How important to you is maxing your primary stat?

[CTurbo]

It's always interesting to me to observe how people's opinions on here can differ so greatly on things. I've noticed that some people want to get their primary stat to 20 ASAP while others are content to keep it at 16 for a really long time. I typically like to max my primary stat early on, and, ignoring the vhuman feat, won't even consider a feat until my main stat is at least an 18. I'd say that when using point buy or standard array, I've taken the stat bump 100% of the time at level 4, and it's probably close to 50/50 stat bump to feat at level 8.

I've known players that never choose feat and prefer to bump their stats 100% of the time, and then I knew one guy who was a high level Fighter and he took a feat every time and kept a 16 for his entire career. His character was effective still, but he did miss a lot with his attacks. Maybe not a lot, but noticeably more than my character did with a 20 in my attack stat.

So I already know that I value having a 20 in my main stat more than the average player, but I'd like to see how everybody else feels about it.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It’s generally pretty important to me. I’ve yet to go with a single feat, other than the variant human freebie. I just find that the cascade effect of the ASI goes much farther than the feat.

That being said, I don’t feel all that compelled to have the absolutely maximum possible in my primary stat at 1st level. I’d much rather play a character that I find interesting than necessarily pick a race solely based on those that get their major bonus to that particular primary stat.

 

[Caliban]

For strength based characters, there is a bit of a cheat if you can plan for the long game - the Belts of Giant Str. They can raise your strength above 20, rendering any increases you made redundant.

So if you want to risk it, you can take feats instead of increasing your str and hope/plan on acquiring a Belt of Giant Strength at some point.

In a home game this can be really risky, depending on your DM. In a more structured environment like Adventure League, it's just a matter of time and planning.

 

[LordEntrails]

Really poor poll answers. You have 4 answers that are something like "yes it's really important" and 1 that is "it's important to max a bunch of stats together".

My answer is "No, it is not important at all to max the primary stat."

 

[jgsugden]

It depends upon class. For heavy weapon characters, feats come first. For a wizard, Int boosts come first.... generally. As a caveat, some character builds require feat investments to fit the story, and those overrule the general build plans Id follow in general.

 

[Shiroiken]

Also depends on character types. Spellcasters that use spells negated with a save need the highest save possible, so maximizing it is top priority. Warriors that make multiple attacks per round really only need an 18, since the effect of a miss isn't that big a deal (they have an unlimited supply). Rogues tend to like the max score, mostly for the attack bonus to ensure they get sneak attack off, but a feat might have a higher priority than the simple +1. Support characters really only need a 16, since attacking isn't their primary objective, unless they fit the earlier spellcaster category.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Depends if the primary stat is odd or even to start. If odd, I'll bump the primary plus one other ability score (or possibly consider one of the feats that bumps the stat +1 along with the extra fun bits). If even, get the prime stat up first.

Then again, if it's more fun to pick Actor for my Wizard because reasons, then I'll do that instead.

 

[Patrick McGill]

It depends on the character. Wizards I like maxing INT mostly because no one else really uses it so it's a bit novel. Anything else, I'm fine in the 16-18 range. I see absolutely no reason to get it up to 20 unless optimization is how you get your fun (which is fine). 5e is pretty easy so there's no motivation for me to try and min/max the ability scores.

Currently, for example, I'm running a wizard in ToA. I gave her a good INT and a good WIS, poor STR, and average everything else. I know it's in vogue to give Wizards high CON but it just skeeves me out to do it. She spent her whole life at Candlekeep as an academic, she shouldn't have the constitution of a mountain dwarf. With the Observant feat and that high WIS though she has been putting in some work catching those traps or sneaky jungle monsters. I haven't felt like I've missed out by not optimizing, I'm perfectly happy with her 18 INT and doubt I'll bump it to 20 when the next ASI/feat rolls around.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

other!

 

[Jonathon Robinson]

Also depends on character types. Spellcasters that use spells negated with a save need the highest save possible, so maximizing it is top priority. Warriors that make multiple attacks per round really only need an 18, since the effect of a miss isn't that big a deal (they have an unlimited supply). Rogues tend to like the max score, mostly for the attack bonus to ensure they get sneak attack off, but a feat might have a higher priority than the simple +1. Support characters really only need a 16, since attacking isn't their primary objective, unless they fit the earlier spellcaster category.

I was about to say the same thing. The only thing in the game that can raise a spell save DC is your spellcasting stat, so for spellcasters that rely on saves this is the most important stat. When I played an enchanter wizard, I maxed my spell save ASAP so that I had a chance of actually getting something done (most charm spells cannot be repeated). When I played an archer (fighter), I maxed DEX because it contributed to everything I was (attack, damage, initiative, AC). As a barbarian it makes sense to split between STR and CON. I've seen a healing cleric go for feats first: there are some great feats supporting healers and the extra WIS doesn't really do much.