Lvl 1 fighter/lvl+ paladin good?

[Whit]

Was looking at lvl 1 fighter to get two weapon wield
Then go all paladin since they don’t get two weapon fighting

Lvl 1 fighter and lvl 1-4 paladin 1 attack plus bonus action attack
Then at lvl 6 paladin 2 attacks plus bonus action attack plus feat duel wield to switch to two long swords. 3 attacks per turn.

Most spells would be bonus action but was looking at either vengeance paladin for the advantage attack ability and hunters mark for MOre damage along with divine smite use of spells.
And later Misty stop and haste.

[djreynolds]

Was looking at lvl 1 fighter to get two weapon wield
Then go all paladin since they don’t get two weapon fighting

Lvl 1 fighter and lvl 1-4 paladin 1 attack plus bonus action attack
Then at lvl 6 paladin 2 attacks plus bonus action attack plus feat duel wield to switch to two long swords. 3 attacks per turn.

Most spells would be bonus action but was looking at either vengeance paladin for the advantage attack ability and hunters mark for MOre damage along with divine smite use of spells.
And later Misty stop and haste.

You could use PAM and grab a staff or glaive, might be better than TWF. Also smite spells are a bonus action away

Grab at least 4 of fighter, take battlemaster and grab action surge or get eldritch knight for the shield spell and cantrips

[coyote_sly]

Nobody really uses the smite spells frequently, they're very niche when you use the rider benefits. However, most of the time in big fights as a Vengeance Paladin you're going to want to use your first two bonus actions on Vow of Enmity and your concentration spell of choice for that tier (bless, Hunter's Mark, etc).

Doesn't seem mechanically great to me, personally.

[djreynolds]

Nobody really uses the smite spells frequently, they're very niche when you use the rider benefits. However, most of the time in big fights as a Vengeance Paladin you're going to want to use your first two bonus actions on Vow of Enmity and your concentration spell of choice for that tier (bless, Hunter's Mark, etc).

Doesn't seem mechanically great to me, personally.

Agreed.

Do what everyone else does, grab a polearm and go to town

[CTurbo]

Will a TWF Paladin work? Yes. Is it optimal? No.


Like you said, there are too many great bonus action spells that are going to forever compete with the bonus action attack.

This would work best if you plan on relying purely on smites and not actually using spells. I've actually played a 13 Cha Vengeance Paladin that almost never casted spells. Just spammed Smite all the time.

PAM does typical work better and happen easier, but your Fighter 1/Paladin X idea would have a higher AC in Plate plus Defense Style plus Duel Wielder feat 18+1+1

[Throne12]

So you drop the 2 longsword and cast find steed and pick up 2 Lance's and go to town.

[Arelai]

The bigger issue is that you’re giving up a level for a +3-5 on your offhand damage. You can still TWF as a Paladin-just without adding the modifier.

Taking a fighter level doesn’t make sense, as it delays your spell slots(smites) and the better spells you can learn, and your extra attack.

[Expected]

Two-weapon fighting is not optimal, but to make the most out of it, I would at least try to get the improved divine smite feature from level 11 Paladin. It adds an additional d8 damage to each melee weapon attack if it hits. Since you'd have two weapons, it would be applied twice--once for each successful attack.

[bid]

Was looking at lvl 1 fighter to get two weapon wield
Then go all paladin since they don’t get two weapon fighting
The only reason to use 2 weapons is to have a 3rd chance at critting and get a double-damage smite. That 4d8 is much more than the +3 you'd get from TWF style.

Even with the Con save, I'm not sure it's worth delaying everything by 1 level.

[Arelai]

The only reason to use 2 weapons is to have a 3rd chance at critting and get a double-damage smite. That 4d8 is much more than the +3 you'd get from TWF style.

Even with the Con save, I'm not sure it's worth delaying everything by 1 level.

3rd chance? You can TWF without the fighting style, it just lowers the off hand damage cause you can’t add the mod.

Get your smite chance, and don’t throw a level away.

You’d get 3 hits at level 5. And if you only Paladin, you get that 3rd attack a level sooner.

[bid]

3rd chance? You can TWF without the fighting style, it just lowers the off hand damage cause you can’t add the mod.
I guess you didn't read what I said...:smallannoyed:

[Citan]

Was looking at lvl 1 fighter to get two weapon wield
Then go all paladin since they don’t get two weapon fighting

Lvl 1 fighter and lvl 1-4 paladin 1 attack plus bonus action attack
Then at lvl 6 paladin 2 attacks plus bonus action attack plus feat duel wield to switch to two long swords. 3 attacks per turn.

Most spells would be bonus action but was looking at either vengeance paladin for the advantage attack ability and hunters mark for MOre damage along with divine smite use of spells.
And later Misty stop and haste.


The bigger issue is that you’re giving up a level for a +3-5 on your offhand damage. You can still TWF as a Paladin-just without adding the modifier.

Taking a fighter level doesn’t make sense, as it delays your spell slots(smites) and the better spells you can learn, and your extra attack.


Two-weapon fighting is not optimal, but to make the most out of it, I would at least try to get the improved divine smite feature from level 11 Paladin. It adds an additional d8 damage to each melee weapon attack if it hits. Since you'd have two weapons, it would be applied twice--once for each successful attack.
This.
Getting dual-wielding for another weapon attack is something you can do for nearly free, at just the price of wielding light weapons so little bit smaller die size.

Only two benefits of getting one single level of Fighter are Fighting Style and Constitution proficiency for concentration (knowing that Wisdom saves are also important though).
Unless you really wanted to make a Paladin dedicated to dual-weapon fighting, which can work *very* well but better through another way (*cough* Swords Bard *cough*), I'd really advise against this. It's overall a big waste. Even planning for a later Action Surge is really not enough.
Simply because you'll rather use slots on smite spells unless you get a critical and wants to double on that. Using slots on spells is overall far more interesting, especially at low levels.
And however you use them, at low levels you don't have enough slots to really have a use for such a feature as Action Surge. Or rather, it's good, but not good enough to delay by a significant number of sessions features like Extra Attack, 2nd level spells, Aura of Protection and later 3rd level spells.

If you really want an interesting starting dip for Constitution proficiency, go either Sorcerer or Barbarian.
The former will greatly increase your resilience (Shield) or versatility (utility spell) as well as offense (Firebolt, Booming Blade) and utility (Mold Earth / Message / Minor Illusion / etc).
The latter would boost even more your resilience twice a day and still allow you to nova.

But honestly if you're unsure of how to play/build, just start Paladin and go straight up to 6 to get a feeling on how you like to use its features. If Constitution proficiency is really important, Resilient: Constitution is always here. :)
Especially if you want to go Vengeance Paladin to play with Haste later. You will have much time on the way to feel whether using Hunter's Mark (and smite spells) is compatible with dual-wielding or if it's too much juggling to your taste.

[Foxhound438]

if you want to 2wf, you definitely don't need the fighting style. It's immidiately a difference of like 3 damage, and you can make that up at level 4 by taking polearm master as others say.

That said if I were to do a 2wf paladin, I would definitely go for college of swords bard for the extra spells and a few pseudo- maneuver dice. By comparison you lose action surge, but the extra spells are worth, and the skill proficiency stuff is nice too.

[Whit]

So full fighter would be better with duel weapon fight

[CTurbo]

So full fighter would be better with duel weapon fight

Duel Wielding is never going to be optimal for a Paladin, but it WILL work. But yes Fighter or Ranger is probably better.

Fighter/Barb is probably best possible IMO. Rage bonus damage applies to offhand attack too.

Dex Fighter/Swashbuckler Rogue is great too.



I like duel wielding. I really do. I love the flavor of fighting with two weapons. I've played a couple of TFW Fighters, a Ranger, a Swashbuckler, and a full on Barb in 5e already. It's not as bad as everybody says it is. The problem is it's quicker, easier, and better overall to grab the Polearm master feat and use a reach weapon. PAM makes your main attack better, and you don't have to worry about finding two magic weapons.

[Citan]

Duel Wielding is never going to be optimal for a Paladin, but it WILL work. But yes Fighter or Ranger is probably better.

Fighter/Barb is probably best possible IMO. Rage bonus damage applies to offhand attack too.

Dex Fighter/Swashbuckler Rogue is great too.



I like duel wielding. I really do. I love the flavor of fighting with two weapons. I've played a couple of TFW Fighters, a Ranger, a Swashbuckler, and a full on Barb in 5e already. It's not as bad as everybody says it is. The problem is it's quicker, easier, and better overall to grab the Polearm master feat and use a reach weapon. PAM makes your main attack better, and you don't have to worry about finding two magic weapons.
Picked this post to react simply because it was the most concise one, but speaking back to all crowd in general saying that dual-wielding is not optimal. :)

I disagree that dual-wielder cannot be optimal.
It definitely can be actually considering some parameters, namely.

1. Your feat list is crowded. Everyone is always saying "PAM here, PAM there", the same often that are also saying "Paladin is craving for ASI".
Well, the latter is true for sure: Charisma is as important (or more for some archetypes) than attack stats, and there are plenty of other feats that can be extremely useful on any kind of Paladin: Mobile, Alert, Mage Slayer, Resilient: Constitution, Sentinel, etc.

PAM is an heavy investment to get a half weapon attack as bonus action (wait until level 4, push away important stat boost).

Dual-wielding is as light an investment as can be (wield weapons with lighter dice, no build decision), that you can rollback whenever you want (fed up with being close and personal? Switch to polearm. Need more defense? Grab a shield), available as soon as lvl 1.

Meaning in turn that a) you don't need to forcibly be a Variant Human to play like you wish at level 1, b) you can grab as important feats as PAM such as Resilient: Constitution (especially for Vengeance with Haste, but honestly good for most Paladins) as early as level 4 if really need be, or the usual level 8 after boosting attack stat (priority for Vengeance) or Charisma (priority for Devotion and possibly others).

2. Bonus action competition doesn't need to be that harsh. Unless you are a Vengeance Paladin (Oath CD, and there is no real reason not to use Hunter's Mark), the main competitors for bonus action are smite spells.
And those are not the kind you spam repeatedly in a fight, unless real bad luck on roll. ^^
Especially at low levels, with only a few slots to play with.

And in fact, for those considering that there is a strong competition for bonus actions "in general" or "in essence of Paladin", this should actually be a point *against* picking PAM: this means you make a heavy investment for a benefit you know will be usable maybe half the time at best? That's underoptimization right here.
If you wanted PAM for the better avoidance of OA thanks to reach (which is pointless at high levels since many enemies have 10 feet reach or more), then Mobile is much better choice: more movement and free disengage whether you hit or miss.
If you wanted PAM for the extra chance at getting an OA, then Sentinel, although in a different way, will do the job as nicely.
Those two are the true main reasons to get PAM in fact for many characters: because you want a bit of this, and a bit of that, and don't want to wait a long time to stack both previously mentioned feats (or you're unsure whether you really want both). Bonus action is a nice addition to fill in when you have nothing better to do with it.

3. As a STR character, you are more adaptable to situations than a PAM or shield character, thanks to ability to throw weapons and non-requirement to have both hands "available" to make an attack: although this is a wildly variable benefit depending on party composition and encounter kind, it's always nice to still be able to attack someone that would normally be out of reach, or make an attack while freeing a hand for a next to come grapple (or maybe picking up an important object on the ground). Or simply make regular weapon attacks from a safer distance than with a polearm simply because you have no slots left to smite with, and the risk/benefit balance of enabling a face-off with mutual OA chance is unfavorable to you.

[Derpaligtr]

Nobody really uses the smite spells frequently, they're very niche when you use the rider benefits. However, most of the time in big fights as a Vengeance Paladin you're going to want to use your first two bonus actions on Vow of Enmity and your concentration spell of choice for that tier (bless, Hunter's Mark, etc).

Doesn't seem mechanically great to me, personally.

You know what, this is a real shame.

[Citan]

You know what, this is a real shame.
And also an assessment contrasting very much with what I saw in the few games I played/watched. So you should take it with quite the grain of salt.

I witnessed quite many players using Wrathful Smite to level the field, or even sometimes a simple Branding Smite for a bit of extra damage and putting some confusion in enemy group.
One guy also completely turned tide by risking a Blinding Smite, which actually succeeded in spite of decent bonus to save from creature. It was a risky bet, but it paid off dearly.

[Derpaligtr]

And also an assessment contrasting very much with what I saw in the few games I played/watched. So you should take it with quite the grain of salt.

I witnessed quite many players using Wrathful Smite to level the field, or even sometimes a simple Branding Smite for a bit of extra damage and putting some confusion in enemy group.
One guy also completely turned tide by risking a Blinding Smite, which actually succeeded in spite of decent bonus to save from creature. It was a risky bet, but it paid off dearly.

My experience is the same.

Maybe there needs to be a Paladin subclass that makes using smite spells worth it?

Maybe the paladin should have been built around the idea of their spells being smite spells?

I don't know, but I love the idea of Smite spells and quite a few of them are awesome conceptually.

[stoutstien]

Why don't you just ask if you can add twf style to pally's list. It purely a flavor reason why it isn't on it

[Potato_Priest]

It sounds like the posters above me have covered the mechanics accurately, so I’ll just reccomend that you simply ask your DM if he or she will let you take the two weapon fighting style instead of the one every paladin gets at second level. Since it’s obviously not overpowered, I don’t see much reason for them to say no.

[Derpaligtr]

I don't think the paladin really needs TWF fighting style.

Mostly because Divine Smite doesn't have the "once per round" or "once per turn" issue last I checked. So when you really need to do damage, you can pump out some nice damage against your target. Once you hit level 5, you're hitting three times and can burn three spells.

Unless there has been an errata somewhere?

If going the twf route, I would just grab the feat so that I could dual wield longswords, rapiers, or battleaxes... Then take the defense fighting style so that you still gain the same benefit as if you had a shield (+1 AC from style, +1 AC from feat).

[bid]

So full fighter would be better with duel weapon fight
Dueling style? Yes.
That's +8 damage if all hit.

Dual style? No.
That's +5 damage if it hits.
When you have 4 attacks, the 5th one doesn't do as much.

[Citan]

My experience is the same.

Maybe there needs to be a Paladin subclass that makes using smite spells worth it?

Maybe the paladin should have been built around the idea of their spells being smite spells?

I don't know, but I love the idea of Smite spells and quite a few of them are awesome conceptually.
No, there is really no need for that.
People are free to use or ignore those smite spells as they wish, but they are very strong as it is.

Not just awesome conceptually mind you. :)
Also awesome mechanically.

- Searing: CON save, which is sad, but great against caster NPCs or any creature with not good bonus in general. The actual benefit of course depends on DM, but a simple minded creature that is suddenly put on fire will make its priority to put it out. You just forced it to waste an action. And it potentially took damage similar as a first level smite. Potentially MUCH more if you can pair it with an ally that can prevent or decide actions (Command, Stunning Strike, Hold, Confusion, Suggestion, etc).

- Thunderous: STR save, which is kinda coin flip depending on creature, but the effect of a 1st level smite + a Shove "push" + a Shove "prone". On top of a regular (melee) weapon attack.

- Wrathful: target is frigging *frightened*, one of the best three conditions ever. You reduce enemy threat (disadvantage on attacks against everyone, yourself included), you make it more manipulable (disadvantage on checks = perma Phantasmal Force, easy shove/prone or Entangle sustain, etc), and you possibly disable it completely for at least one round or more (melee enemy with your allies behind you, it would need to make a big go-around).

- Branding: invisible =/= hidden. You just need to land one attack on a pesky enemy that thought it would outsmart everyone to allow party to gang up on it. Even at disadvantage, it's something doable (especially with *three* attacks thanks to dual-wielding -ahem-). And you are doing just a bit less damage than a smite of same level. Also works on ranged attacks FYI. :)

- Blinded: CON save, so sad as always, but still a great way to reduce one melee/archer threat, and possibly disable a caster for a while (no spell requiring to see ;)). And again just a bit less damage than a smite of the same level.

- Staggering: this is an oddball imo, although still useful in some occasions. Besides being a WIS save (so easier to use against many enemies), the fact it mixes damage, debuff and action economy makes it a good one, but probably not worth the slot imo.

- Banishing: no need to explain right?

AND, the great thing about it is, you can still add a regular smite on the same weapon attack! Considering that you'll often have to cross some space to reach melee, it's not imx that rare that you spend a turn attacking another lesser enemy or increasing distance to cover. So you can anticipate. :)

The main problem of these spells is not their efficiency in essence, it's that Paladin has so many great other spells, and so few slots... But they are worth.

If you want to use them, go for it, as simple as that. :)
And if you want to use them *often*, multiclass Paladin with a caster, as simple as that.

Also I'll plus strongly the suggestion above: ask your DM if you can simply pick the related Fighting Style as a pure Paladin. Problem solved. :)

[Derpaligtr]

No, there is really no need for that.
People are free to use or ignore those smite spells as they wish, but they are very strong as it is.

If you want to use them, go for it, as simple as that. :)

Also I'll plus strongly the suggestion above: ask your DM if you can simply pick the related Fighting Style as a pure Paladin. Problem solved. :)

My issue is that anything that punishes you for choosing it, really should be fixed and the game updated. It's not that all options should be GREAT, but all options should be good.

[Citan]

My issue is that anything that punishes you for choosing it, really should be fixed and the game updated. It's not that all options should be GREAT, but all options should be good.
So... First, I edited my post, I think it's worth a quick read.
Second, sorry to be a bit blunt but you are putting a bit of a childish image here.

*Nothing* is punishing you for choosing whatever here.

Dual-wielding is something you can pick and drop at a whim. No strings attached: as other people stressed (me included), the main point is getting one more chance at landing a weapon attack. Damage is a bonus (action o/), nothing more, you can live well without it.

Spells can be prepared every day so you can try and waste them as you like too. And those spells are good. It's just that there are good among a crowd of good spells. So nothing prevents you to prep two of them, see how it fares action-economy wise with dual-wielding, then decide whether to keep them or use other spells instead.

I really, really don't see any hint of "punishment for choice" here.

[Derpaligtr]

So... First, I edited my post, I think it's worth a quick read.
Second, sorry to be a bit blunt but you are putting a bit of a childish image here.

*Nothing* is punishing you for choosing whatever here.

Dual-wielding is something you can pick and drop at a whim. No strings attached: as other people stressed (me included), the main point is getting one more chance at landing a weapon attack. Damage is a bonus (action o/), nothing more, you can live well without it.

Spells can be prepared every day so you can try and waste them as you like too. And those spells are good. It's just that there are good among a crowd of good spells. So nothing prevents you to prep two of them, see how it fares action-economy wise with dual-wielding, then decide whether to keep them or use other spells instead.

I really, really don't see any hint of "punishment for choice" here.

I was tlaking about the smite spells, not the dual wielding. Picking smite spells causes the game to punish you as they aren't very effective and there are clearly better alternatives.

I think the Paladin can take TWF feat just fine as they have a source of extra weapon damage. I wouldn't even think to give them the twf fighting style as that's just not all that needed.

[mephnick]

The Smite spells are generally a better use of a spell slot than regular smites if used wisely. Everyone talks about smite crits as if waiting to use your class's main offensive feature at random is in any way useful. I'd much rather blind or banish a creature than do like 10 more damage.

[Potato_Priest]

The Smite spells are generally a better use of a spell slot than regular smites if used wisely. Everyone talks about smite crits as if waiting to use your class's main offensive feature at random is in any way useful. I'd much rather blind or banish a creature than do like 10 more damage.

Since blinding a creature requires a 2nd level spell slot and banishing requires a 4th level one (iirc) you actually get an extra average 13.5 (3d8) and 22.5(5d8) damage out of critical hits with divine smite respectively, not taking into account the lower damage dice of the spell smites.

It’s really a choice between optimum sustained damage throughout the adventuring day using the smite-on-crit plan and better tactical capabilities when you need them with the spell smites.

[mephnick]

Since blinding a creature requires a 2nd level spell slot and banishing requires a 4th level one (iirc) you actually get an extra average 13.5 (3d8) and 22.5(5d8) damage out of critical hits with divine smite respectively, not taking into account the lower damage dice of the spell smites.

It’s really a choice between optimum sustained damage throughout the adventuring day using the smite-on-crit plan and better tactical capabilities when you need them with the spell smites.

I'm just saying that relying on crits for that damage at the expense of tactical capabilities is generally a much worse trade than people assume. White room guides assume you're actually going to roll crits when it matters on the enemy you want or something. Usually it gets wasted on Orc #19 if you roll one at all.

[Citan]

I was tlaking about the smite spells, not the dual wielding. Picking smite spells causes the game to punish you as they aren't very effective and there are clearly better alternatives.

I think the Paladin can take TWF feat just fine as they have a source of extra weapon damage. I wouldn't even think to give them the twf fighting style as that's just not all that needed.
Did you read my post?
They are very effective. The only requirement, as in all offensive spells, is choosing who to target with, or rather what save target preferentially.

Of course some archetypes provide tasty spells you'd rather use in general, such as Haste for Vengeance or Spirit Guardians for Idontrememberwho, but it's not always the best option.
Detailed debuffs overall bring a different strength than those spells, eat much less into your action economy, are less a hassle to use and can still profit the whole party. :)


I'm just saying that relying on crits for that damage at the expense of tactical capabilities is generally a much worse trade than people assume. White room guides assume you're actually going to roll crits when it matters on the enemy you want or something. Usually it gets wasted on Orc #19 if you roll one at all.
This exactly.
You have no 100% chance on landing a rider with a smite spell either, but at least YOU decide when to attempt it: knowledge and sense of risk will usually be rewarded.
Crits? You have no way of predicting or controlling them barring ally/dip into Diviner, and that works 2/3 per day max.

Spell smites are much better than using slots on smite overall.
To be fair, using any spell is usually a much better use of slot by that metric. :)

[Derpaligtr]

I'm just saying that relying on crits for that damage at the expense of tactical capabilities is generally a much worse trade than people assume. White room guides assume you're actually going to roll crits when it matters on the enemy you want or something. Usually it gets wasted on Orc #19 if you roll one at all.

The smite spells rely on hitting a creature and creatures failing saves.

Divine Smite doesn't get wasted on a roll of a 1, you decide to SMITE after a hit of a melee weapon. White room examples aren't my favorite, but they take into account the times that you will probably roll a 1.

[Citan]

The smite spells rely on hitting a creature and creatures failing saves.

Divine Smite doesn't get wasted on a roll of a 1, you decide to SMITE after a hit of a melee weapon. White room examples aren't my favorite, but they take into account the times that you will probably roll a 1.
You didn't get his point. :)
His point is: people usually prefer using slots on divine smite because they count on getting critical hits.
Getting critical hits is never predictible.

And without critical, it's overall much better to use a smite spell rather than a direct smite of similar slot. Unless you really have no idea on what saves enemy could be strong against.

To take your points:
1. "Need a hit". Well, divine smite too. So this is an extremely pointless argument against smite spell.

2. Need enemy to fail a save. Yeah, that is a tough one. On the plus side, damage is guaranteed, so it's more or less "trading an average 5-10 damage (compared to regular smite) and bonus action for a chance at ruining the guy's life, metaphorically then literally."
5-10 damage make a big difference at low levels. Beyond level 7-8? The difference they make will be very inferior to heavily reducing the creature's threat one way or another for at least one full round. Unless it so happens that you were in "finishing blow" range in which those few damage points may have dealt a defining difference between life and death.

Anyways, you know, all casters have this problem to deal with, and nobody is making a mountain out of it.
"Yeah, but casters have more slots". Sure, so it's a tad less annoying to waste a slot. But most of their spells are actions instead, that's an important thing to note. This means a failed spell usually equals a complete turn wasted. Whereas the Paladin still dealt damage as expected. In action economy, in a tough fight, that's a big difference.

Plus, it's still not that big of a risk if you know how to target a weak save.
Any character starts with usually DC 13 at least, with a quick bump to DC 15.
A creature with only a +1 bonus will have 45% then 35% chance to save.
At level 10, your DC is now 17 if maxed CHA. Creature has only 25% chance.
That's largely in the "calculated risk" area imo. :)

Of course, if you don't want metagame and it's first encounter against a new creature, it means you need to know the creature, which gives back value to Religion / Arcana and such skills. ^^

Finally, as I pointed out already, IF you really want to nova against a creature, assuming you have all slots of your level available, then casting a bonus action smite spell is the right thing to do when you start the fight, unless...
- you are already in range of melee hitting of the target.
- you already have a way to get a bonus action weapon attack.
Which may or not often be the case, that's a big case of YMMV here.

[Derpaligtr]

You didn't get his point. :)
His point is: people usually prefer using slots on divine smite because they count on getting critical hits.
Getting critical hits is never predictible.

And without critical, it's overall much better to use a smite spell rather than a direct smite of similar slot. Unless you really have no idea on what saves enemy could be strong against.

To take your points:
1. "Need a hit". Well, divine smite too. So this is an extremely pointless argument against smite spell.

2. Need enemy to fail a save. Yeah, that is a tough one. On the plus side, damage is guaranteed, so it's more or less "trading an average 5-10 damage (compared to regular smite) and bonus action for a chance at ruining the guy's life, metaphorically then literally."
5-10 damage make a big difference at low levels. Beyond level 7-8? The difference they make will be very inferior to heavily reducing the creature's threat one way or another for at least one full round. Unless it so happens that you were in "finishing blow" range in which those few damage points may have dealt a defining difference between life and death.

Anyways, you know, all casters have this problem to deal with, and nobody is making a mountain out of it.
"Yeah, but casters have more slots". Sure, so it's a tad less annoying to waste a slot. But most of their spells are actions instead, that's an important thing to note. This means a failed spell usually equals a complete turn wasted. Whereas the Paladin still dealt damage as expected. In action economy, in a tough fight, that's a big difference.

Plus, it's still not that big of a risk if you know how to target a weak save.
Any character starts with usually DC 13 at least, with a quick bump to DC 15.
A creature with only a +1 bonus will have 45% then 35% chance to save.
At level 10, your DC is now 17 if maxed CHA. Creature has only 25% chance.
That's largely in the "calculated risk" area imo. :)

Of course, if you don't want metagame and it's first encounter against a new creature, it means you need to know the creature, which gives back value to Religion / Arcana and such skills. ^^

Finally, as I pointed out already, IF you really want to nova against a creature, assuming you have all slots of your level available, then casting a bonus action smite spell is the right thing to do when you start the fight, unless...
- you are already in range of melee hitting of the target.
- you already have a way to get a bonus action weapon attack.
Which may or not often be the case, that's a big case of YMMV here.

Divine Smite isn't wasted if you don't hit. Smite Spells can be wasted if you don't get a hit. You will never waste a spell slot with Divine Smite where as I've seen plenty of Smite spells waste spell slots. Low level paladins can fail concentration checks or need to cast a different spell the next round in order to save someone from something bad going down.

Casters don't have such limited slots, wasting a slot here or there isn't as hard on the casters (especially the ones that get some slots back).

So, instead of relying on 2 or more rolls to keep a Smite Spell working properly (and taking away my ability to cast other spells such as haste... Which works with Divine Smite), I would rather save those slots for Divine Smite where I can wait until I hit and then activate my ability. No saving throws, no concentration checks, no wasting the slot.

There are situations in which the smite spells are good, but overall the Paladin has better things to use their concentration and spell slots on.

[bid]

Divine Smite isn't wasted if you don't hit. Smite Spells can be wasted if you don't get a hit.
How often do you miss twice in a row, or 3 times with TWF?
Because that's what you need to not be useful immediately.

[Potato_Priest]

How often do you miss twice in a row, or 3 times with TWF?
Because that's what you need to not be useful immediately.

To be perfectly accurate, twf doesn't actually help you in the first round of the spell since it takes a bonus action to cast, prefenting you from making an off hand attack. It would help you land the spell on subsequent rounds however.

The "having to hit before losing concentration" factor interestingly makes the smite spells synergize slightly better with an aura of conquest paladin, who can use their channel divinity to effectively guarantee a hit, both reducing the chance of wasting the spell and also increasing its tactical value (since you have somewhat more control over when the debuff takes effect).

[Angelalex242]

One level of fighter simply isn't as useful as the Paladin Capstones, which are formidable.

[Derpaligtr]

How often do you miss twice in a row, or 3 times with TWF?
Because that's what you need to not be useful immediately.

Paladins don't naturally get twf.

Most paladins aren't working that way.

[mephnick]

Paladins don't naturally get twf.

Actually everyone naturally gets twf.

[Citan]

Divine Smite isn't wasted if you don't hit. Smite Spells can be wasted if you don't get a hit. You will never waste a spell slot with Divine Smite where as I've seen plenty of Smite spells waste spell slots. Low level paladins can fail concentration checks or need to cast a different spell the next round in order to save someone from something bad going down.

Casters don't have such limited slots, wasting a slot here or there isn't as hard on the casters (especially the ones that get some slots back).

So, instead of relying on 2 or more rolls to keep a Smite Spell working properly (and taking away my ability to cast other spells such as haste... Which works with Divine Smite), I would rather save those slots for Divine Smite where I can wait until I hit and then activate my ability. No saving throws, no concentration checks, no wasting the slot.

There are situations in which the smite spells are good, but overall the Paladin has better things to use their concentration and spell slots on.
That is your argument?
Sure, it's theorically valid, but honestly, I'd say it's a YMMV thing here.
I mean, sure, if a Paladin rushes into enemy alone, or is otherwise the only guy exposing himself... Yeah, at low levels you'll suffer.
It just means you may want to grab Resilient: Constitution as a priority when other Paladins would rather push it later or not take it at all.

But that argument is equally pertinent for any concentration spell a Paladin casts then, and I'm sure you won't daresay Paladin spells are not worthy.
Especially since at level 6 and onwards, Paladin have at least as good a concentration as a guy proficient, up until very late levels thanks to Aura of Protection.

There is also the fact that, unless you're a solo character, you can work with your team if really you feel your concentration breaks too often too fast.

So that's not an argument against smite spells here really, rather an argument about risk management in general and concentration in particular.

As for the "need to hit argument", that's really a weak one.
Devotion has Sacred Weapon.
Vengeance has Channel Divinity.
With any Rogue / Fighter / Barbarian in play, high chances are at least one of them is good at Shoving prone.
Clerics & Bard have Command among other things to force people to get prone.
Druid have Faerie Fire.
Monks have Stunning Strike.
Etc.

Unless as small as a two-man one, any party can find reliable ways to generate advantage for melee people.
And 2 attacks at advantage? You should very rarely miss both hits, even against high AC.


Paladins don't naturally get twf.

Most paladins aren't working that way.
Wow. I'm starting to wonder if you are really familiar with 5e here. :)
Let's not confuse the Fighting Style (+ attack stat on damage) or the Feat (lifting restrictions on weapons, ability to draw two weapons at once, +1 AC)...
With the mechanic (wield two light weapons, use Attack > enable bonus action attack) that EVERYONE gets, even those who probably don't have a care in the world for it, like Wizards. ^^



The "having to hit before losing concentration" factor interestingly makes the smite spells synergize slightly better with an aura of conquest paladin, who can use their channel divinity to effectively guarantee a hit, both reducing the chance of wasting the spell and also increasing its tactical value (since you have somewhat more control over when the debuff takes effect).
Hey, could you plz explain that bit here?
Only read Conquest for theorycraft analysis but never actually played it (well, once, in a short one-shot ^^) so blurry memory, and cannot access source from here.

[Potato_Priest]

Hey, could you plz explain that bit here?
Only read Conquest for theorycraft analysis but never actually played it (well, once, in a short one-shot ^^) so blurry memory, and cannot access source from here.

If I remember correctly, the conquest paladin has a channel divinity that is almost identical to that of the war cleric, granting them +10 to hit on a single attack, which they can choose to expend after they see the attack roll but before they know if they hit.

[Citan]

If I remember correctly, the conquest paladin has a channel divinity that is almost identical to that of the war cleric, granting them +10 to hit on a single attack, which they can choose to expend after they see the attack roll but before they know if they hit.
...
...
...
Wow.
I just never made the link with smite spells so viewed it as a "just nice" feature. How could I be that stupid and not see it for all this time? XD
I now see this CD under a whole new eye. Thanks :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

Honestly it the concentration tag on smite spells that kills them for me. Pally's are the bless bots of 5e and have a ton of very useful and flavorful spells but the smite spells seem underweaming. The smite feature should have a rider options depending on oath that we're usable Cha mod times a day and be done with it

[Citan]

Honestly it the concentration tag on smite spells that kills them for me. Pally's are the bless bots of 5e and have a ton of very useful and flavorful spells but the smite spells seem underweaming. The smite feature should have a rider options depending on oath that we're usable Cha mod times a day and be done with it
Interesting idea, but I'm afraid this would in turn require quite a rework of some Oaths (thinking of Vengeance and Conquest here).
And if you limit it to CHA mods, you need to make it auto-scale in damage or reliability too imo.

Barring this "small" problem, let's try.

"Divine Smite". When you get this at 2nd level, you can now blablabla (sorry too lazy to copy paste the fluff).
Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can apply one use of Divine Smite. Choosing this will immediately apply extra radiant damage equal to "1d8*proficiency modifier".
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier. You regain expended uses whenever you finish a long rest.

Lvl 3. "Oath's Smite" (replace with actual name of Oath, fluff to be made if you like the idea)
Once per turn, when you use Divine Smite, you can choose to try and apply an additional effect that last until the end of target's next turn.

Devotion: the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or become irradiated with your aura. On a failed save, the target is blinded and sheds magical light, bright up to 5 feet away and dim up to another 5 feet. Any insibility effect it had ends immediately, and the light also repels any darkness or obscurement, magical or otherwise. If your Sacred Weapon is active or target is under the effect of Branding Smite, the save is made at disadvantage and light range is doubled.

Redemption: the creature must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or become pacified. On a fail, you forbid the affected creature to willingly harm another directly or indirectly through any mean. Should the creature go against it, on the first harmul act it makes (whether this succeeds or fails), it will immediately suffer psychic damage equal to your Paladin level. Then for the remaining duration, it will make Charisma and Wisdom saves at disadvantage.
(which incidentally means disadvantage against Rebuke the Violent as well as Calm Emotions or Hold Person) ;))
The effect ends early if you or any creature friendly to you harms the affected target in any way.

Vengeance: the creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be devoured by flames born from your resentment. If the target is affected by Oath of Enmity, disadvantage is imposed on save.
On a failed save, magical flames consume its body, imposing disadvantage on Constitution saves, and weapon attacks you make against it are made with advantage (yeah, seems redundant with Channel Divinity, but idea here is precisely to make it also good against other people).
If the creature is under effect of Oath of Enmity, any hit you make with a weapon attack is a critical on a roll of 19 or 20.
If the creature is under effect of a Searing Smite, those flames become magical too and cannot be extinguished normally.

Crown: the creature must succeed on a Charisma save. On a fail, you can mentally give it an order as if you had cast the Command spell on it, the blade transmitting your willpower. The creature must use all means available to it (including bonus action or casting spell) to execute your order.
If the creature was under the effect of your Champion Challenge, it makes the save with disadvantage and on a fail, you can give a command up to 5 words long.

Ancients: the creature must succeed on Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, poison is injected it creature's body. The creature is poisoned and has its speed halved.
If creature was under the effect of Nature's Wrath, it automatically fails the next related saving throw and cannot take bonus action or reaction.
If the creature is under effect of Ensnaring Strike, it automatically fails the next Strength check and takes extra damage equal to your Charisma modifier.

Oathbreaker: the creature must succeed on a Charisma saving throw of be frightened.
If the creature is under the effect of Dreadful Aspect or Wrathful Smite, it instead so terrorized that body and mind alike disfunction: it is stunned and make all Intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom checks at disadvantage.

Here for a quick draft. Obviously writing is very poor and fluff mostly inexistant, as I primarily wanted to give a idea on mechanical effects, possibly synergizing with other features of the archetype.
So I tried to give...
- one effect useful in general (which may or not be a bit too powerful, not sure).
- one potent buff for a Channel Divinity or smite spell, which is imo not too powerful considering the action economy, but obviously playtesting would be required. However it adds a layer of complexity, which goes against 5e design goals, that's a bigger drawback imo but no idea right now on how to do otherwise.

What do you think, qualiry of writing aside? :)