As only the fighter and ranger get the two-weapon fighting style, I don’t see the option to wield two weapons discussed much for the paladin class. I would like to discuss this option.
Paladins get a series of “smite” spells, which they can cast as a bonus action. The problem with those is that the divine smite class feature is usually better, because it doesn’t use up a bonus action, and you can decide to use it after you know that you hit. The gap gets wider on a critical hit; being able to decide to add 4d8 (or more) after rolling a critical hit is just awesome.
Thus the idea to build a paladin who is wielding two weapons. At level 2 that (nearly) doubles the chance of landing a critical hit. Using spell slots exclusively for those critical hits wrings the maximum amount of damage out of them. Alternatively the two-weapon fighting can be used to use divine smite on *every* hit, there is no “once per turn” limit; that burns your spell slots very quickly, but can be useful for situations where a “nova strike” tactic is best.
Theorycrafters have shown that great weapon fighting deals more damage than two-weapon fighting for fighters after a certain level. I am not a theorycrafter, but I wonder if that is even still true for paladins, once you consider both divine smite criticals and improved divine smite. Of course it remains true that when you get a second attack at level 5, that doesn’t get you a second off-hand attack, so the impact of the second attack gets weaker. But it is still yet another chance to land a critical hit, and yet another attack on which to add the improved divine smite to.
You could theoretically push the concept of the critical hit divine smite over the top by multi-classing for example a fighter (champion) into the mix. But personally I’d be perfectly happy with a single-class paladin to try it out. As this is going to be an oath of vengeance paladin (the concept should work well with vow of enmity), I am wondering whether Hunter’s Mark would be a good idea. The pro would be that the 1d6 of Hunter’s Mark is added to every attack. The con is that it eats up one bonus action and thus one attack on the first round, and by the second round you might already have lost concentration on the spell, because concentration spells aren’t great in melee combat.
So, what do you think about the viability of a two-weapon fighting paladin? Have you ever tried it?
Paladins get a series of “smite” spells, which they can cast as a bonus action. The problem with those is that the divine smite class feature is usually better, because it doesn’t use up a bonus action, and you can decide to use it after you know that you hit. The gap gets wider on a critical hit; being able to decide to add 4d8 (or more) after rolling a critical hit is just awesome.
Thus the idea to build a paladin who is wielding two weapons. At level 2 that (nearly) doubles the chance of landing a critical hit. Using spell slots exclusively for those critical hits wrings the maximum amount of damage out of them. Alternatively the two-weapon fighting can be used to use divine smite on *every* hit, there is no “once per turn” limit; that burns your spell slots very quickly, but can be useful for situations where a “nova strike” tactic is best.
Theorycrafters have shown that great weapon fighting deals more damage than two-weapon fighting for fighters after a certain level. I am not a theorycrafter, but I wonder if that is even still true for paladins, once you consider both divine smite criticals and improved divine smite. Of course it remains true that when you get a second attack at level 5, that doesn’t get you a second off-hand attack, so the impact of the second attack gets weaker. But it is still yet another chance to land a critical hit, and yet another attack on which to add the improved divine smite to.
You could theoretically push the concept of the critical hit divine smite over the top by multi-classing for example a fighter (champion) into the mix. But personally I’d be perfectly happy with a single-class paladin to try it out. As this is going to be an oath of vengeance paladin (the concept should work well with vow of enmity), I am wondering whether Hunter’s Mark would be a good idea. The pro would be that the 1d6 of Hunter’s Mark is added to every attack. The con is that it eats up one bonus action and thus one attack on the first round, and by the second round you might already have lost concentration on the spell, because concentration spells aren’t great in melee combat.
So, what do you think about the viability of a two-weapon fighting paladin? Have you ever tried it?
