What is the lowest Tier/highest LA that you would be happy playing?

[Particle_Man]

Would you be content to rock out with a Soulborn? Slash away with your Samurai? Or if not, what is the lowest Tier you would be happy playing and why?

Perhaps related, what is the highest LA that you would be happy playing, assuming the DM does *not* allow LA buyoff?

[eggynack]

I'd be reasonably happy with a tier three, but anything lower than that seems a bit on the option-less side for my taste. Adepts are pretty cool though, so that could feasibly be fun. I'd be happiest with tier one though, because I'd like to put some of the druidic theorycrafting I've been doing to work. I don't think I could ever see myself using LA unless I were being forced, even on builds that could reasonably profit from it. There's just something about the idea that's never particularly interested me.

[Kazuel]

I'm happy with any character who's concept I like so long as I have a good group.

[NeoPhoenix0]

The lowest teir class i'm willing to play is a healer, but i would need to make one change before doing that. Make the healer spontaneous.

Apart from that I would play teir 3 or 4 pretty comfortably, but only the ones with some interesting things like tome of battle, tome of magic (not true namer), and magic of incarnum. I find basic melee characters like barbarians to be boring and monotonous.

[OldTrees1]

My preferred range:
Tier 4 / LA +3 (Ghost 3 Dwarf Rogue X / Silver Key 2 / Umbral Disciple 3)
Tier 3 / LA +4 (Lich Human Necromancer 1 / Dread Necromancer X / Red Wizard 5)
Tier 3 / LA +1 (Large Dragoborn Fighter 2 / Barbarian 2 / Swordsage 1 / Rogue (Feat) 2/ War Hulk X / Warblade 1)

[Seerow]

I'm comfortable finding options I like as low as tier 5, though tier 3-4 is where most of the things that are more interesting to me show up. I couldn't see ever really having a lot of fun with a t6 class though. Those are just awful.

[NeoPhoenix0]

For LA, I have an even less straight forward answer. I would play a lillend which is LA +6, I would probably advance as a bard (racial hit dice with the dm's permission).

It depends on the creature and the potential builds from it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depends on a couple of factors; the expected time frame of the campaign/adventure, the optimization skill and class choices of the other members of the party, whether or not I'm in the mood to play a high-difficulty character concept, etc.

Under the right circumstances I'll go as low as T6 NPC class. I've played a commoner before and had a good time though I grant you that was an all commoner one-off. It's kinda surreal to see what a day in the life of your average Joe in Greyhawk is like.

Long-term, serious campaign; I'll still go down to T6 but I won't be picking an NPC class. Straight monk to put the game on hard-mode FTW.

Edit: Acceptable LA is entirely dependent on what I'm doing with the character.

[Setra]

My friends are all low OP so even when I'm playing a Tier 5 I can easily have fun playing with them, even if my character is 'weak' in your game, in games with my friends he'd be probably above average, so he feels fine to me.

I mostly don't like Level Adjust though, Racial Hit Dice are ok if I am playing an Initiator though, not sure if they count for the 'half level toward initiator level' or not but we play it that way.

[Zman]

I like the tier 3-4 Range and really don't play T1-2, if I do, its a Gish concept and far from optimized usually resulting in a Tier 3-4 effective character. Tier 5 is lacking in options, but can be playable, especially in groups with other 4s and even 3s, or low Op 1-2s.

Any good character concept is playable, but entirely group dependent.

IMO, how the group plays is far more important. If you are playing in a group with a pretty Optimized Teir 1, then anything Teir4 and below is out, and T3 and T2 needs to be Optimized.

Playing in a Low to Mid Op Group, then the Teir differences aren't as drastic. 2-5s play nice enough together, with 2-4 being best. If the Wizard isn't optimizing his spell selection, or abusing the spells at his disposal Teir 1st can play nice with even Teir 5s. But, as soon as the Teir 1-3s start to Optimize, the Teirs 4-5s really fall behind.

IMO, Mid Op is what should be assumed for new games and most groups unless the players involved are all looking for a High Power, High Op game. Even one T1-3 character that heavily Optimizes can ruin a group unless all players are following suit. I'm not saying High Power High Op can't be fun, it definitely can be, but shouldn't be the assumption for most games. I feel the designers assumed Mild Optimization, and didn't really consider High Optimization when they made the game. The default assumption for new games should be the same.

All players in a group need to be playing the same game. If players are clear what kind of game and what kind of characters they need to be building, many of the problems can be avoided.

The Big 16, should be a Big 17, with #17 being what Optimization level will be favored.


Edit: As to LA, I find the implementation of Level adjustment terrible, I usually won't go past LA +1 barring Gestalt, then I go nuts with Half Dragon Pixies, etc.

[Palanan]

Honestly, when I'm working up a character I don't even think about the tier. I also don't mind playing healers, so a Healer would be fine.

I'd love to play a trapper/prospector in a wilderness-based commoner campaign. Or a Warrior/Expert with maxed-out Sense Motive and Knowledge(Nature), for Cadfael.

[Da Beast]

Overall power doesn't matter so much if the DM is competent enough to ratchet the challenge up or down as needed. What I care about is having a variety of interesting options so that I can do more in combat than charge or full attack. I suppose that limits me to tier 3 or 4 at a minimum since most tier 5 or 6 classes don't have anything going for them besides high base attack.

[Zanos]

I really like playing Tier 1 classes. Having unlimited power at your fingertips is fun. I try not to get too hard on the cheese though, so I'll usually stop myself from using stuff like Planar Bindings and anything to do with wishes. I generally stick to stuff that other people in the party aren't doing so everyone can contribute. I don't mind Tiers 2/3, though. Dread Necromancer and Beguiler are very fun classes that are great at what they do.

Sometimes I get the urge to just hit stuff with a greatsword, though. You don't really feel a tier mismatch in the party as long as everyone can contribute meaningfully.

As for LA, it depends on starting level, whether buyoff is avaliable, and what class I'm playing. For casters I wouldn't go higher than +1 usually, beacause the next spell level is just plain better than anything I would get from a template.

"Mundane" classes I have more leeway with with LA, and would probably go up to +3. The lack of HD/HP/Saves/BAB still hurts, but you can manage.

>3 is just too high for me to really manage. I've never played a character with 4 or more LA and felt like I was contributing meaningfully to the party.

[EugeneVoid]

I hate LA.

I like monks (t5)

I play commoners too in games where I think the players are too serious.

[GreenETC]

Generally, I tend towards enjoying using T1 casters in other roles, so as to minimize my overall impact on the game world from a magical standpoint and place me closer to the front lines. Gishes are my favorite things, but I rarely get a chance to play a high enough level to enjoy them. Sorcadins, Swiftblade Outsider Wizards, Prestige Paladin Clerics.

Right now I'm really desiring to play a game where I can play a Loredelver so that I can be the scout/trapfinder while simultaneously being the BFC/buffer.

[TuggyNE]

I've played an ECL 7 pixie ranger, which rather neatly gives the parameters for both questions in one go. :smallwink:

[Jeff the Green]

I've played an ECL 7 pixie ranger, which rather neatly gives the parameters for both questions in one go. :smallwink:

Ditto this. Though pixie spellthief and pixie warlock rather than ranger. Sure, you're going to do 1d6 damage a round. You're also not going to be taking damage.

However, most +4 LA races aren't worth it. And I'm really only interested in the caster Tier 4 classes.

In a highish level, short-term campaign I might go as low as Tier 5 with paladin. Warforged substitution levels for crazy immunities, Mystic Fire levels, Awesome Smite, Battle Blessing, and DMM for options, could be fun.

[purpenflurb]

I like support characters. Being the one doing the damage has never been of much interest to me, for some reason my first dnd experience was a charging paladin who basically 1-shot everything in open fields and it was horribly boring. My current character is an artificer which is fun, I generally find I like T1s for how easy it is to adjust their power to what the group needs, and for the number of strategic options they give you. Most T3s and everything below that rely too much on dealing damage for my taste, I wouldn't mind a healer or beguiler so much.

[Emperor Tippy]

Well I actually like playing Monks on occasion. I could be happy with a Tier 6 in the right game though.

As for highest LA, I've been happy playing an Ulitharid. That has 9 racial hit dice and an LA of +12 so supposedly ECL 21. It became a lot better once I hit ECL 23 as then I had my two levels of Ardent and had the ability to manifest 9th level powers (with an ML of 31).

[Immabozo]

For LA, the BEST option for a large race is Anthropomorphic Baleen whale!

LA 0, RHD 3 (Just strictly better! 2 BAB, I think, and saves, hd, skills)
+6 str, +4 dex, +4 con, +4 int, +6 wis, +4 char, NA 9, size large

[Hurnn]

I prefer T 4 or 5 I would go 6 for aristocrat for a fun build but would multiclass into something T 4 fairly early. I dont think I could play a non optimized fighter again even in a lower tiered game. I think a OA samurai or ninja could be fun in the right group as could monk. I dont think I would enjoy the higher tiered stuff much outside bard or druid honestly.

As far as La, I try to avoid it. I have an LA +1 that was bought over from an older addition but i think its a bs LA, half ogre has as many negatives as positives. In the right circumstance I may go as high as LA 3 for lycanthrope or something else cool.

[Dr. Azkur]

For LA, the BEST option for a large race is Anthropomorphic Baleen whale!

LA 0, RHD 3 (Just strictly better! 2 BAB, I think, and saves, hd, skills)
+6 str, +4 dex, +4 con, +4 int, +6 wis, +4 char, NA 9, size large

http://cdn.wolfire.com/legacy/whaleman.jpg

Quite off on the scale but... you know, whatever.

[Ansem]

Any tier, as it all depends on what PrC it gets you to and synergy (fluff helps as well, hello shadowcaster!) but LA..... I prefer minimal RHD unless its a melee build or otherwise no more than 2 or 3 LA.

[Togo]

Happy to play anything. T6, T1, something in between, so long as I'm reasonably well balanced with the party, and filling a role that doesn't overlap too much with other characters, I'm happy.

Because I like playing characters that other people don't I tend to favour T3-4, because of the variety available, but it varies from group to group.

As for LA, I'm happy to play it, but regard it as a bit of a liability once the LA gets too high. I generally avoid LA when designing characters, but if the campaign or character idea requires it, I'm happy to play it. I'd worry about any game that had LAs forming more than about 50% of the character's ECL, simply because certain mechanics start to break down at that point, but so long as I was confident the DM could balance the game, I'd be happy to play it.

[Octopusapult]

I don't like LA. As a DM if a player wants a race with an LA I generally work with them to at least drop the LA down to 1.

I would play any tier though provided the group was good. Though generally I multi-class and play multiple characters if possible.

[Gwendol]

I never care about Tiers when designing and playing a character, and have played games ranging from Monk and Rogue, to Cleric. The game and group are more important when deciding on a build. That goes for LA too, which in general should be avoided. LA +1 is manageable though, to the point of not mattering much in practice.

[molten_dragon]

Would you be content to rock out with a Soulborn? Slash away with your Samurai? Or if not, what is the lowest Tier you would be happy playing and why?

Perhaps related, what is the highest LA that you would be happy playing, assuming the DM does *not* allow LA buyoff?

I'm happy down to about tier 4 (I enjoy playing rogues and barbarians)

As far as LA goes, it would depend on what level the game was starting at. If it was a game at level 3, I wouldn't want more than LA+1.

A game at level 20 I might be okay with +5 if what I gained was worth it.

[Maginomicon]

If you were to use the reasonable clarification that I house-rule for spectral hand, I built a
Thri-Kreen (2 RHD +2 LA) Divine Spellcaster 4 / Arcane Spellcaster 1 / Mystic Theurge X
as a "Full-Contact Mage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FullContactMagic)".

I don't know what tier that is, but it's so badass qualitatively that I don't care.

[Person_Man]

Depends on the game. My favorite character of all time was actually a strait Tier 4 (5?) Scout. But that was a game with a ton of roleplaying and Skill encounters. Combat got really boring, really quickly. And it was years before most supplements had been published, so Binder/Incarnate/Swordsage/etc wasn't available.

But for most games, I highly prefer Tier 3, or Tier 1-2 with reasonable spell lists.

[Togo]

To clarify my earlier post, I don't actually use the Tier system at all when building a character, except where the DM specifies house rules based on it.

[Immabozo]

http://cdn.wolfire.com/legacy/whaleman.jpg

Quite off on the scale but... you know, whatever.

Exactly! I love the image of it!!

[Iryanmadayana]

Being useless feels pretty bad, so I would generally avoid the inflexible classes like Fighter. Lots of T4 classes would be perfectly fine for me though. For instance, a trapsmasher barbarian with good ranks in intimidate and possibly even taking the tracking feat can do a lot of things aside from his core competence of whacking people, but is still very good at that. Scout is totally fine for me for the same reasons. I am not really knowledgable about the low-tier magic users, but I imagine several of those would be fine too. And hey, even a regular Ranger gets some spells later on. :smallwink:

[Drachasor]

I'd like to play a T3 game sometime, but I admit I do tend to play T1 classes -- though I often tried to make a Gish which probably made them a little less than T1 considering we never got very high in level.

I really like having options, so it is hard to resist the temptation not to play the classes that have the most. In D&D that pretty much means full casters all the time.

[malonkey1]

I actually avoid playing classes over 3rd tier whenever possible, as most of my favorite classes are T3/T4 (Warlock, Binder, Bard, etc.). It gives me what feels like enough power and adaptability to remain useful through most levels, but forces me to lean on my party sometimes. Whenever possible, these are the tiers I push my table towards.

As far as LA? Not a fan. Most of the LA races aren't worth the adjustment, and I like class abilities better than racial ones. If I were forced to play an LA race, I'd never play above +1 (Planetouched are among my favorites there.)

[Sam K]

Tier 3 is pretty much my sweet spot. I like characters that can do thematically cool stuff, with the mechanics to back up my idea for a theme.

Tier 3 has alot of that. I love the martial adepts, duskblade is cool, never got into warlocks but I can see some potential, beguiler is how I think magic should be (mind magic is easier than calling down the apocalypse). Not a fan of bards because I cant come up with any themes I like (except rock star), but the flexibility is pretty cool.

The T4 and lower mostly irk me because they are (in my mind) usually poorly designed.

Don't much care for the T1 and T2 classes, except maybe clerics. Guess I just prefer chainmail to wearing a dress. The image of wise warriors wielding weapons and supernatural power is appealing, but I dont get along well with organized religion. Or organized philosophy. Or organized... err... I may just ping slightly on a detect chaos spell, ok? Can you be a cleric of "Bugger off you needy bastards, I'm busy kicking ass here"?

As for LA, +2. Because drow are +2, and I like drow. But I probably wouldn't pick one unless buyoff was allowed, or it was an all drow capaign.