D&D 5E Sacrosant's sacrosanct guide to the most sacrosanct fighting styles

[Paul Farquhar]

But a multi-classed Paladin can get it.

Sure. But of all the things worth multiclassing for, that would be pretty close to the bottom of the list.

As DM, if a player came to me and said "I want to play a duel wielding paladin" I would permit it - it's a weaker choice than the styles paladins are allowed by standard rules.

 

[Quartz]

As DM, if a player came to me and said "I want to play a duel wielding paladin" I would permit it - it's a weaker choice than the styles paladins are allowed by standard rules.

I disgree. You can Smite on both weapons and you add bonus radiant damage at 11th level. A dual-wielding Paladin has huge nova potential, and does a lot of damage ordinarily. A dual-wielding Str 16 Paladin at 11th level using d6 weapons does 3d6 + 3d8 + 9 damage (average 34). Plus any smites. The poor TWF fighter only does 4d6+12 (average 26) and the Duellist does 3d6+6+9 (average 26 - the same as TWF).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I disgree. You can Smite on both weapons and you add bonus radiant damage at 11th level. A dual-wielding Paladin has huge nova potential, and does a lot of damage ordinarily. A dual-wielding Str 16 Paladin at 11th level using d6 weapons does 3d6 + 3d8 + 9 damage (average 34). Plus any smites. The poor TWF fighter only does 4d6+12 (average 26) and the Duellist does 3d6+6+9 (average 26 - the same as TWF).

Literally a one trick pony.

Yes, you can run out of spell sots even faster! whoopee!!!

 

[Quartz]

Yes, you can run out of spell sots even faster! whoopee!!!

Well, the Fighter only gets one Action Surge per Short Rest. But note that the Paladin is doing 33% better than the Fighter even without additional Smite damage from spells.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, the Fighter only gets one Action Surge per Short Rest. But note that the Paladin is doing 33% better than the Fighter even without additional Smite damage from spells.

Yep, I agree with you. Paladin 11's feature is pretty much a permanent Hunter's Mark+, and paladins don't get 3+ attacks. And paladins don't have an obvious use for their bonus action. It's actually one of the best situations for dual-wielding.

You can pull off similar tricks with PAM, of course, but that still leaves the dual-wielding paladin up by an ASI over the PAM paladin. And yes, of course there is GWM to contend with, but I feel like most balance-sensitive DMs have already identified that feat as distorting and re-balanced it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep, I agree with you. Paladin 11's feature is pretty much a permanent Hunter's Mark+, and paladins don't get 3+ attacks. And paladins don't have an obvious use for their bonus action. It's actually one of the best situations for dual-wielding.

You can pull off similar tricks with PAM, of course, but that still leaves the dual-wielding paladin up by an ASI over the PAM paladin. And yes, of course there is GWM to contend with, but I feel like most balance-sensitive DMs have already identified that feat as distorting and re-balanced it.

One of the paladin's gets hunters mark iirc the avenger one.

 

[TwoSix]

One of the paladin's gets hunters mark iirc the avenger one.

Yep, it does. Which would make it even better!

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep, it does. Which would make it even better!

I tend to try a D get some range on paladin's. Oath of the Ancients, magic initiate, level of sorcerer, 2 levels of warlock.


Eventually the DM will use ranged encounters on you.