Dual wielding paladin

[Tenmujiin]

So my group is going to start HotDQ soon and I'll be runing a dex based paladin (I don't like playing strength based charcters. Since GWF isn't an option for this charcter my first plan was to take duelist and go shield and rapier but I recently had the idea of running a dualwielding paladin. Before you judge the build let me show some rough calculations.

The charcter is a vengance paladin so hunters mark is assumed to be up and the twf build takes armored fighting style. TWF also gives more opportunities for smiting.

Duelist:
1d8+1d6+3+2 = 4.5+3.5+5 = 13 +2AC
Twf
4d6+3 = 4(3.5)+3 = 14+3 = 17 +1AC

Finally, I will likely be maxing charisma first and my race is all but locked into half-elf and my dex probably won't go higher than 16, baring magical items or high rolls (not sure what system we will be using to determine stats yet)

My questions are whether it is worth planning to take 1-3 lvs of ranger/fighter for the TWF style and if I should take the dual weilder feat (would probably take medium armor master otherwise but open to susgestions)

[Gurka]

Before considering a dip into other classes, I'd ask your DM if you can simply take the TWF style in lieu of one of the standard listed for the pally. It was an option at various points in the play test, and I honestly don't know why they removed it as an option. Were it me DMing, I'd certainly allow it.

That said, if you're not anticipating having maxed Dex, you're probably better off sticking with a single feat, and that being the dual wield feat. Medium armor mastery is really sort of lackluster for a feat IMO.

I'm not a big multi-class guy, so my suggestion may not be really optimized, but if avoid the class dip personally, so long as your DM allows you to take TWF style. If not then fighter would probably be more effective, but ranger might fit the character concept better.

[Ferrin33]

Advantage of going dual wield as a paladin is you get to keep your Divine Smite for your off-hand attacks alongside a high initiative. You'd probably still do less than a 2h paladin, but are more likely to kill things before him because of your higher initiative. You also get the same armor as him with max dex because you'll take Defense Fighting Style for the extra AC in addition to being able to effectively use all those dex based skills. Don't worry to much, you'll be fine.

[Tenmujiin]

I wasn't worried about the effectiveness of the build with respect to rapier and shield, I just want some advice on whether to multi-class and/or take the feat.

Edit: clarification

[Theodoxus]

With Defensive from Paladin and a two level dip of fighter for TWF and Action Surge, you'll be dead sexy. One thing to take into consideration is if you're going through both modules. If you are, you could conceivably go all the way to fighter 4 for the feat, grabbing battlemaster on the way for some maneuvers or perhaps champion for the crit range. Then the question becomes, do you go Fighter first for the goodies or Paladin first for their goodies... or delay your first feat and mix levels?

If it's a 2 level dip, I'd do Fighter, Pally 4, fighter, pally X

If it's a 4 level dip, I'd do Fighter 2, Pally 3 (or 4 if you have to have your feat), Fighter 2, Pally X


My first character was a fighter, and went fighter 4 -> pally - but I decided on pally for the healing, as our party didn't have much - a bard who was lackluster and a moon druid who felt it beneath him. The fighter chassis is definitely one of my favorites to build off of.

[Tenmujiin]

Yea, fighter 2-4 is some pretty good stuff but taking it before paladin 5 means delaying the extra attack pretty heavily.

I should probably mention that our party will have a bard and most likely a shadow monk with a two level warlock dip along with two other PCs of unknown class. We most likely will only be doing the first module since its just so we can play while myself and the other DM get our respective campaigns together.

[Person_Man]

Before considering a dip into other classes, I'd ask your DM if you can simply take the TWF style in lieu of one of the standard listed for the pally. It was an option at various points in the play test, and I honestly don't know why they removed it as an option.

My guess is that they took it out because a lot of Paladin spells use a Bonus Action to cast (which is also required for TWF), and they wanted to further differentiate low level Paladins from low level Fighter's. Anywho, I'd allow it as a DM, since it fits your character concept and doesn't effect game balance. (If anything, a TWF Paladin is weaker then a two handed weapon Paladin).

I would also allow you he option to take the Archery Fighting Style, and allow Smite and Smite spells to work with ranged attacks in place of melee attacks. There was a 3.5 Elf Paladin racial substitution level that did exactly that.

[Tenmujiin]

My guess is that they took it out because a lot of Paladin spells use a Bonus Action to cast (which is also required for TWF), and they wanted to further differentiate low level Paladins from low level Fighter's. Anywho, I'd allow it as a DM, since it fits your character concept and doesn't effect game balance. (If anything, a TWF Paladin is weaker then a two handed weapon Paladin).

I would also allow you he option to take the Archery Fighting Style, and allow Smite and Smite spells to work with ranged attacks in place of melee attacks. There was a 3.5 Elf Paladin racial substitution level that did exactly that.

Yea, I guess I'll try asking him. He tends to not allow any changes to classes from RAW but no harm in asking I guess.

Edit: also, good point on the bonus action, I didn't think of that. Divine Smite costs no action at least, even if the smite spells do (and those break concentration on hunter's mark anyway.)

[Person_Man]

Also, in my opinion the primary benefit to playing a Paladin is not Smite. Being able to add a handful of dice to your damage a couple of times a day is definitely nifty. But comparatively high (and perhaps better) damage can be added by Action Surge, Metamagic, or Assassinate. The real benefit to playing a Paladin is his awesome Auras.

So if you're locked into being a Half-Elf, I would suggest being a Sorcerer, Warlock X, Bard, Rogue, with maybe 2 levels of Fighter mixed in as needed.

There's really no benefit to using weapons over using comparatively good Cantrips, especially if your Dex is only going to be 16 or lower.

If you're wedded to using TWF, you could pull it off more effectively with Pact of Blade Warlock (Cha to damage), Valor Bard (can learn any spell), or Rogue (Sneak Attack/Assassinate).

[RealCheese]

There's really no benefit to using weapons over using comparatively good Cantrips, especially if your Dex is only going to be 16 or lower.

If you're wedded to using TWF, you could pull it off more effectively with Pact of Blade Warlock (Cha to damage), Valor Bard (can learn any spell), or Rogue (Sneak Attack/Assassinate).

The benefit is playing the character he thought up and not a completely different concept.
Not everyone plays the game like it's a math problem to be solved.

[Tenmujiin]

Also, in my opinion the primary benefit to playing a Paladin is not Smite. Being able to add a handful of dice to your damage a couple of times a day is definitely nifty. But comparatively high (and perhaps better) damage can be added by Action Surge, Metamagic, or Assassinate. The real benefit to playing a Paladin is his awesome Auras.

Since the weapon being used has no effect on the auras this is hardly a valid point.


So if you're locked into being a Half-Elf, I would suggest being a Sorcerer, Warlock X, Bard, Rogue, with maybe 2 levels of Fighter mixed in as needed.

There's really no benefit to using weapons over using comparatively good Cantrips, especially if your Dex is only going to be 16 or lower.

If you're wedded to using TWF, you could pull it off more effectively with Pact of Blade Warlock (Cha to damage), Valor Bard (can learn any spell), or Rogue (Sneak Attack/Assassinate).

Again, thats not the point, I'm wondering how to best build a charcter around the idea of "dual weilding paladin" not "the best dual weilder and fluff be damned"

Edit: also, I didn't mean that my race had to be half-elf, just that it is my prefered race for this charcter.

[Rezby]

If you took a level of warlock, you get 2 spell slots you can burn for divine smite that renew every short rest. Plus, it's super fluffy - 'mortal, you've done so well in my service, I'll allow you to make a pact with me' - esp if you're a half elf pally of correllon, who you'd obviously fluff as being the arch fey pact. 3 levels of warlock gets you a pact blade, but that's an awful lot of investment.

I'd play it as paladin 3, then fighter 1, then warlock 1, then either another fighter level for action surge, or more paladin levels.

[Theodoxus]

Yea, fighter 2-4 is some pretty good stuff but taking it before paladin 5 means delaying the extra attack pretty heavily.

I should probably mention that our party will have a bard and most likely a shadow monk with a two level warlock dip along with two other PCs of unknown class. We most likely will only be doing the first module since its just so we can play while myself and the other DM get our respective campaigns together.

With only going to 8ish, honestly, I'd go with the 'ask the DM for the TWF combat style' - Dipping 1/4th to 1/2 your levels isn't a dip anymore, it's a dedicated build. Now, fighter 4/paladin 4 is pretty sweet regardless, though I can understand not wanting to lose out on the Extra Attack. As such, I'd just go full Paladin. Even without the extra off hand dex to damage, you'll be getting more bang from your unaltered Paladin progression.

And if nothing else, when you do start your own campaign, you have a fully thought out BBEG (goodish?) opponent to harass your players with :)

[Person_Man]

The benefit is playing the character he thought up and not a completely different concept.
Not everyone plays the game like it's a math problem to be solved.

I find it humorous that someone with the handle "RealCheese" would make a comment disparaging optimization to someone who uses a portrait of someone with a block of cheese for a head. :smallsmile:

In my opinion, your class choice has very little to do with your character concept. And the character creation process does not dictate how you play the game.

A class is just a pile of discrete mechanics, as are Skills, Background, Feats, and Spell selection.

A character concept can be anything you imagine.

And once you've assembled your build and decided on a character concept, you can choose to play the game itself in whatever way you want, though where game mechanics are called for, you are limited by the options that you selected and the effectiveness of what they are.

For example, if I want to play a master thief, I do not need to play a Rogue with the Thief subclass. I could basically be any class, as long as it provides me with the mechanics I need to break into secure locations, escape detection, etc. And once the game actually starts, I might spend 90% of my time roleplaying and problem solving rather then using any of my class abilities. And the 10% of the time that I do use my class abilities, I assure you that they will have a high probability of succeeding at their intended tasks, because I chose them for their ability to do so.

Obviously there are some practical limitations on my proposed methodology. For example, if you want to play a magic user, then you are limited to classes (or subclasses) that have magical abilities of some kind. But even then, if I wanted to be a devoted servant of a particular deity, I wouldn't limit myself to Paladin or Cleric or Druid, if I wanted to be a performer I wouldn't limit myself to Bard, and so on.

I understand that many gamers use the different approaches. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It simply reflects different opinions, priorities, etc.

But if someone comes to the forum and asks an optimization question (ie, is it worth taking X levels for Y purpose) I generally do my best to offer optimization advice. In this case my advice is that the best option is to ask for a house rule on Fighting Style and/or Smite so that you don't have to kludge on classes that otherwise don't provide much synergy, or considering a different class entirely that could provide better mechanical outcomes while still fulfilling the character concept of being a holy warrior or whatever it is that Tenmujiin envisions being.

It's also worth mentioning that I didn't propose an alternate race or not "maxing charisma" because Tenmujiin specifically stated those choices were basically locked in. I didn't realize that the choice of Paladin was equally locked in, and if it is, then I apologize, and obviously my advice should be ignored. I thought he wanted advice on the effectiveness of a duel wielding Paladin, and my opinion is basically to look at different options, because that combination with mediocre Dex is not particularly optimal.

[Tenmujiin]

But if someone comes to the forum and asks an optimization question (ie, is it worth taking X levels for Y purpose) I generally do my best to offer optimization advice. In this case my advice is that the best option is to ask for a house rule on Fighting Style and/or Smite so that you don't have to kludge on classes that otherwise don't provide much synergy, or considering a different class entirely that could provide better mechanical outcomes while still fulfilling the character concept of being a holy warrior or whatever it is that Tenmujiin envisions being.

It's also worth mentioning that I didn't propose an alternate race or not "maxing charisma" because Tenmujiin specifically stated those choices were basically locked in. I didn't realize that the choice of Paladin was equally locked in, and if it is, then I apologize, and obviously my advice should be ignored. I thought he wanted advice on the effectiveness of a duel wielding Paladin, and my opinion is basically to look at different options, because that combination with mediocre Dex is not particularly optimal.

I'm actually after the paladin's abilities more than the flavour, I'm probably going to play down the 'divine' aspect of the paladin. If there was an arcane equivilent of the paladin/ranger I'd be going for that instead most likely (I'm not a fan of eldritch knight).

[Person_Man]

I'm actually after the paladin's abilities more than the flavour, I'm probably going to play down the 'divine' aspect of the paladin. If there was an arcane equivilent of the paladin/ranger I'd be going for that instead most likely (I'm not a fan of eldritch knight).

So honest question, because I'm not exactly sure what you want, and I want to provide helpful advice rather then arguing for you to optimize certain things. Does the Pact of Blade Warlock or Valor Bard meet your definition of arcane paladin/ranger?

Either gets the equivalent of Extra Attack, can buff their damage output and defenses in various ways, and has access to arcane spells.

[Vintrastorm]

I've seen some comments that I interpret as choosing figher in order to take TWF fighting style. If you do that you'd have to take fighter 1 before paladin 2, since weapon style class feature, AFAIK, do not stack/overlap. You can only have 1. Unless you're a Fighter-champion level 10(?).

[Theodoxus]

I've seen some comments that I interpret as choosing figher in order to take TWF fighting style. If you do that you'd have to take fighter 1 before paladin 2, since weapon style class feature, AFAIK, do not stack/overlap. You can only have 1. Unless you're a Fighter-champion level 10(?).

I've yet to see anything that specifies that. Where are you interpreting this from?

[Shadow]

I've yet to see anything that specifies that. Where are you interpreting this from?

I believe he's misreading this line:
You can’t take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.

[mephnick]

But even then, if I wanted to be a devoted servant of a particular deity, I wouldn't limit myself to Paladin or Cleric or Druid, if I wanted to be a performer I wouldn't limit myself to Bard, and so on.

It's a concept a lot of people have trouble with. You can also re-fluff mechanics to fit a character concept. Want to play a crow-themed shaman? Your shield spell now manifests as a swirling wall of feathers. Same stats, just different flavour. Want a holy caster with the mechanics of a warlock? Fluff your eldritch powers as light-based.

As long as your DM isn't a tool, you can be anything you want, and pick the mechanics that help you achieve that goal. Don't get so obsessed about the tradition behind printed classes.

[Tenmujiin]

So honest question, because I'm not exactly sure what you want, and I want to provide helpful advice rather then arguing for you to optimize certain things. Does the Pact of Blade Warlock or Valor Bard meet your definition of arcane paladin/ranger?

Either gets the equivalent of Extra Attack, can buff their damage output and defenses in various ways, and has access to arcane spells.

Not really, both the warlock and bard are spellcasting with some martial attacks. In the same vein the eldritch knight is martial attacks with some spellcasting. What I'm thinking of is something more akin to the swordmage of 4e which was basically the only class I liked in 4th. Possibly the ToB classes from 3.5 would fit the concept too though I never had a chance to look into those very far.

This is basically a tangent to the main point of the thread though since the charcter being discussed is 'Paladin class + dual wielding'. I'm not really after Ideas on how to do arcane 1/2 caster with refluffing at this time but rather advise on how to make dual weilding work best while sticking mainly to the paladin class.

Edit: I realise that the many of the swordmage's abilities were thrown onto the EK subclass but the EK's spellcasting just doesn't appeal to me.

Edit 2: I'll probably end up running the swordmage type charcter as a shadow monk at some point but one of the players in my group is already playing a shadow monk and I don't want to impinge on his niche.