get a cool name with it...
#10
zombiegleemax
Jul 17, 2004 9:25:26 I agree with the statement that the titles for each level of the knighthood you attain having a title go with it. Personally I believe that that would truly work out to have each level in the knighthood to have a title to go with it. But I dont see multiclassing as a problem. To me when a knight decides to take another level in his knightly PrC that is what represents moving forward in the knighthood, not when he levels in other classes. This to me also what suggests that you might have a very powerful warrior who has a relatively low rank in the knighthood next to a high ranking knight who is nowhere near as strong....for example...

(just work with me on this, I dont have my books to do the math and see if these are possible class combos)

A Ftr12/CrownKnight3 named Bill and a Nbl2/Ftr3/CrownKnight10
named Ted. Now Bill is a grizzled warrior through and through, probably has fought through several long campaigns and always remained in the lowly ranks of the knighthood, whereas you have his commanding officer Ted who is of noble birth and has spent his time in the political arena and at tourney, he is a tactician in battle. Both of these characters are of the same character level, but one has decided to move his way up in the knighthood earning title and all that goes with it, while the other has remained a lowly soldier in the ranks and probably a wandering knight errant as well.
#11
zombiegleemax
Jul 19, 2004 11:19:40 Serena that explanation makes sense. Thanks for sharing with us.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 valharic Jul 13, 2004 14:56:03	In the old DLA book, for each lvl you obtained in the each of the Knighthoods there was a title like Squire, Knight, Knight Valorous, ECT. Do you think those titles still work with the 3.5ed PRC?
#2 ferratus Jul 13, 2004 18:38:17	I would still use them, so I think so. I might tweak some of the more goofy ones though. For example, there is a Knight of the Lily rank called "Black Bard".
#3 Dragonhelm Jul 13, 2004 21:21:14	The problem comes with multiclassing. What happens if a knight takes another level of fighter, cleric, or some other class? He would have equal experience to a knight of the same level that didn't multiclass. Would he not have the same rights to a title? In 3rd edition, it's best to use the old level titles as a role-playing tool. Base the titles on the experiences and deeds of the character.
#4 zombiegleemax Jul 13, 2004 21:39:24	Agreed. I have added the titles of Knight-Captain (company level); Knight-Commander (Battalion); Knight Lord (Regiment) as ways of discerning just how many troops a Knight may command.
#5 valharic Jul 13, 2004 21:48:02	Originally posted by Dragonhelm In 3rd edition, it's best to use the old level titles as a role-playing tool. Base the titles on the experiences and deeds of the character. I agree with that and was leaning towards that method.
#6 zombiegleemax Jul 14, 2004 15:05:49	Also the titles used in DLA were common in ADnD since every class had a title for each level. However it is not like that in 3rd edtion so thats no included.
#7 zombiegleemax Jul 14, 2004 15:38:23	Those old titles are nice but kind of outdated.
#8 ferratus Jul 15, 2004 1:26:39	Originally posted by Dragonhelm The problem comes with multiclassing. What happens if a knight takes another level of fighter, cleric, or some other class? He would have equal experience to a knight of the same level that didn't multiclass. Would he not have the same rights to a title? I think there is a case to view rules sometimes as an iron clad thing, and when flavour text is in the rules to veiw that as an iron clad thing too. By ignoring the idea of ranks, you also deprive a player's sense of a his approximate place in the organization. You lose that sense of rising status and political power which was part of making a Knight of Solamnia fun to play. Plus, ranks also in old DLA had guidelines on how much support or resources you could get from the knighthood. The fact that knights who multiclass have a lower rank in the organization doesn't bother me so much. With those other classes he has other things he wants to do rather than advance in the Knighthood. Why should, for example, a Knight/Rogue get all the perks of both roles. Why shouldn't the player who has concentrated as a Knight of the Crown be rewarded with a higher rank?
#9 zombiegleemax Jul 17, 2004 4:48:39	I like the titles, I would use them if any of my players were knights... Getting to level 7 is more exciting when they get a cool name with it...
#10 zombiegleemax Jul 17, 2004 9:25:26	I agree with the statement that the titles for each level of the knighthood you attain having a title go with it. Personally I believe that that would truly work out to have each level in the knighthood to have a title to go with it. But I dont see multiclassing as a problem. To me when a knight decides to take another level in his knightly PrC that is what represents moving forward in the knighthood, not when he levels in other classes. This to me also what suggests that you might have a very powerful warrior who has a relatively low rank in the knighthood next to a high ranking knight who is nowhere near as strong....for example... (just work with me on this, I dont have my books to do the math and see if these are possible class combos) A Ftr12/CrownKnight3 named Bill and a Nbl2/Ftr3/CrownKnight10 named Ted. Now Bill is a grizzled warrior through and through, probably has fought through several long campaigns and always remained in the lowly ranks of the knighthood, whereas you have his commanding officer Ted who is of noble birth and has spent his time in the political arena and at tourney, he is a tactician in battle. Both of these characters are of the same character level, but one has decided to move his way up in the knighthood earning title and all that goes with it, while the other has remained a lowly soldier in the ranks and probably a wandering knight errant as well.
#11 zombiegleemax Jul 19, 2004 11:19:40	Serena that explanation makes sense. Thanks for sharing with us.