D&D 5E Making a Paladin

[EzekielRaiden]

Defense is, ironically, implicitly the less defensive option here, unless you choose to go absolutely full-bore.

Defense gives you +1 AC essentially all the time, and has no limit on what weapons you use. It preserves versatility--so you would be best served taking advantage of that and going for a big two-handed weapon, like a greataxe or greatsword. Then you'd have +1 AC and 2d6+mod (average 7+mod) damage. If you go with Duelling, you're basically locked into longsword+shield (since...what else are you gonna put in that off hand?), which gives +2 AC and 1d8+2+mod (average 6.5+mod) damage. Notably, the 2d6 will be much more consistent than the 1d8+2, which is generally a good trade.

However, you could instead go Defense + sword-and-board, which would give you a total +3 AC and 1d8+mod (average 4.5+mod) damage. This is a pretty clear sacrifice of damage output, and nets you 1 AC over what you'd get otherwise. That said, this would let you push your AC up into the highest reaches it can achieve; with shield of faith, Defense, a shield, and your starting chain mail, you'd have 16+2 (shield)+2 (shield of faith)+1 (Defense) = 21 AC. Monsters typically have less than +6 attack bonus in the level range relevant for you (it would be weird for the DM to throw anything higher than CR6 at your party), meaning they would miss you 70% or more of the time. (Without the spell buff, that drops to 60%, still decent.)

So, the question becomes: do you want to be versatile (capable of using whatever stuff you like), or do you want to focus specifically on sword-and-board? If the former, take Defensive, and switch between a big 2H weapon and sword-and-board, depending on whether you want to dish out hits or take them. If the latter, definitely go Duelist, as it is the highest-efficiency option, missing only 0.5 average points of damage compared to Defensive+2H and only 1 point of AC compared to Defensive+sword-and-board.

I, personally, would recommend the versatility. Being able to swap between "modes" is a useful thing, and this situation lets you tailor yourself to the best choice for any given situation. This pairs up very well with the natural versatility of the Paladin: you can spend spells on utility effects, shield of faith, or Divine Smite/smite-type spells, letting you adapt to whatever situations you think are most relevant, while relying on Lay on Hands for healing. You do give up the ~1.33 average points of damage you could get from Great Weapon Fighting style, but honestly that's not THAT big a deal when contrasted against the ability to switch to sword-and-board without losing anything.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Defense is, ironically, implicitly the less defensive option here, unless you choose to go absolutely full-bore.

Defense gives you +1 AC essentially all the time, and has no limit on what weapons you use. It preserves versatility--so you would be best served taking advantage of that and going for a big two-handed weapon, like a greataxe or greatsword. Then you'd have +1 AC and 2d6+mod (average 7+mod) damage. If you go with Duelling, you're basically locked into longsword+shield (since...what else are you gonna put in that off hand?), which gives +2 AC and 1d8+2+mod (average 6.5+mod) damage. Notably, the 2d6 will be much more consistent than the 1d8+2, which is generally a good trade.

However, you could instead go Defense + sword-and-board, which would give you a total +3 AC and 1d8+mod (average 4.5+mod) damage. This is a pretty clear sacrifice of damage output, and nets you 1 AC over what you'd get otherwise. That said, this would let you push your AC up into the highest reaches it can achieve; with shield of faith, Defense, a shield, and your starting chain mail, you'd have 16+2 (shield)+2 (shield of faith)+1 (Defense) = 21 AC. Monsters typically have less than +6 attack bonus in the level range relevant for you (it would be weird for the DM to throw anything higher than CR6 at your party), meaning they would miss you 70% or more of the time. (Without the spell buff, that drops to 60%, still decent.)

So, the question becomes: do you want to be versatile (capable of using whatever stuff you like), or do you want to focus specifically on sword-and-board? If the former, take Defensive, and switch between a big 2H weapon and sword-and-board, depending on whether you want to dish out hits or take them. If the latter, definitely go Duelist, as it is the highest-efficiency option, missing only 0.5 average points of damage compared to Defensive+2H and only 1 point of AC compared to Defensive+sword-and-board.

I, personally, would recommend the versatility. Being able to swap between "modes" is a useful thing, and this situation lets you tailor yourself to the best choice for any given situation. This pairs up very well with the natural versatility of the Paladin: you can spend spells on utility effects, shield of faith, or Divine Smite/smite-type spells, letting you adapt to whatever situations you think are most relevant, while relying on Lay on Hands for healing. You do give up the ~1.33 average points of damage you could get from Great Weapon Fighting style, but honestly that's not THAT big a deal when contrasted against the ability to switch to sword-and-board without losing anything.

I have not played a Paladin beyond 3rd. So my first thought was in line with what you are saying.

Go full defense early. Defensive fighting style, shield of faith etc. we he. When things tend to hit more regardless, grab gwm at level 8 and switch between full defense with shield and pulling the greatsword out at other times.

Taking off and putting on a shield takes a lot of time though so would have to guess well about what is coming next. Or at higher level just accept things will hit and get the greatsword out.

I do know though without dueling my attacks will be a mere d8+3…so not stellar.

Choices, choices

 

[FrogReaver]

I dunno, the big advantage of smites is that they're effectively free in the action economy. You don't get much oomph from them, given the resources you give up.

My argument was spells are better but smites are still good. It kind of sounds like you agree spells are better. But IMO you are straddling the fence about whether smites are good by saying they are good due to action economy and bad due to only providing what you speak of as a little extra damage.

An average of 9hp extra damage in exchange for a first level spell slot? Even at 10th level, you've got, what, a total of 25d8 points of damage if you smite with every single one of your spell slots, assuming no crits and no bonus damage from targeting undead or fiends? About 110hp, on average. At that level, it's not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

In a 20 round adventuring day a 10th Paladin is only hitting with about 24 of his 40 attacks, each for about 10 damage a hit. That’s 240ish damage (assuming you only use your action to attack). Adding the smites in here is about a 40% increase in damage and it can be directed where it’s needed. Sounds like a significant benefit to me.

And It only gets stronger in shorter adventuring days - which seem to be more typical.

Generally, they're worth using if you've rolled a crit and the smite damage will be doubled, or if you REALLY need the enemy you're fighting to go down right now. But in general, you'll turn a fight much more effectively using your first level slot on Command than on smiting, and over time, Bless will give you even more.

My post said exactly this.

The equation changes a bit once you get a second attack, and giving up an action to spellcast involves giving up on two attacks (possibly three, if Great Weapon Master treats you well) rather than just one. But smiting is definitely not always the best option.

My post explicitly said that. Smiting is strong, but spell casting is often better.

 

[ECMO3]

• Two Weapon Fighting with short swords and defensive style - best featless offensive setup pre-extra ttack. More attacks increase critical chance for divine smite while being able to do greatsword damage but spread over multiple hits. Due to the higher crit rate it's still not bad after gaining extra attack though it does lose out to damage to other styles a bit. Still crit divine smites are 'fun' and memorable. *Note IME one can usually have 1 short sword predrawn before combat starts - meaning you can draw the next as part of your first turn and attack with both.

TWF can be pretty awesome, the only problem is it is not available to Paladins. You would need to take a Fighter level.

I would actually say hand axes are better than short swords because they give you a ranged option which comes in handy. Down one guy with the first attack and the other guy is too far away. Move towards him and throw an axe with extra attack and then another one with TWF then pull a third off your belt so you are holding one for any AOOs and to start next turn.

 

[FrogReaver]

TWF can be pretty awesome, the only problem is it is not available to Paladins. You would need to take a Fighter level.

Two Weapon Fighting is an option available to everyone in 5e. TWF style is not available to Paladins, but I said take defensive style - and in my very first sentence no less...

 

[Mort]

TWF can be pretty awesome, the only problem is it is not available to Paladins. You would need to take a Fighter level.

You can still fight with 2 weapons, you just don't add your proficiency modifier to damage for the second attack. Also, as a devotion paladin, you only get sacred weapon to 1 weapon (as opposed to vengeance paladin which can get advantage on everything - against 1 target.)

If you're DM routinely allows the group to nova (or even if it's not routine but you know a good nova situation is coming) you can add another smite per round by TWF.

Of course, IF your DM routinely allows you to nova then Polearm Master becomes pretty attractive to the Paladin and you probably want a polearm instead!

 

[CreamCloud0]

technically TWF style is available to them without dipping through the tasha’s feat ‘fighting initiate’