My paladin is now level 4 and has 19 strength and 15 charisma. I know it is probably better to take the ability score increase and get another +1 on the majority of rolls I’ll be making but that’s just so boring!
I’m taking Shield Master instead.
Does anyone else have this conflict?
Most people seem to be misunderstanding. I don’t mind having to make “tough choices” in general, only when the obviously correct choice is boring and the suboptimal one is the cool fun one.
I agree with you. The small bump to things like attack rolls, damage rolls, and save DCs from hitting levels that bump your modifier are noticeable, and playing as a wizard in the campaign I’m in right now I can tell you I’m champing at the bit to get my spell DC that one little bit higher because it’s the difference between some of my spells having no effect or outright changing the flow of combat. Getting that boost and also some of the big-hitter feats like Tough or War Caster would be a bit much. It gets even worse if you’re getting the benefit of the 2 points ASI as well as one from the half-feats.
On the other hand, though, there’s a huge gap in the power level between feats, and I’m not sure I’d necessarily feel the same way if the feat chosen was Shield Master, which is one of the weaker of the full feats. I might also be more inclined to set aside a list of the more flavourful feats like Chef that the players could just get for free without the associated ability boost and let the players just pick one for free as character building.
On that, I agree and I’ve explicitly done exactly that. In hindsight, the option to boost a main stat with a “Ribbon” half feat to 18 was still a tad too strong, but that can be easily house ruled along the lines of