How important to you is maxing your primary stat?

[5ekyu]

And it's not limited to the choice of bump primary stat/choose a feat. In our last PF game my Wizard started off with a poor Cha. As the campaign progressed they developed a stronger & stronger personality/force of will. Every stat increase I got went into Cha.

In my current game, the healer's highest stat is CHA even though Wis is the primary for his features even spending his 4th lsvel ASI on CHA +2 to 16 leaving Wis at 14. (No, its not part of multiclass plan either.)

 

[CTurbo]

Wow I appreciate the answers so far. I'm really surprised that "max my main stat first" has gotten so many votes.

 

[cmad1977]

It isn’t.
I do it sometimes and all but its not particularly important.

 

[Blue]

I want to start with a +3 modifier, and I want to have +5 modifier by 12th.

How fast I want to go up in-between depends on the class / character build, and the table.

Table: A +1 modifier for an ability score is really only meaningful when you're making a lot of roles against it, which means that ability scores are most important for combat and least important for just about everything else. So if you have a low-combat table, feats that handle non-combat parts of the game are more important. If I have a high combat table, ability scores are very important except for a few character-shaping combat feats.

Class: +1 to DC/spell attack is nice, but maybe not worth a feat that would help me keep Concentration. +1 to hit and damage multiple times per action for a Extra Attack character is mathematical nice. Something like Bard where you have a potent ability that us usable ABILITY SCORE times per rest is really nice to increase - 16 CHR to 18 CHR give +33% uses of Bardic Inspiration on top of everything else.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

I picked "Give me all the feats, 16 is fine with me", but that is in a way far from the truth. You see, I don't care about getting any pluses to the primary score to begin with. If it didn't shut down multiclassing, I'd even play PCs with a penalty to it. (Actually scratch that, sometimes I do it anyway).

 

[Horwath]

20 doesn't feel special anymore. It's kind of boring.

There is no where else to go. You are as good as you will ever be. Yet you still only have a 10% edge (on a d20) over someone with a 16. You should be great but you still kinda suck.

it is a lot more than 10%.

Yes, it is 10% on absolute scale, but in relative power it is quite more.

If you hit 50% of the time with, let's say longsword for 1d8+3 and then you hit 60% of the time for 1d8+5 that is 52% increase of your DPR.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

it is a lot more than 10%.

Yes, it is 10% on absolute scale, but in relative power it is quite more.

If you hit 50% of the time with, let's say longsword for 1d8+3 and then you hit 60% of the time for 1d8+5 that is 52% increase of your DPR.

It's only 49%, but your point still stands that it isn't just a 10% edge.

However, I would say that looking at just single die damage attacks won't provide an accurate picture of how much influence a 2 higher attack bonus has. For example, if you just go to a 2d8+3 @50% accuracy vs. 2d8+5 @60% accuracy (like some clerics and all paladins of high enough level will have) the difference in DPR is already reduced to %37.

And above all of the numbers showing the obvious - that a higher attack bonus results in better DPR - is the following question: Is enough damage being dealt that my character is successfully overcoming combat challenges? The answer to that question can be "Yes" without having a 18 or 20 in the character's attack-related ability score, which lessens the importance of reaching those values.

 

[5ekyu]

It's only 49%, but your point still stands that it isn't just a 10% edge.

However, I would say that looking at just single die damage attacks won't provide an accurate picture of how much influence a 2 higher attack bonus has. For example, if you just go to a 2d8+3 @50% accuracy vs. 2d8+5 @60% accuracy (like some clerics and all paladins of high enough level will have) the difference in DPR is already reduced to %37.

And above all of the numbers showing the obvious - that a higher attack bonus results in better DPR - is the following question: Is enough damage being dealt that my character is successfully overcoming combat challenges? The answer to that question can be "Yes" without having a 18 or 20 in the character's attack-related ability score, which lessens the importance of reaching those values.

But for the resource decision point, just dpr white room is a fraction of the picture... How many attacks are gained by mobility allowing you to get to the enemy and how many are thwarted ny denying OA etc?

How many attacks are also gained at level 8 when the mage slayer combined with mobility gets me OA when i stand next to casters?

I think to me one of the reasons i go for feats and half feats for many character as opposed to more points is that the feats can open up opportunities and tactics that were not previously available.

Its not white room excel spreadsheet-able, but in actual play, it seems to me having the right tools is bigger than being a little better with the wrong tools.

Feats are new tools.

 

[ad_hoc]

Maxing my stats is not important to me.

Feats are not important to me.

I didn't vote in the poll.

 

[BookBarbarian]

"To hit" is important to a lot of concepts, but with Advantage, +X Magic Weapons, and re-roll abilities like Lucky, Elven Accuracy etc maxing main stat is not strictly necessary.

It varies by character, but largely I'll shoot for having 14 in as many stats as possible more that starting with 16, and not worry about raising Main stat until Feats that flush out my character concept are taken.