Dual wielding paladin?

[Klorox]

Is it worth multiclassing a level of fighter (or two of ranger) to add this style for a paladin?

You can smite on every hit as a paladin, and you add one more chance to hit as a dual wielding paladin.

[DivisibleByZero]

Worth multiclassing just for the style? Probably not. That meager +3 to +5 extra damage is offset by the smite damage itself.
Worth asking your DM if you can take TWF instead of the options listed? Absolutely.

[HermanTheWize]

Worth multiclassing just for the style? Probably not. That meager +3 to +5 extra damage is offset by the smite damage itself.
Worth asking your DM if you can take TWF instead of the options listed? Absolutely.

Ask about this.

I think most DMs will allow it, no reason not to really.

Worst case get defense, +1 AC all the time is still decent

[Klorox]

Worth multiclassing just for the style? Probably not. That meager +3 to +5 extra damage is offset by the smite damage itself.
Worth asking your DM if you can take TWF instead of the options listed? Absolutely.

Hmmm, maybe. I know if I were to add one fighter level, I'd add two or three. Two for action surge and three adds so much (either improved crits, maneuvers, or some added spells for smiting).

In a 20 level build, it'd be pal6/ftr2-3/bard or sorc11-12.

[HermanTheWize]

Hmmm, maybe. I know if I were to add one fighter level, I'd add two or three. Two for action surge and three adds so much (either improved crits, maneuvers, or some added spells for smiting).

In a 20 level build, it'd be pal6/ftr2-3/bard or sorc11-12.

That sounds like a fun build.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I'd look at Paladin similarly to Rogue in terms of dual-wielding; it doesn't have access to the fighting style but it has access to bonus damage that can be worth much more than the ability score damage on the second hit. Your second attack gives you a chance to smite a second (or eventually third) time in a single turn (or a second/third chance to smite in a turn when your first attack missed) which can be worth enough without the extra damage from the fighting style.

That said, I ran a campaign (up to level 7) with a paladin who took his first level in fighter to pick up the two-weapon fighting style and to have proficiency with constitution saving throws to help keep concentration on spells like Bless, Divine Favor (which it's worth noting effects both weapons when you wield two) and the like. It did hurt a little that it kept him from getting newer/more spells and other paladin features (especially Extra Attack and Aura of Protection) but all in all it wasn't a horrible build choice.

[HermanTheWize]

Hmmm, maybe. I know if I were to add one fighter level, I'd add two or three. Two for action surge and three adds so much (either improved crits, maneuvers, or some added spells for smiting).

In a 20 level build, it'd be pal6/ftr2-3/bard or sorc11-12.

But if he wants to be more melee focused you could always get the improved divine smite and take Paladin to 11.

[Arkhios]

In my experience TWF-style isn't necessary.
4th level paladin with Dual Wielder and still going strong.

[Specter]

Well, it's not fundamental, but it's definitely good. I mean, it's still +STR to damage every turn. You should take it.

And at the same time, there's no rush. After you max STR and get Improved Divine Smite, think about it.

(This considering a fighter multiclass; ranger would require 4 stats at 13, so it wouldn't be worth it.)

[Dudewithknives]

Is it worth multiclassing a level of fighter (or two of ranger) to add this style for a paladin?

You can smite on every hit as a paladin, and you add one more chance to hit as a dual wielding paladin.

Or you could just take Polearm Master like 75% of paladins do anyway and get your bonus attack that way, and take great weapon fighting.

[Arkhios]

Or you could just take Polearm Master like 75% of paladins do anyway and get your bonus attack that way, and take great weapon fighting.

But why be like everyone else instead of being cool and different? ;)

[krunchyfrogg]

Or you could just take Polearm Master like 75% of paladins do anyway and get your bonus attack that way, and take great weapon fighting.

Aiming for epic levels? I never heard of a holy avenger halberd. :p

[Specter]

Or you could just take Polearm Master like 75% of paladins do anyway and get your bonus attack that way, and take great weapon fighting.

If you can do without a feat, especially in a MAD class, you should do it.

[Zakhara]

I had a player who multiclassed Champion/Vengeance to crit-fish into Smites. It arguably wasn't as efficient as just doing a two-handed weapon, but on paper it had some potential.

Later on, the dice went his way and he did the most damage I've ever seen in D&D (in a single turn)--three attacks hit, all Smites, Action Surge and repeat. A few were crits. It wasn't perfect, but he considered the build worthwhile for that encounter alone.

[Specter]

I had a player who multiclassed Champion/Vengeance to crit-fish into Smites. It arguably wasn't as efficient as just doing a two-handed weapon, but on paper it had some potential.

Later on, the dice went his way and he did the most damage I've ever seen in D&D (in a single turn)--three attacks hit, all Smites, Action Surge and repeat. A few were crits. It wasn't perfect, but he considered the build worthwhile for that encounter alone.

I don't know, to me TWF Paladins are very underrated. You don't need a feat to pull two attacks right at first level - that's something. The low damage of the off-hand attack can be compensated with smiting, and if you poorly on one attack, there will be another. The damage between two shortswords and a halberd is almost the same, anyway. If you do take Dual Wielder, then you can have 20AC without a shield. That's something else.

[Corran]

Is it worth multiclassing a level of fighter (or two of ranger) to add this style for a paladin?

You can smite on every hit as a paladin, and you add one more chance to hit as a dual wielding paladin.
No, I dont believe so.

The ideal scenario for this, is if you are playing in a game that does not allow multiclassing and feats.
Aiming for a singleclass build also helps, as commiting on twf and not being dex based is a missed opportunity imo.

So, in a game without feats, twf will be the most reliable way to get some decent dpr out there via your bonus action, using it to attack and stack IDS on top of it. (a maximum of 3 smites per round as opposed to a maximum of 2 smites per round will hardlt ever make a real difference, as spell slots are fairly limited, so I am only counting on IDS for my previous point).

My first 5e character was a dex based OoV paly, using twf. I enjoyed that character a lot (stealth ftw!), but it was far from optimal (even during the playtesting phase). I doubt if multiclassing for the twf style would be of any value. considering how that would make me commit 5 points to STR (or going str based and losing the best reason to use twf in the first place). The static damage bonus is not that important (though I think I actually had it; either DM fiat or because playtest, dont remember; mariner is a good fs if UA is allowed).

[scalyfreak]

I came here to post the exact same question as OP.

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and insights. :)

[djreynolds]

But if he wants to be more melee focused you could always get the improved divine smite and take Paladin to 11.

Yes, 1d8 a hit extra, every hit


In my experience TWF-style isn't necessary.
4th level paladin with Dual Wielder and still going strong.

Right its +5 to one attack, you are not going to die without it


Or you could just take Polearm Master like 75% of paladins do anyway and get your bonus attack that way, and take great weapon fighting.

Basically, PAM is TWFing.

And no, as DM I would not allow a paladin to switch out fighting styles. It sounds like I'm a jerk, but the paladin is quite possibly the best class over all at almost every level.

[Klorox]

I came here to post the exact same question as OP.

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and insights. :)

Whoa! 😊👍

[Klorox]

And no, as DM I would not allow a paladin to switch out fighting styles. It sounds like I'm a jerk, but the paladin is quite possibly the best class over all at almost every level.

I wouldn't either.

The styles represent the "classic" versions of the classes. There's a reason why each class isn't allowed all of them, except the fighter.

[Klorox]

But if he wants to be more melee focused you could always get the improved divine smite and take Paladin to 11.

I thought about this a lot.

I kind of like it thematically, as I envision this character as being more paladin than spellcaster, but I think the character works out more powerful with 14 spellcaster levels (paladin 6/ champion 3/sorcerer 11), rather than 11 spellcaster levels (paladin 11/champion 3/sorcerer 6).

As before, bard may be substituted for sorcerer here. With dual wielding, the SCAG cantrips aren't as important, but it's still nice to have one since you'll still want war caster.

Wanted feats:

War caster.
Dual wielder

[scalyfreak]

Wanted feats:

War caster.
Dual wielder

Likewise, since I'm in the process of trying to build my dual wielding paladin now. I'm trying to stay away from multi-classing, which probably makes this more difficult... in hindsight I should have gone with variant human to get the dual wielder feat out of the gate, but that seemed like less fun than a tiefling.

I find myself wondering whether the two-weapon fighting style or the dual wielder feat really is necessary though? Granted, I'm only at first level yet, but as long as this character can avoid getting hit, she's going to do two hits per round, albeit without bonus to the second damage roll. Still, ss soon as I take her up to smiting levels that's bound to start hurting people.

[PeteNutButter]

Or you could just take Polearm Master like 75% of paladins do anyway and get your bonus attack that way, and take great weapon fighting.

This^

It's so sad but true. I've built so many characters intending to TWF, and at some point I realize that PAM is just flat out better in nearly every way.

It gets a reaction attack sometimes, can have reach, doesn't require a fighting style, doesn't use both hands so can be used with spells without warcaster, does more damage and it's damage is front loaded so if you spend your bonus action on something else you lose less, and can be used with GWM.

There are only two reasons to ever use TWF over PAM: It's a featless game, or you want to sneak attack. Maybe a third if you are in the odd position with a 1handed weapon while designing your character.

I guess there is a fourth reason: fluff reasons.

[scalyfreak]

There are only two reasons to ever use TWF over PAM: It's a featless game, or you want to sneak attack. Maybe a third if you are in the odd position with a 1handed weapon while designing your character.

The bolded part. I'm picturing sneaking up behind my target and backstabbing them with both one-handed melee weapons at the same time. While adding smite for extra damage.

Realistic? No idea. Until I find a group to join, I figured creating all sorts of weird concept characters is as good a way as any to learn the system. :smallsmile:

[Specter]

This^

It's so sad but true. I've built so many characters intending to TWF, and at some point I realize that PAM is just flat out better in nearly every way.

It gets a reaction attack sometimes, can have reach, doesn't require a fighting style, doesn't use both hands so can be used with spells without warcaster, does more damage and it's damage is front loaded so if you spend your bonus action on something else you lose less, and can be used with GWM.

There are only two reasons to ever use TWF over PAM: It's a featless game, or you want to sneak attack. Maybe a third if you are in the odd position with a 1handed weapon while designing your character.

I guess there is a fourth reason: fluff reasons.

I guess the fifth reason is... you don't need a feat?

[Drackolus]

I have a drow redemption paladin of Eilistraee, dual wielding scimitars. Standard issue. I took mariner as my fighting style. It's working out quite nicely thus far. I actually have better ac than the tiefling canquest paladin in heavy armor and a shield.

The dual wielder feat is inferior to a +2 dex in this case, since dual wielder is basically a +1 to ac and damage, dex does that + hit, skills, and saves. 16+1+dex is really high ac. Also opens up for bracers of defense, if I find any.

[JAL_1138]

I guess the fifth reason is... you don't need a feat?

You do if you want to cast spells with your hands full. Pretty much requires Warcaster.

[scalyfreak]

You do if you want to cast spells with your hands full. Pretty much requires Warcaster.

That brings up an idea I've been toying with. The PHB says "You can use a holy symbol (found in chapter 5) as a
spellcasting focus for your paladin spells."

Most of the class description assumes the paladin has this holy symbol prominently displayed on their shield. It also suggests wearing it around your neck as an amulet. In the second scenario, does it also assume the paladin uses one hand to touch or lift the amulet to cast spells? And in that case, why not wear the symbol on a bracelet or ring instead? Why not tattoo it on the back of your non-dominant hand or emblazon it on a glove/gauntlet if you're a dual wielder? Or why not put it on the helmet you're already wearing?

Rephrasing slightly: How exactly do the rules assume that a paladin uses their holy symbol as focus? what kinds of gestures and actions are actually required, not just assumed?

[Crusher]

You do if you want to cast spells with your hands full. Pretty much requires Warcaster.

Except that you can put a weapon away, cast your spell, and then take it back out after with dual-wielder.

Really, the difference between dual-wielder and PAM ends up smaller than I thought assuming the DM is strict on fighting styles.

If you go STR twf, and you've got an 16 STR, PAM gives you the occasional reaction attack, reach, and +2 damage/round (+3 if you have a second attack). TWF gives +1 AC and you're less likely to get jacked up in tight quarters (which may or may not have value depending on your DM). I'd argue those combinations aren't that far apart. Sure, you need two magic weapons instead of 1, but magic long swords are probably more than twice as common as magic halberds.

Alternatively, you could take Dueling instead of Defense, and start every turn by putting away your off-hand weapon, attacking, re-drawing your off-hand weapon and attacking. You draw even on damage (and move ahead by 1 point when you get another attack), but you lose the +1 to AC so I'd argue it isn't worth it.

[JAL_1138]

Except that you can put a weapon away, cast your spell, and then take it back out after with dual-wielder.

Really, the difference between dual-wielder and PAM ends up smaller than I thought assuming the DM is strict on fighting styles.

If you go STR twf, and you've got an 16 STR, PAM gives you the occasional reaction attack, reach, and +2 damage/round (+3 if you have a second attack). TWF gives +1 AC and you're less likely to get jacked up in tight quarters (which may or may not have value depending on your DM). I'd argue those combinations aren't that far apart. Sure, you need two magic weapons instead of 1, but magic long swords are probably more than twice as common as magic halberds.

Alternatively, you could take Dueling instead of Defense, and start every turn by putting away your off-hand weapon, attacking, re-drawing your off-hand weapon and attacking. You draw even on damage (and move ahead by 1 point when you get another attack), but you lose the +1 to AC so I'd argue it isn't worth it.

The object interactions run afoul of that last one. Drawing is one OI, stowing is another. So you can stow and cast in one round, draw and attack the next round, etc. just fine, so fair enough on that point. But you can't stow and then draw in the same round, so the Dueling style trick doesn't work. EDIT: Unless you take the Dual Wielder feat.

If you have dual-wielder, you're spending a feat on it anyway, so you might as well take PAM and get the op attacks and +mod extra damage to the bonus action attack. And wouldn't need to multiclass to get TWF style for +mod to damage, which isn't available to a Pally by default.

[Crusher]

DEX twf is a more complex comparison.

If you assume med armor and a 16 DEX (ASI's going to CHR) vs PAM, PAM has the same advantages while Dual Wielder merely breaks even on AC and (assuming point-buy) has to give up 2 points off either CHR or CON) which stings. However, you get all the benefits of focusing on DEX, namely +3 to Initiative, DEX saves vs STR saves and any DEX skills you have (maybe Stealth), plus you're good with ranged weapons.

In combat, without multiclassing, a DEX based Dual Wielder is worse than PAM but stronger in other ways and is likely to be a fundamentally different character played in different ways.

[Crusher]

The object interactions run afoul of that last one. Drawing is one OI, stowing is another. So you can stow and cast in one round, draw and attack the next round, etc. just fine, so fair enough on that point. But you can't stow and then draw in the same round, so the Dueling style trick doesn't work..

Except that Dual Wielder allows you to draw or stow two weapons for free instead of one.

Technically it allows you to draw or stow two different weapons, rather than the same one twice. But you could get around it by wearing 3 swords and rotating through them (stowing one, casting, then drawing the other) or just asking if the DM is *really* going to make you go through that instead of just stowing and drawing the same one.

Edit - That having been said, I do agree Dueling is probably inferior to Defense for TWF. With Defense, there's at least an argument to be made that its not inferior to PAM. With Dueling there really isn't. But if someone wants to play that way its workable.

[JAL_1138]

Except that Dual Wielder allows you to draw or stow two weapons for free instead of one.

Technically it allows you to draw or stow two different weapons, rather than the same one twice. But you could get around it by wearing 3 swords and rotating through them (stowing one, casting, then drawing the other) or just asking if the DM is *really* going to make you go through that instead of just stowing and drawing the same one.

Edit - That having been said, I do agree Dueling is probably inferior to Defense for TWF. With Defense, there's at least an argument to be made that its not inferior to PAM. With Dueling there really isn't. But if someone wants to play that way its workable.

I caught that you'd mentioned the Dual Wielder feat after my initial post, and edited to reflect it. Thing is, then you're still spending a feat if you go that route.

You don't get +mod to damage from Dual Wielder, though the +1 AC stacks nicely with Defense. Fair trade, I suppose, if you're spending a feat anyway--bit of protection versus bit of damage.

EDIT:
If you're taking two feats, PAM wins out, IMO, since it can combo with GWM for a significant damage boost (given that Paladins have multiple ways to offset the -5 accuracy penalty), or combos fantastically with Sentinel for extra control and/or stickiness.

Dipping a level or two of Fighter might be nifty, so as to pick up TWF style at Fighter 1 and Defense at Fighter 2.

ALSO EDIT: Sorry about the frequent edits; I'm posting from a cell phone and end up either missing something in a post or thinking of something later that takes me a while to add via iPhone keyboard.

[Crusher]

I caught that you'd mentioned the Dual Wielder feat after my initial post, and edited to reflect it. Thing is, then you're still spending a feat if you go that route.

You don't get +mod to damage from Dual Wielder, though the +1 AC stacks nicely with Defense. Fair trade, I suppose, if you're spending a feat anyway.

Ah, k, I missed the edit. Yeah, my real intent was to assume a feat was being taken (PAM vs Dual Wielder) with the correspondingly appropriate build and then note that the results are pretty similar and specific (and not super clearly laid out by other posters).

PAM is *probably* a little stronger than Dual Wielder for STR builds (+2 damage/round if everything hits and chance for Reaction attacks vs +1 AC and maybe being better in tight spaces. That's literally it) but they're close enough thatyou can make an argument either way.

[Vanderhaust]

If you plan to dip into fighter, I would just start there. You get TWF style and proficiency in con saves, the latter being arguably the more important feature. (especially if you go oath of vengeance)

[MaxWilson]

Or you could just take Polearm Master like 75% of paladins do anyway and get your bonus attack that way, and take great weapon fighting.

Or neither, and just take Defense style and fight with sword-and-shield most of the time, switching to dual shortswords only when you're pretty sure you want to blow all of your spell slots on smiting in the near future (e.g. when fighting Strahd).

You don't need any kind of investment at all to fight with dual weapons in 5E, except for buying two appropriately-sized weapons.

[JAL_1138]

Or neither, and just take Defense style and fight with sword-and-shield most of the time, switching to dual shortswords only when you're pretty sure you want to blow all of your spell slots on smiting in the near future (e.g. when fighting Strahd).

You don't need any kind of investment at all to fight with dual weapons in 5E, except for buying two appropriately-sized weapons.

Which brings up a good point—it's not necessarily optimized, per se, but it'll still work. It's not like you'd be making a bad character by any stretch. You don't have to squeeze out every possible point of damage or defense to be functional and effective, even if the rest of the party optimizes out the wazoo.

[Mandragola]

I think a paladin can make good use of two-weapon fighting right the way through his career. It really takes off at high level though, once you have improved divine smite.

The best thing is probably to start out just with the defence fighting style. From lvl 1-11 I’d recommend going sword and board, but you could use two light weapons if you want. Use your ASIs at lvl 4 and 8 to cap strength.

At lvl 11 improved divine smite tends to make you really want that extra attack. So at 12 you can take either PAM or two weapon fighter. I think the decision on what feat to take might well depend on whether you’ve come across a cool polearm yet, or if instead you’re carrying around a rack of magical longswords.

In my experience, one-handed melee weapons are the most common magical weapons you’ll find. That’s the real benefit of two-weapon fighting rather than other stuff – you get the equipment you need to do it properly.

It does also slightly depend on what oath your paladin has taken. Devotion paladins get to bless a single weapon, so will tend to prefer PAM. Vengeance paladins have tons of other uses for their bonus acitons (channel divinity, hunter’s mark, misty step) and so might benefit more from GWM. Oath of the crown might prefer to use a shield.

The good thing is that you don’t have to decide straight away – or indeed till lvl 12 at the earliest. +1 AC is a decent fighting style option for all paladins and you were going to cap your strength anyway. Then you can see what equipment drops and make decisions from there. And if you get two holy avengers at lvl 3 then take the two-weapon fighting feat at 4th!

[Specter]

You do if you want to cast spells with your hands full. Pretty much requires Warcaster.

You may want a feat for that, but you don't need a feat for that. You can just drop the weapon and, after casting the spell, pick it up again with your object interaction.

[Sirdar]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but I made a small comparison of a (Standard) S&B Paladin and a Dual Wielding Paladin.

Tier 2 Comparison between a S&B Paladin and a Dual Wielding Paladin:

Choices
Fighting style: Dueling
First ASI: +2 Strength (16 -> 18)
Main hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +1)
Off hand: Shield
Result

Strength: 18
Standard Action: 2 Attacks
Standard Bonus Action: -
Standard DPR: E[2*(1d8+1+2+4)] = 23
Extra AC: +2


Choices
Fighting style: Defense
First ASI: Dual Wielder Feat
Main hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +1)
Off hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +1)
Result

Strength: 16
Standard Action: 2 Attacks
Standard Bonus Action: 1 Attack
Standard DPR: E[2*(1d8+1+3)+1d8+1] = 22,5
Extra AC: +2




Major wins for S&B: Higher strength. Bonus Action still available.
Minor wins for S&B: One magic weapon is enough. Magic shield may increase AC even further.
Tie between S&B & DW: DPR (S&B has higher hit chance due to higher strength. DW has a bit more DPR and 1 more chance to crit/smite.)
Minor wins for DW: The Dual Wielder is harder to disarm. Donning a shield takes more time than drawing a weapon.
Major wins for DW: -


Tier 3 Comparison between S&B Paladin and Dual Wielding Paladin:

Choices
Fighting style: Dueling
First ASI: +2 Strength (16 -> 18)
Second ASI: +2 Strength (18 -> 20)
Main hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +2)
Off hand: Shield
Result

Strength: 20
Standard Action: 2 Attacks
Standard Bonus Action: -
Standard DPR: E[2*(2d8+2+2+5)] = 36
Extra AC: +2


Choices
Fighting style: Defense
First ASI: Dual Wielder Feat
Second ASI: +2 Strength (16 -> 18)
Main hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +2)
Off hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +2)
Result

Strength: 18
Standard Action: 2 Attacks
Standard Bonus Action: 1 Attack
Standard DPR: E[2*(2d8+2+4)+2d8+2] = 41
Extra AC: +2




DPR moves from tied to minor win for DW. S&B still gets the overall win though.

[PeteNutButter]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but I made a small comparison of a (Standard) S&B Paladin and a Dual Wielding Paladin.

Tier 2 Comparison between a S&B Paladin and a Dual Wielding Paladin:

Choices
Fighting style: Dueling
First ASI: +2 Strength (16 -> 18)
Main hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +1)
Off hand: Shield
Result

Strength: 18
Standard Action: 2 Attacks
Standard Bonus Action: -
Standard DPR: E[2*(1d8+1+2+4)] = 23
Extra AC: +2


Choices
Fighting style: Defense
First ASI: Dual Wielder Feat
Main hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +1)
Off hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +1)
Result

Strength: 16
Standard Action: 2 Attacks
Standard Bonus Action: 1 Attack
Standard DPR: E[2*(1d8+1+3)+1d8+1] = 22,5
Extra AC: +2




Major wins for S&B: Higher strength. Bonus Action still available.
Minor wins for S&B: One magic weapon is enough. Magic shield may increase AC even further.
Tie between S&B & DW: DPR (S&B has higher hit chance due to higher strength. DW has a bit more DPR and 1 more chance to crit/smite.)
Minor wins for DW: The Dual Wielder is harder to disarm. Donning a shield takes more time than drawing a weapon.
Major wins for DW: -


Tier 3 Comparison between S&B Paladin and Dual Wielding Paladin:

Choices
Fighting style: Dueling
First ASI: +2 Strength (16 -> 18)
Second ASI: +2 Strength (18 -> 20)
Main hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +2)
Off hand: Shield
Result

Strength: 20
Standard Action: 2 Attacks
Standard Bonus Action: -
Standard DPR: E[2*(2d8+2+2+5)] = 36
Extra AC: +2


Choices
Fighting style: Defense
First ASI: Dual Wielder Feat
Second ASI: +2 Strength (16 -> 18)
Main hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +2)
Off hand: 1d8 Weapon (assume +2)
Result

Strength: 16
Standard Action: 2 Attacks
Standard Bonus Action: 1 Attack
Standard DPR: E[2*(2d8+2+4)+2d8+2] = 41
Extra AC: +2




DPR moves from tied to minor win for DW. S&B still gets the overall win though.

Good comparison, but your math is pretty off, because you aren't including to hit chance. The S&B will still do more damage if you factor in that they will hit more often if they have +2 more to hit.

For tier 3 thats roughly .65*36 or .55*41, that is 23.4 for S&B or 22.55 for DW... S&B still is better.

EDIT: Your thing said 16 str for DW, but it's clear you meant 18 so that means its .60*41 which is 24.6, which is actually better.

[Sirdar]

Good comparison, but your math is pretty off, because you aren't including to hit chance. The S&B will still do more damage if you factor in that they will hit more often if they have +2 more to hit.

I know the math is slightly off. I wanted to keep it simple and not assume hit chance distributions, crit damage etc. I can do that on request, it's no problem. I have an armada of spreadsheet for this. :-)

I forgot to mention that this is a comparison in DWs favor. I made it so it should be hard to criticize from a DW perspective. Still DW lose the comparison quite badly. The comparison gets worse for DW if we replace one Strength bump of the S&B Paladin with Magic Initiate (for Hex) or Shield Master for some shoving.

[Arkhios]

I know the math is slightly off. I wanted to keep it simple and not assume hit chance distributions, crit damage etc. I can do that on request, it's no problem. I have an armada of spreadsheet for this. :-)

I forgot to mention that this is a comparison in DWs favor. I made it so it should be hard to criticize from a DW perspective. Still DW lose the comparison quite badly. The comparison gets worse for DW if we replace one Strength bump of the S&B Paladin with Magic Initiate (for Hex) or Shield Master for some shoving.

A Dual Wielding Paladin should in my experience regularly use Divine Favor to boost up his damage, unless you have Oath of Vengeance, in which case you can use Hunter's Mark. Yes, Hex might have slightly better damage than Divine Favor, but on average it's just ~1 point per hit. IMHO, Divine Favor is overall better because it's already on all Paladins' list.

[Sirdar]

EDIT: Your thing said 16 str for DW, but it's clear you meant 18 so that means its .60*41 which is 24.6, which is actually better.

Thanks, I have fixed it now.

[Sirdar]

A Dual Wielding Paladin should in my experience regularly use Divine Favor to boost up his damage, unless you have Oath of Vengeance, in which case you can use Hunter's Mark. Yes, Hex might have slightly better damage than Divine Favor, but on average it's just ~1 point per hit. IMHO, Divine Favor is overall better because it's already on all Paladins' list.

That's a good point. I actually didn't think of Hunter's Mark and just wanted to stress that the S&B Paladin is approximately a Feat ahead of the DW Paladin.

[PeteNutButter]

A Dual Wielding Paladin should in my experience regularly use Divine Favor to boost up his damage, unless you have Oath of Vengeance, in which case you can use Hunter's Mark. Yes, Hex might have slightly better damage than Divine Favor, but on average it's just ~1 point per hit. IMHO, Divine Favor is overall better because it's already on all Paladins' list.

Also Divine Favor is significantly better because it doesn't have to be moved. That loss of roughly 1-3 attacks a combat with Hunter's Mark far outpaces the difference between 1d4 and 1d6. Although HM does last longer...

[MeeposFire]

You may want a feat for that, but you don't need a feat for that. You can just drop the weapon and, after casting the spell, pick it up again with your object interaction.

In addition if you count how many spells you cast outside of combat, spells that do not have components that conflict, or use for standard smites that will use up most of your fairly limited spell slots on most paladins on most days. There are conflicts but less so on paladins since they often use many spell slots on smites which holding weapons do not affect.

[Tildryn]

The best use I've found for dual-wielding paladin is similar to what someone else mentioned: Making a hyper-defensive build.

A Human Variant Redemption Paladin can start with Str 8/Dex 16/Con 14/Int 8/Wis 10/Cha 16, take the Dual Wielder feat, the Mariner fighting style, and with your Dex modifier capped out you have 23 AC without items at level 8. With the Shield spell available to cast on reaction to boost that to 28. You could even take it to 30 if you were willing to use your Concentration on Shield of Faith. Plus you have excellent saves. The bonus action attack is really there to keep fishing for crit smites.

[Specter]

So the lesson here is that as soon as you grab Dual Wielder, dual-wielding becomes as good as sword-and-board, and when you get Improved Divine Smite it gets better. Right?