How important to you is maxing your primary stat?

[Warmaster Horus]

For spellcasters it's essential to get their primary stat maxed as their spell effectiveness is tied directly to it. If a caster's single 6th level slot is saved against, then they're out of luck and wasted a turn. Non-casters have can attack indefinitely and usually have multiple stabs at success each round so they don't need to race for the top quite as fast.

 

[CTurbo]

Thanks for the answers. I know I couldn't list every possible answer in the poll, and I know the answer is very class dependent too.

If I'm playing a Pally, I will toggle my ASIs between Str and Cha instead of maxing one and leaving the other at 16. Same idea with Monk. Ranger or Rogue gets 20 Dex before anything else.

Of course there are always times when I don't want to perfectly optimize like when I took +2 to Str instead of Wis with one of my Tempest Clerics.

 

[Hjorimir]

It's really important if efficacy is your chief concern. For me, eh, I think an 18 is just fine and can even live with a 16 for certain characters. Feats, on the other hand, open up options during play and I find options fun. Pro Tip: Play for fun!

 

[the Jester]

Couldn't vote in your poll. My answer is "Whatever makes sense for the character." My 5e wizard with a 13 Int bumped his Con first, because he's a personal fitness endurance trainer.

 

[Sunseeker]

16 is my minimum for starting with a primary stat. I will try to bump it up ASAP. 18 is ideal. I'm fine with letting it sit at 18 for a long time though, since once you get to 20 you're done.
In the context of Fighters and Monks (two of my favorite classes) the flat damage gained from a high score at low levels will almost completely overshadow the rolled damage, and provide a leg up for the many rolls you'll have to make since you only do one thing.

 

[Yaarel]

Normally, the math matters.

I try max any main abilities.

 

[ccs]

Couldn't vote in your poll. My answer is "Whatever makes sense for the character."

What he said.
My current character is a 1/2ling barbarian (a class I'm sure you assume is all about Str). She has a 14 strength & took the Healer feat at 4th lv.
I don't envision ever increasing her Str. A micro-hulk is just not how I picture the character.
At 8th lv I'm going to take the Linguistics feat as she's stranded in the desert & encountering plenty of hiroglyphs/ancient runes. Being able to speak D&D Egyptian/Arabic & translate some of this stuff will be more usefull than increasing any of my stats.

 

[guachi]

I'm at the point now that I'd seriously consider taking one feat as soon as I could, even if it's not optimal just to have that one thing to play with and test out. I'd find it more fun than the clear mechanical benefits of increasing my main stat by 2. Oddly, in my recently deceased campaign every PC took a feat at level four (no variant humans) even if it wasn't the best choice. As far as I can tell, none of the six PCs discussed it with any other player. They just all chose a feat.

 

[5ekyu]

To me, after a 16, i am fine with feats if they fit the character and open interesting options. Especialky with the +1 feats, it seems pretty easy.

My general rule of thumb is to get to 14 during tier-1, 16 in tier-2 and 18 in tier 3 is fine and worry about 20s in tier-4.

Its just serms more fun and thematic to get higher stats slower and extra options all along that just stacking points before gaining any of the FUNky stuff.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My rogue won´t ever increase his dex over 14. (Of course his bard part wants 16 Cha, but that was a later idea because I like my blade flourishes...) Resilient wisdom will be my next target.