Paladin S/B fighting style

[Contrast]

I've got a paladin I'm levelling in Adventurers League.

I want to go sword and board but I'm torn between Dueling (+2 damage) and Defence (+1 AC) fighting styles.

I feel like +1AC won't make a huge difference at the moment but might be the best option once I've got plate and if I ever manage to find magic armour/shield.

In the short term dueling feels the better option but I don't know how much difference its really going to make in terms of attacks/kill which is what matters.

Thoughts?

I'm also a little conflicted on shield master as well. I would have taken it asap under the old ruling but with the new ruling I sort of feel I'm better off just working on stats (particularly given my dex is terrible so the other benefits aren't doing much for me either).

[Pex]

I'm partial to Dueling. It's aesthetically pleasing seeing 1d8 + 5 damage on the character sheet starting with 16 ST. You have competition between ST and CH for ability increase. It's fine to get 18 ST at 4th level and increase CH at 8th level. Maybe there's a feat you like. You're not getting 20 ST for a long while. Take the damage boost now. You'll have 18 AC with chainmail and shield. That's good enough. Cast Shield of Faith if you think you need the boost, which shouldn't be often. Defensive style is good for those who want to use two-handed weapons.

[CantigThimble]

Personally I prefer defense on S&B just because once you get to high AC, every extra point makes a much larger difference.

If you're fighting enemies with +4 to hit and you go from 15 to 16 AC then that reduces the chance to hit from 50% to 45%, a 10% decrease in incoming damage. Meanwhile, going from 20 to 21 AC would reduce the chance to hit from 25% to 20%, a 20% decrease in incoming damage.

I just really enjoy seeing enemies miss their attacks.

[emperorpenguin]

Similar to what Cantig says, I like the defense style because it's much more satisfying than you'd expect to hear the DM say "He rolls an 18 on attack, so that doesn't hit."

[Galactkaktus]

I'm also a little conflicted on shield master as well. I would have taken it asap under the old ruling but with the new ruling I sort of feel I'm better off just working on stats (particularly given my dex is terrible so the other benefits aren't doing much for me either).

What is this new ruling? One thing about defense vs dueling how much of the total damage against your party do you think will be directed towards your character? Defense gets applied to every attack against you while dueling gets applied to the attacks you make. So defense gets beter the more attacks you have to whitstand.

[Kadesh]

What is this new ruling? One thing about defense vs dueling how much of the total damage against your party do you think will be directed towards your character? Defense gets applied to every attack against you while dueling gets applied to the attacks you make. So defense gets beter the more attacks you have to whitstand.

The ruling was a post which stated things which have prerequisites have to be completed before you gain the effects; i.e Shield Master, you have to complete the Attack action before you can use the Bonus Action Shove. I and many others have disregarded it as being unfun for the purposes of taking a feat, so we ignore it.

[Waazraath]

I've got a paladin I'm levelling in Adventurers League.

I want to go sword and board but I'm torn between Dueling (+2 damage) and Defence (+1 AC) fighting styles.

I feel like +1AC won't make a huge difference at the moment but might be the best option once I've got plate and if I ever manage to find magic armour/shield.

In the short term dueling feels the better option but I don't know how much difference its really going to make in terms of attacks/kill which is what matters.

Thoughts?

I'm also a little conflicted on shield master as well. I would have taken it asap under the old ruling but with the new ruling I sort of feel I'm better off just working on stats (particularly given my dex is terrible so the other benefits aren't doing much for me either).

I chose defense for my pally. +1 AC is always good to have. But ymmv I played 2nd melee next to a character that did sustained damage, and my pally was there for the burst / nova damage (smite). With those, that +2 damage wasn't that hot anyway. If you're in a low damage party with an Illusionist Wizard, a Monk (any) and a Lore Bard, I'd might go for the +2 damage.

As for the feat: no, if you can only use it after your attacks, it's far too weak. It's too dependend on initiative order, it might not do anything. And it might not do anything anyway, cause monsters are too large or win the skill contest. It's a needless and ugly nerf imo, and definitely for a pally you first want your attack stat and charisma maxed out. (unless you can get a feat that synergizes really well with the party, like Inspiring Leader for a party that lacks access to further temp hp.)

[Unoriginal]

Which campaign are you most likely to play?

[MeeposFire]

For me I go with defense since I find to be more helpful to me as a paladin. Paladins do not really do great at will damage but have great ability to pour resources into dealing damage all at once and dueling only slightly improves the 1st and makes little difference in the second. Since Paladins tend towards 2 attacks per round (barring TWF or particular feats) to me dueling is just not that potent whereas paladins have the ability to be hard to take out and defense takes that a step further.

Granted if you really like the idea of dealing more damage take dueling because both are fine. I think defense overall ends up being better but it is not so much that if you really want damage over anything to make it more fun I would take dueling in that case.

[Nidgit]

If you're planning on Ancients, go Dueling. You'll be plenty tanky anyway.

For everything else, how committed to S&B are you? Dueling kind of locks you into that style with only quarterstaff-PAM or Shield Master shenanigans to branch into. Defense gives you the option to switch to great weapons or polearms if you find something good you want to use. Otherwise, I'd still go Dueling.

[Contrast]

What is this new ruling? One thing about defense vs dueling how much of the total damage against your party do you think will be directed towards your character? Defense gets applied to every attack against you while dueling gets applied to the attacks you make. So defense gets beter the more attacks you have to whitstand.

Link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736) - as mentioned, previous advice was that you could do them in either order (meaning you could shove and attack with advantage). Current advice is that's not how it works.


The ruling was a post which stated things which have prerequisites have to be completed before you gain the effects; i.e Shield Master, you have to complete the Attack action before you can use the Bonus Action Shove. I and many others have disregarded it as being unfun for the purposes of taking a feat, so we ignore it.

I agree but character is for AL so.


Which campaign are you most likely to play?

Currently we're just playing random drop ins as the DM isn't sure on his schedule. Hoping to run a campaign at some point but not sure which yet.


If you're planning on Ancients, go Dueling. You'll be plenty tanky anyway.

For everything else, how committed to S&B are you? Dueling kind of locks you into that style with only quarterstaff-PAM or Shield Master shenanigans to branch into. Defense gives you the option to switch to great weapons or polearms if you find something good you want to use. Otherwise, I'd still go Dueling.

Was planning ancients. Is a good point about locking myself in - was pretty determined on S/B but I originally wrote this char up before the Shield Master nerf so... Maybe good to leave my options open I guess.

[Amdy_vill]

I've got a paladin I'm levelling in Adventurers League.

I want to go sword and board but I'm torn between Dueling (+2 damage) and Defence (+1 AC) fighting styles.

I feel like +1AC won't make a huge difference at the moment but might be the best option once I've got plate and if I ever manage to find magic armour/shield.

In the short term dueling feels the better option but I don't know how much difference its really going to make in terms of attacks/kill which is what matters.

Thoughts?

I'm also a little conflicted on shield master as well. I would have taken it asap under the old ruling but with the new ruling I sort of feel I'm better off just working on stats (particularly given my dex is terrible so the other benefits aren't doing much for me either).

i just finished playing a S/B paladin and i found protector(i think that is it) to be the better one to pick. it lets you impose disadvantage. but of the two i really does not matter they are both powerful early and late game. if you are trying to be more aggressive pick defence if you are going to be more tanky pick dueling.

[ZorroGames]

Our AL DMs do not follow that guidance.

[DarkKnightJin]

Defense is a good all-round style that doesn't care about the weapon you're wielding.
If you are going to be a dedicated sword&board knight, you really could go for either one and be fine.
Dueling making it so your minimum damage with a 1-handed weapon is 6 instead of 4 might not seem like much, but over the course of the many attacks you'll make on a regular adventuring day, it's going to add up pretty quickly.
That said, it's probably a bit more effectove on a Fighter with their 3 attacks per turn they wind up getting.

Defense is a fall-back if you want to be able to grab any weapon you find and be able to crush skulls or sever limbs. While making it harder for your enemies to repay the favor.

If you've set your sights on using a bit 2-handed weapon, I would highly suggest having a chat with your DM, and ask where they stand on the GWF style and the Divine Smite damage dice rerolls.

If you play primarily AL games.. Defense is probably the way to go in that environment.