D&D 5E Will you always max out your primary stat?

Yes, always.

Standard RPG answer: it depends.

The thing is that getting +1 to hit and damage, while probably worthwhile, is also quite boring.

The true turning point here is if you can use the "+1 to one stat, +1 to another" option to get a bonus on your primary AND secondary attributes (if you have both of them on odd scores) with the first bump you get. If that is not the case, then my first choice is probably a feat that lets me use a mechanically interesting/powerful option. Of course, if humans can opt to get a feat at level 1, then all this changes.

But yeah, I see it as likely that, at some point, my PCs will end up with a 20 on the primary.

It will depend on what feats are available and what character I'm playing.

In general, yes, I will aim to max out my primary stat before picking up any feats. But there will no doubt be exceptions.

"Always"? No.
Depends on the character I want to play.

I can see myself opting for feats for customization more often than not though
( unless playing a one shot rather than campaign style, in which case I'd probably just do stat bumps for simplicity of char gen)

Ruin Explorer said:

For casters it can be less of thing, because in many cases your stat isn't a big part of what your spells do (in 5E).

Click to expand...

I'm not certain this is true, though I would like it to be.

The casting stat is used in three main ways, as I see it:

1. spell-based attack rolls
2. DC on saves
3. number of spells prepared.

1. many casters will have attack spells -- three damage-dealing cantrips require attack rolls, just for starters. Yes, one can choose to avoid these spells, but in doing so you are restricting your character's effective spell list.*

(* by effective, I distinguish that one can make suboptimal choices and one can deliberately impede effectiveness. I'm all about making unusual or suboptimal combinations work, without min/maxing; that does not mean that I want to deliberately hobble a character I play).

2. another area of combat effectiveness can come from spells that require saves (enchantment and illusions spells, for example). Yes, one can choose to avoid these spells too, but in doing so you are restricting your character's effective spell list further.

These two by themselves can be circumvented by choosing specific specialties. The life domain for clerics, and the divination and abjuration schools for wizards, are not especially constrained by a low casting stat based on these two reasons.

Indeed, of the first-level wizard spells (of which there are 11 in 5B):
* four require a save (Burning hands, Charm Person, Silent Image, Thunderwave)
* one benefits from a high Dex (Mage armor, though it does not benefit from a dexterity to a greater degree than not casting the spell)
* three spells are divination (Comprehend Languages, Detect Magic, Identify)
* one spell is Abjuration (Shield)
* two spells are effective in combat and are not penalized because of a low casting stat (Magic Missile, Sleep).

Now while I can think of nothing duller than being a low-level Diviner, there remains over half the first-level spells that are viable. (and divining things will appeal to some players, surely).

3. Your spell casting stat governs the number of spells you can prepare (Stat bonus+class level). This is where you a casting stat really adds to the available choices for the player throughout the entire experience of play. A low casting stat will mean the caster has a meaningfully smaller pool of spells available to her at any given time.

Does this make the importance of the casting stat "less of a thing"? I think you need to work pretty hard to avoid needing a respectable caster stat --

Your effective number of spells to choose from is reduced, your number of available specialties is constrained, and the spells you will have available at any time is limited for the entire experience of playing the character.

I can see this working for a cleric; for a wizard, I think you would need to be a Diviner or an Abjurer, unless you were looking to achieve a very specific experience of play.

Asking a 5E character not to max out his main stat is like asking a 1E character not to buy a 10ft pole...

In 5B yes.
In 5A probably not. Feats are fun.

Here is some context for the discussion:

If you take a 1st Level Fighter vs an AC 16 character. Give him a longsword and the dueling bonus of +2 damage.


If you start him off at Str 14, every +2 increase to strength increases his DPR (aka his offense) by roughly 20% from the previous level.

So Str 16 does 20% more than Str 14, Str 18 does 20% more than Str 16..etc.


So in terms of effectiveness....boosting that stat is a big deal. So that is a rough idea of how good feats will need to be to compete.

Stalker0 said:

Here is some context for the discussion:

If you take a 1st Level Fighter vs an AC 16 character. Give him a longsword and the dueling bonus of +2 damage.


If you start him off at Str 14, every +2 increase to strength increases his DPR (aka his offense) by roughly 20% from the previous level.

So Str 16 does 20% more than Str 14, Str 18 does 20% more than Str 16..etc.


So in terms of effectiveness....boosting that stat is a big deal. So that is a rough idea of how good feats will need to be to compete.

Click to expand...

I think the context needs context. A 20% increase in damage is between 1 and 2 points of extra damage per attack, right?

So: "every +2 increase to strength increases his DPR (aka his offense) by 1 or 2 points from the previous level"