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?
You have to hit 4 times with Divine Favor to surpass the damage from 1 first-level Divine Smite. That spell has its uses against a horde of CR 1/4 or 1/2 critters, or if you're forced into an entirely ranged combat, but it is in no way a substitute for Divine Smite in a fight where using Divine Smite is a real option.
Past Lv. 5, maybe. Lv. 1-4 those 4 hits will likely take 3 rounds or more to get, and that's if you dual-wield.Assuming roughly 60% accuracy, you're gonna get those 4 hits in about 2 rounds,
Or you can just use Divine Smite twice and deal damage much more efficiently to one strong enemy.and you can continue to add Divine Smites on top of whatever hits you normally get.
The point of italicizing it was to emphasize that Divine Favor, aside from the corner cases I mentioned, compares poorly to even a 1st-level Smite. I didn't even mention the higher-level ones.And in response to your italicized-for-emphasis point about 1st level divine smites, yes, it would take longer for the spell to outpace higher level smites.
Yup. Good thing I didn't.But we don't need to compare it to higher level smites,
Odds are even with that you're still more likely than not to fail a concentration save before you get your spell slot's worth of damage vs. simply smiting.Now yes, you do have to take concentration into account, but even without proficiency a paladin is going to have decent Con and, before too long, +Charisma to saves as well, so it's not as bad as it might seem.
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?
Or MC Hexblade Warlock with Chain or tome pact for attacks with charisma, leave str at mid range, crit on 19 against hexed target, and use familiar to give you frequent advantage, and all the other goodies of the Warlock.
Oh God not another Hexblade dip!! Does it ever end?
In all honesty as a DM if you have a good reason (background, RP, missing a hand and the stump is covered in iron, etc) for your Paladin to be a dual-wielder I would just let you take it.
4 hits isn't too terribly hard to get in any case if you're in melee, and it's even easier to get when you're getting a reliable bonus weapon attack. Assuming roughly 60% accuracy, you're gonna get those 4 hits in about 2 rounds, and you can continue to add Divine Smites on top of whatever hits you normally get.
And in response to your italicized-for-emphasis point about 1st level divine smites, yes, it would take longer for the spell to outpace higher level smites.
But we don't need to compare it to higher level smites, because it's a 1st level spell. Unless you run out of slots and cast it with a 2nd level slot, you don't need to compare it to a 2nd level smite because it doesn't compete with it.
Now yes, you do have to take concentration into account, but even without proficiency a paladin is going to have decent Con and, before too long, +Charisma to saves as well, so it's not as bad as it might seem. You certainly would benefit from some improvement to your Con saves, but it's not the end of the world if you just have Con+Cha and call it a day.
Once again, optimal? No. Viable? Yes.