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

[keterys]

Given the bounded accuracy, I'm not sure it is all that important to drive to maximum stats.

I didn't do so in previous editions, so I don't see as I'm apt to do it in 5th.

I'm more likely to do it in 5E. I agree that it wasn't necessary in previous editions, but it feels much more obviously advantageous to do so in 5e.

1) Bounded Accuracy ensures that the bonus remains relevant. In other editions, it was possible that additional stat bonus was superfluous. Now it'll always be relevant, and there's so few other places to get the bonus.

2) It's one thing to max out a stat in a game like 3e where there are _so many possible ways_ and it's a neverending chase, but here you just shoot for 20 and are done. That's a modest goal I can easily put on my priority list for one stat.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I too am surprised at this assumption, which I do see everywhere. I want feats, and since they come rarely (and typically games I play don't end up levelling up that much), there's only going to be a few opportunities to use them. I'd much rather learn a cool party trick than simply get +1 on every attack -- which is why I see the variant human as so appealing - the only character with a feat out the gate (dare we hope for this option for half-elves and half-orcs too?)

 

[Mercule]

Doubtful. I was rebuilding an acrobat I played in 3E, with the Basic rules. He's 10th level and had the highest strength in the group, due to a focus on athletics.

Even with all the stat points available, I found myself tweaking other stats, rather than push strength to 20. With feasts available in the full PHB, I'm sure I'd find even more reason to not max.

I'm sure some concepts would beg for max something, but I don't anticipate it being standard for y group.

 

[beej]

Thanks for the swift replies, guys. So far, it seems like I'm in the minority and maxing to 20 is the preferred choice for players.

To generate more discussion: Doesn't it seem like overkill, though? At level 1, you're likely to have +2 prof and +3 stat. That's already enough to reliably succeed versus medium DC 15. And proficiency improves automatically as you level. And for those with expertise, things get better, faster. What are we chasing by maxing out?

(It's midnight here so I'll check back tomorrow. )

 

[MoonSong]

Not only I'm not maxing out the main score, I expect to Dump my main score on the first opportunity and never look back!! So far only a wizard would really care about maxing Int, and rogues and clerics look viable at dumping their main stat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To generate more discussion: Doesn't it seem like overkill, though? At level 1, you're likely to have +2 prof and +3 stat. That's already enough to reliably succeed versus medium DC 15. And proficiency improves automatically as you level. And for those with expertise, things get better, faster. What are we chasing by maxing out?

(It's midnight here so I'll check back tomorrow. )

Primary stat for many classes isn't for primarily for skill rolls for most classes, it's primarily for attack rolls.

Missing or hitting is often life-or-death. This is only MORE true at lower levels when your HP pool is more shallow.

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). For melees, though? Kinda nuts.

For Rogues, who have both most of their skills AND all their combat abilities coming off DEX? Well, not maxing it would be a pretty extreme decision.

Of course if your DM hates TPKs or Challenging/Hard encounters, it's much less of an issue (esp. if he has a lot of skill-based stuff, then you may benefit from spread stats around).

 

[billd91]

I think it may depend. It will always be attractive to do so and, depending on where you start, it is also attainable which may make it more attractive to players than the never ending quest to increase a primary stat in 3e or Pathfinder. You maximize it and get it done allowing you to move on with other priorities with that feather in your cap and a warm fuzzy glow.

 

[jodyjohnson]

For classes that get advantage a lot like the rogue or playtest barbarian, or if you frequently have Bless, it is really unnecessary and I'd go with feats.

 

[keterys]

To generate more discussion: Doesn't it seem like overkill, though? At level 1, you're likely to have +2 prof and +3 stat. That's already enough to reliably succeed versus medium DC 15. And proficiency improves automatically as you level. And for those with expertise, things get better, faster. What are we chasing by maxing out?

(It's midnight here so I'll check back tomorrow. )

Consider a rogue - you get +1 AC, init, attack, damage, save, plus the many relevant checks you mentioned. It's a lot easier on some characters than others, though, and some PCs like clerics might have a touch choice (Str and Wis).

+5 looking for a 15 is also only a 55% chance of success. That's enough to be competent, but statistically speaking, most people don't trend towards happy until they succeed 60-75% of the time.

 

[Sadrik]

I think maxing out is a no-brainer for all classes.

Increasing your to hit chance or DC to affect targets is massive and increases your efficiency.

There are some exceptions though, spellcasters who buff and do not target others may want to focus on their own fighting abilities (STR or DEX and CON) instead of their casting stat.

In most cases though gaining a numerical advantage is preferred I would imagine. The speed in which a player picks that up depends on the feats and character concept available to them. For that, we shall see...