Paladin TWF (is it actually bad?)

[strangebloke]

Okay, so Paladins don't get the TWF fighting style. Personally I don't see why, but here we are.

But are they actually bad TWF characters? They can get added damage to each attack, either through divine favor, hunter's mark, or improved divine smite. And Defense fighting style stacks nicely with the AC bonus from duel wielder.

Here's an example of my thought process:

vhuman Paladin 5 Oath really doesn't matter.

Heavy Armor
Defense Fighting Style
Duel Wielder

AC:20

You can pre-cast divine favor to open with

1d8 + 1d4 + 4 + 1d8 + 1d4 + 4 + 1d8 + 1d4 = 29 damage.

For comparison, a S&B paladin with +2 STR in the same situation deals

1d8 + 1d4 + 5 + 2 + 1d8 + 1d4 + 5 + 2 = 28 damage, and has the same AC.

Now, the S&B pally doesn't use a bonus action and synergizes better with something like the vPally and has better damage (slightly) when divine favor isn't active. But the DW has much more flexibility, being able to go for things like whips, and can also smite three times in a turn if needed.

Then too, IDS is a great boon to TWF builds.

I can see where the build isn't considered 'great' like a PAM-quarterstaff-shield build, but its at least respectably good.

[stoutstien]

It's not bad at all. I've allowed twf on Paladin bc no go reason not to. Also could take a one-three lv Dip in fighter.

[LudicSavant]

Here's an example of my thought process:

vhuman Paladin 5 Oath really doesn't matter.

Heavy Armor
Defense Fighting Style
Duel Wielder

AC:20

You can pre-cast divine favor to open with

1d8 + 1d4 + 4 + 1d8 + 1d4 + 4 + 1d8 + 1d4 = 29 damage.

For comparison, a S&B paladin with +2 STR in the same situation deals

1d8 + 1d4 + 5 + 2 + 1d8 + 1d4 + 5 + 2 = 28 damage, and has the same AC.

To get a more practical comparison:

> The Sword and Board character should have feats, and that should be factored in to their contribution. I know you gave them an ASI, but you gave the dual wielder 2 feats, not just one.

> If you're going to give the S&B character a higher accuracy than the TWF character, that has an impact on their DPR. Why isn't that reflected in your comparison at all? In the example you gave, the S&B character would actually do more DPR due to a higher to-hit chance.

> The Sword and Board character should be taking advantage of the fact that they have a bonus action.

> The Sword and Board character should be using tactics appropriate to their build (Divine Favor is generally something you use if you have lots of attacks). Also, if you have the opportunity to pre-cast things, both builds could cast Bless instead of Divine Favor.

> Also, the TWF character should be showcasing their advantages, too. For example, an extra attack raises your chance of landing a critical smite.

[Man_Over_Game]

Likely, TWF was excluded from the Paladin's list to open up the Bonus Action economy.

If TWF was available, Spell Smites (like Wrathful Smite) would see even less use than they do now to avoid interfering with TWF builds. As it is, paladins don't have much use for their bonus actions outside of Spell Smites.

On top of that, Paladins can get a lot of on-hit benefits (Vengeance Paladin can even get Hunter's Mark), so to diversify builds, the developers continued to make TWF less of a possibility.

Lastly, Paladins are iconically larger-than-life serious superheroes of civilization, and Rangers are their skinny, serious, hermit counterparts. They wanted Rangers/Fighters to have that unique aspect of being able to fight using speed vs. raw power.

I think what you have listed is perfectly fine, though. Vengeance Paladin is probably the most mechanically beneficial oath (to get Hunter's Mark), and also fits very thematically. Devotion was also something I considered, but it only buffs up a single weapon.

[Corran]

Depends on how you look at it.

Say, if you already have decided on a twf character, then paladin is not a bad choice (rogue would be better, but paladin is not that bad, certainly better than fighter).

But if you want to play a paladin, pick your oath, and then want to compare twf to other fighting styles, then it's not that great of a choice.

I don't think it's very beneficial to bring in spells like divine favor when making comparisons with other fighting styles, as there are far better uses for your concentration. Neither the possibility for 3 divine smites per round, as it will be far too rare to ever need that kind of extra nova. IDS and the increase in dpr is fair game though, and that's the main benefit here. That and the fact that we can go for that extra dpr without spending a precious feat in PAM (which without a plan on exploiting the reach, or alternatively without combining it with GWM -which IMO is only viable on a vengeance paly but I digress- is not that great of a feat, quarterstaff aside). I would probably hold off dual wielder as well.

Hard to compete with a S&B setup and sentinel though.

[strangebloke]

To get a more practical comparison:

> The Sword and Board character should have feats, and that should be factored in to their contribution.

> The Sword and Board character should be taking advantage of the fact that they have a bonus action.

> The Sword and Board character should be using tactics appropriate to their build (Divine Favor is generally something you use if you have lots of attacks).

> Also, the TWF character should be showcasing their advantages, too. For example, an extra attack raises your chance of landing a critical smite.

Well, I thought about feats, but since its a damage comparison, most of the feats that a S&B character might take are hard to compare directly. the +2 STR offers the best +damage comparison for the value. Well, outside of PAM+quarterstaff silliness of course.

To take advantage of the bonus action, the S&B fighter would either be using cheese like PAM or something like Shield Master which has a hard-to-quantify effect. Or you need to add in more spells, which muddles the comparison further. I do note that for instance a vPally should basically never go TWF, since the bonus attack competes with abjure enemy and hunters mark.

I suppose you could look at a scenario where DF isn't up on the first round, in which case the tWF build misses out on 7 damage on the first round and needs a long time to catch up.

DF is useful for someone with a lot of attacks, but it's also the best pre-buff in terms of damage. Once again, this is a damage comparison.

So, yeah, it'd be fair to do something like:

d8 + 1d4 + 4 + 1d8 + 1d4 + 4 + 1d8 + 1d4 = 29 damage.

A S&B paladin with shield master and casting bless instead of DF deals:

1d8 + 4 + 2 + 1d8 + 4 + 2 = 21 damage, and has the same AC, but also can shove an enemy prone and has more resistance to spells that require dexterity saving throws and is also buffing the attacks of the party.

But such a comparison doesn't really compare anything. The point is that a S&B build optimized for damage (not exactly its strong suit) does about the same overall as a TWF build optimized for damage. While this doesn't make TWF the best option, TWF isn't a crazy option, either.

[Willie the Duck]

Pre-casting Divine Favor is where this breaks down for me. How often do you get to cast a spell before combat starts, where you couldn't (and wouldn't) just start combat a round earlier. In almost every situation (IMO), this build should lose their bonus action attack for the calculations. And that's if they use Divine Favor at all. We can't assume that. Especially if we are discussing 'smit[ing] three times in a turn if needed,' since a paladin who smites is a paladin who can't always have combat buffs up as well (because they will run out of spells).

I guess I'm saying, yes, your analysis shows some parity, but the assumptions used in your analysis do not align with my conception about how the game plays out in the field.

[strangebloke]

Lastly, Paladins are iconically larger-than-life serious superheroes of civilization, and Rangers are their skinny, serious, hermit counterparts. They wanted Rangers/Fighters to have that unique aspect of being able to fight using speed vs. raw power.

I think what you have listed is perfectly fine, though. Vengeance Paladin is probably the most mechanically beneficial oath (to get Hunter's Mark), and also fits very thematically. Devotion was also something I considered, but it only buffs up a single weapon.

No, I definitely agree that they were going for a ranger/paladin distinction, with the paladin having protection and defense and the ranger having archery and TWF. I just think that's a pretty weak distinction between classes. Why are rangers a TWF class, again?

And hunter's mark is actually worse than divine favor for TWF builds. You can't precast it, and every time you cast it or move it, you're missing out on an attack. And you need to move it every time you hit something. So hunter's mark makes you better at chipping down a single target, but not that much better and most of the time you're better off with DF.

on the vpally TWF also competes with Abjure enemy. You get this situation where after two rounds of in-combat setup, you're really gonna be able to deal some damage.


Depends on how you look at it.

Say, if you already have decided on a twf character, then paladin is not a bad choice (rogue would be better, but paladin is not that bad, certainly better than fighter).

Hard to compete with a S&B setup and sentinel though.

Oh, 100%. It isn't the best build by a longshot. I'm just saying that its surprisingly not that bad and has some interesting upsides. The addition of DW was mostly to make the comparison easier. Same AC, same damage. I might not take it on a real character.

[Sception]

I generally find great weapon or sword & board pallies to be a little bit better, but even without the combat style to support it, dual wielding paladins aren't at all bad, particularly with a bit of crit fishing for big big smites. Works especially well for elves with the elven accuracy feat and a good way to grab advantage, such as a vengeance paladin's CD, or a dip into hexblade for the darkness/devil's sight combo. Though there's a bit of skornergy there what with some of the best paladin features encouraging you to keep both friends and enemies close, while the darkness/devil's sight combo is generally more of a hit & run sort of thing, trying to keep your darkness area out of your allies' way.

I will say that dual wield paladins tend to burn through their spell slot resources even faster than regular paladins do. As such, you should probably save them for powerful enemies, which might leave you slightly under performing in most encounters, just so that you can blow all your resources in a couple spectacular rounds against a particularly worthy foe. Though when you do get improved divine smite, that will help quite a bit.

There are two other issues for a the dual wielding paladin. The first is multiclassing requirements for paladin. A lot of dual wielders like light armor & finesse weapons, particularly if you're going with some sort of elf for elven accuracy (though half elf is always an alternative there). If you're going pure paladin it won't matter at all, but if you do want to dip in some fighter, rogue, warlock, or sorcerer, you'll still need to put at least a 13 in strength, which can get a bit tricky given that strength is otherwise probably a dump stat for finesse dual wielders.

The second is open hands for spell components. Great weapon paladins can always lift a hand from their weapon to cast a spell then go back to wielding the same weapon without any issues, and sword & board pallies have emblem holy symbols to at least let them cast spells with material components. Dual wielders are in a bit more of a pickle. Of course, you probably aren't casting all that many spells, just the occasional bless before you even draw your weapons at the start of combat, divine smites which aren't spells at all, and maybe some out of combat healing. But depending on your build and oath a dual wielding paladin might want to pick up warcaster, if they've got some particularly nice combat spells that would otherwise have you shuffling your gear mid combat to cast.


All that said, while there are again probably more effective and certainly more efficient ways to build & play a paladin, but dual wielding to threaten multi-smite bursts of damage, or to take advantage of passive attack & damage boosts like improved divine smite, absolutely does work just fine in practice. Obviously better if you have a dedicated tanky sort to help pull a few attacks away from your slightly lower AC. If there's a Cavalier, Conqueror, Spirit Guardian, or anyone with the Sentinel feat in your party, you'll want to make good friends with them and stick close to them in combat.

[strangebloke]

Pre-casting Divine Favor is where this breaks down for me. How often do you get to cast a spell before combat starts, where you couldn't (and wouldn't) just start combat a round earlier. In almost every situation (IMO), this build should lose their bonus action attack for the calculations. And that's if they use Divine Favor at all. We can't assume that. Especially if we are discussing 'smit[ing] three times in a turn if needed,' since a paladin who smites is a paladin who can't always have combat buffs up as well (because they will run out of spells).

I guess I'm saying, yes, your analysis shows some parity, but the assumptions used in your analysis do not align with my conception about how the game plays out in the field.

Well, I'd say that the scenario of the enemy being in the next room, ready for you, is a pretty common one. Common enough that spells like bless and haste often get precast in my home games. Cast the spell, kick down the door. They'll have their buffs up, you better have yours.

Anyway, if you have to cast DF on the first round you're 7 damage behind the S&B character on round one, and you don't really ever catch up.

But bear this in mind: Level 5 was chosen as a comparison point here because it's the worst level for a twf build. Levels 1-4 are great for twf as everyone knows. Levels 10+ are better for the TWF build since IDS evens things out.

[rbstr]

If Paladin had the fighting style I think more people would be higher on its power.

Because, yeah, it looks pretty decent compared to more typical TWF's like the Ranger. Divine Favor works better against hordes than Hunter's Mark since it doesn't have to be switched, Improved Divine Smite is like free, better, Hunter's Mark. Three attacks allows for a bit more crit fishing with regular smites.

[LudicSavant]

Well, I thought about feats, but since its a damage comparison, most of the feats that a S&B character might take are hard to compare directly. the +2 STR offers the best +damage comparison for the value. Well, outside of PAM+quarterstaff silliness of course.

It's harder to compare, but you still can and should compare them if you want to do practical optimization. In order to compare them, you just have to factor in the stats of your party as well as the stats of the Paladin herself.

You'd be surprised how often the guy using Bless and Shield Master comes out ahead in damage contribution over the "selfish DPR" build.

That said, if we want to compare a "selfish," Divine-Favor-synergizing build for S&B, the feat to take would indeed be PAM. In which case...

> Your TWF build does 17 DPR against a CR 5 Bulette, factoring in hit chance, criticals, etc etc.

> The PAM build does 23.5 DPR against a CR 5 Bulette, without counting the reaction. If they get the reaction, it's 31.75 DPR.

In other words, the TWF build is getting its damage blown totally out of the water.

Even in your original comparison where the shield user doesn't get a feat and isn't using their bonus action, the S&B wielder is still outdamaging the TWFer against a Bulette just because of the +1 to hit.

[GlenSmash!]

TWF Paladins aren't bad. I think PAM does it better, but if you don't want a Polearm or are going Dex and still want a bonus action attack for crit smite chances it works.

[Snowbluff]

I play a TWF Paladin2/SwordsBard6. I use TWF because I got a holy avenger helping out at the end of a harcover and I was like "you know, it's a sword and it would go swell if I got another one." I paired it with an empty Luckblade. TWF doesn't have to cost you a feat anyway, and so it's a cheap way to get a bonus action attack; this is it's prime benefit.

I smite using bard slots, and I buff my AC using Defensive Flourish.

As for MC requirements, getting Sword Bard only requires Cha.
I'm not going for Divine Favor. With Magical Secrets, Holy Weapon would be more damage, and Spirit Guardians even more than that, so that's my default option for DPS.

I was strongly considering getting great find steed, grabbing a 'griff to ride around on, and sharing tenser's transformation with it for a bunch of extra hits and damage.

EDIT: Casting with TWF is a non-issue. If you are casting, you aren't generally attacking, so you can put down a sword for a turn.

Dual Wielder is a bad feat. It's like what, +1 damage? That's not a good exchange for an ASI, which can be +1 to hit and damage.

[strangebloke]

If Paladin had the fighting style I think more people would be higher on its power.

Because, yeah, it looks pretty decent compared to more typical TWF's like the Ranger. Divine Favor works better against hordes than Hunter's Mark since it doesn't have to be switched, Improved Divine Smite is like free, better, Hunter's Mark. Three attacks allows for a bit more crit fishing with regular smites.

It has all the usual TWF problems. Too much competition for bonus action, too little payoff... but while it doesn't have the fighting style, everything else is pretty much golden.

As far as off-beat build go, I'd also point out that a GWM hunter ranger is hilariously good at wading through mobs of enemies.


It's harder to compare, but you still can and should compare them if you want to do practical optimization. In order to compare them, you just have to factor in the stats of your party as well as the stats of the Paladin herself.

You'd be surprised how often the guy using Bless and Shield Master comes out ahead in damage contribution over the "selfish DPR" build.

That said, if we want to compare a "selfish," Divine-Favor-synergizing build for S&B, the feat to take would indeed be PAM. In which case...

> Your TWF build does 17 DPR against a CR 5 Bulette, factoring in hit chance, criticals, etc etc.

> The PAM build does 23.5 DPR against a CR 5 Bulette, without counting the reaction. If they get the reaction, it's 31.75 DPR.

In other words, the TWF build is getting its damage blown totally out of the water.

Even in your original comparison where the shield user doesn't get a feat and isn't using their bonus action, the S&B wielder is still outdamaging the TWFer against a Bulette just because of the +1 to hit.
So a few things.

First of all, I absolutely understand that the selfish DPR build isn't the best one all of the time. Clerics, Bards, and Wizards are the powerhouses of 5e, and none of those classes are particularly good at direct damage. I'm just saying that its harder to compare.

Secondly, I acknowledge in OP that the Shield and Staff cheese is superior. Of course it is. It's better than nearly anything else at nearly any level. In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that PAM makes TWF completely irrelevant from an optimization perspective. But many DMs (self included) don't allow that particular cheese.

Finally, I'd quibble with you using a Bullette. The Bullete has 2 higher AC than is suggested for a monster of that level. Regardless, my point wasn't to show that the TWF build was superior to a shield build, merely that it was playable with various pros and cons.

Thirdly, why are you using a Bullette? The suggested AC for a CR 5 monster is 15, which is 2 lower than the

I play a TWF Paladin2/SwordsBard6. I use TWF because I got a holy avenger helping out at the end of a harcover and I was like "you know, it's a sword and it would go swell if I got another one." I paired it with an empty Luckblade. TWF doesn't have to cost you a feat anyway, and so it's a cheap way to get a bonus action attack; this is it's prime benefit.

I smite using bard slots, and I buff my AC using Defensive Flourish.

As for MC requirements, getting Sword Bard only requires Cha.
I'm not going for Divine Favor. With Magical Secrets, Holy Weapon would be more damage, and Spirit Guardians even more than that, so that's my default option for DPS.

I was strongly considering getting great find steed, grabbing a 'griff to ride around on, and sharing tenser's transformation with it for a bunch of extra hits and damage.

EDIT: Casting with TWF is a non-issue. If you are casting, you aren't generally attacking, so you can put down a sword for a turn.

Dual Wielder is a bad feat. It's like what, +1 damage? That's not a good exchange for an ASI, which can be +1 to hit and damage.
+1 to damage and +1 to AC. Worthwhile on a Strength build if you want to pump your AC, or if you have maxed Strength already.

And your build looks cool! Although I'd point out that it's really a paladin dip more than anything else.

[MaxWilson]

Okay, so Paladins don't get the TWF fighting style. Personally I don't see why, but here we are.

But are they actually bad TWF characters? They can get added damage to each attack, either through divine favor, hunter's mark, or improved divine smite. And Defense fighting style stacks nicely with the AC bonus from duel wielder.

It depends on the situation. Often it makes sense to just tank with sword and shield, but there are times when it makes sense to pull out dual shortswords and fight with those instead, especially if you are protecting squishy civilians from zombies or some other situation where your own personal defense really ceases to matter.

IMO it is a mistake to think of TWF as a "build": it is a tactic. Not one worth specializing in, but one which is sometimes still useful nonetheless.

[strangebloke]

It depends on the situation. Often it makes sense to just tank with sword and shield, but there are times when it makes sense to pull out dual shortswords and fight with those instead, especially if you are protecting squishy civilians from zombies or some other situation where your own personal defense really ceases to matter.

IMO it is a mistake to think of TWF as a "build": it is a tactic. Not one worth specializing in, but one which is sometimes still useful nonetheless.

True. One of the best things about the defense style is the ability to switch between weapon sets at will with no real consequence.

[rbstr]

I play a TWF Paladin2/SwordsBard6. I use TWF because I got a holy avenger helping out at the end of a harcover and I was like "you know, it's a sword and it would go swell if I got another one." I paired it with an empty Luckblade. TWF doesn't have to cost you a feat anyway, and so it's a cheap way to get a bonus action attack; this is it's prime benefit.

I smite using bard slots, and I buff my AC using Defensive Flourish.

As for MC requirements, getting Sword Bard only requires Cha.
I'm not going for Divine Favor. With Magical Secrets, Holy Weapon would be more damage, and Spirit Guardians even more than that, so that's my default option for DPS.

I was strongly considering getting great find steed, grabbing a 'griff to ride around on, and sharing tenser's transformation with it for a bunch of extra hits and damage.

EDIT: Casting with TWF is a non-issue. If you are casting, you aren't generally attacking, so you can put down a sword for a turn.

Dual Wielder is a bad feat. It's like what, +1 damage? That's not a good exchange for an ASI, which can be +1 to hit and damage.

I like this build too. I like Guardian of Nature as a secret. Seems like it'd be pretty cool with Strength-based TWF.

[LudicSavant]

Finally, I'd quibble with you using a Bullette. The Bullete has 2 higher AC than is suggested for a monster of that level.

And a CR5 Cambion has 4 higher at 19 AC, a Mezzoloth 3 higher, an Earth Elemental 2 higher, a Drow Elite Warrior 3 higher, a Gorgon 4 higher, a Night Hag 2 higher, a Red Dragon Veteran 3 higher, a Roper 5 higher, a Sahuagin Baron 1 higher, a Gladiator 1 higher, an Umber Hulk 3 higher, a Xorn 4 higher...

I picked the Bulette because it was the very first CR 5 monster in the Manual and is a rather uncomplicated and popular one. That said, it's not incredibly unusual for a monster at CR 5 to have above 15 AC, nor is it even unusual to fight things above CR5 at level 5 (the "average adventuring day" says you fight 6-8 Medium or Hard encounters).

That said, sure, let's check AC 15, shall we?

Your TWF: 19.9 DPR.
Your featless, bonus actionless, unoptimized S&B: 20.3 DPR

And, as before, as soon as the S&B starts using more appropriate S&B builds and tactics their DPR increases significantly.

[Snowbluff]

+1 to damage and +1 to AC. Worthwhile on a Strength build if you want to pump your AC, or if you have maxed Strength already.

And your build looks cool! Although I'd point out that it's really a paladin dip more than anything else. Ah I see AC.
You could go a bunch of different ways with it. If I started higher, I might've gone with Paladin6/SwordsBard5 to get the SR referesh on flourish then continue with paladin.

If it wasn't a TWF build I might consider doing Paladin6/Whispersbard.

I like this build too. I like Guardian of Nature as a secret. Seems like it'd be pretty cool with Strength-based TWF.
Hmm, an interesting spell, could be useful with the steed spell.

[GlenSmash!]

IMO it is a mistake to think of TWF as a "build": it is a tactic. Not one worth specializing in, but one which is sometimes still useful nonetheless.

Oh we had this demonstrated to us in last weeks session. we were facing a fairly large group of giant rats in a small cave. Now the rats were easy to hit, and easy to kill, but that much pact tactics could have ripped us to shreds.

We were missing our Warlock and Cleric that session so our AOE spells were off the table. Fortunately the Dual Wielding Rogue and Dual Wielding Fighter waded in there and dropped rats left and right. I didn't even have much chance to march my Barbarian in with his 2 Handaxes and help out.

Sometimes it's better to spread a little damage around in any way you can.

[MaxWilson]

Oh we had this demonstrated to us in last weeks session. we were facing a fairly large group of giant rats in a small cave. Now the rats were easy to hit, and easy to kill, but that much pact tactics could have ripped us to shreds.

We were missing our Warlock and Cleric that session so our AOE spells were off the table. Fortunately the Dual Wielding Rogue and Dual Wielding Fighter waded in there and dropped rats left and right. I didn't even have much chance to march my Barbarian in with his 2 Handaxes and help out.

Sometimes it's better to spread a little damage around in any way you can.

Nice. In a situation like that, opportunity attacks are quite useful too--even a first-level PC can be killing 1-2 rats per round with 3x attacks (action, TWF bonus action, opportunity attack). You don't even strictly need martial weapons proficiency: a first-level cleric can pull out a couple of shortswords and start swinging away too almost as effectively as the fighters can.

People on this forum frequently focus too much on "builds" and optimizing peak performance, and not enough on versatility and optimizing operational efficiency.

[GlenSmash!]

Nice. In a situation like that, opportunity attacks are quite useful too--even a first-level PC can be killing 1-2 rats per round with 3x attacks (action, TWF bonus action, opportunity attack). You don't even strictly need martial weapons proficiency: a first-level cleric can pull out a couple of shortswords and start swinging away too almost as effectively as the fighters can.

People on this forum frequently focus too much on "builds" and optimizing peak performance, and not enough on versatility and optimizing operational efficiency.

Yup.

I won't ever build a grappler. There are just too many things that are flat out immune to grappling, but every single character I make is capable of grappling, and even pretty decent at it since there are plenty of times where it is a very good tactic.

[MaxWilson]

Yup.

I won't ever build a grappler. There are just too many things that are flat out immune to grappling, but every single character I make is capable of grappling, and even pretty decent at it since there are plenty of times where it is a very good tactic.

Exactly. Ditto for e.g. Disarming (DMG rule). I will take a proficiency or learn a spell (like Hex or Enlarge) in order to make sure the tactic is in my tool kit, but I will never build a character around grappling or disarming--yet I'll be approximately as effective as a specialist when grappling is called for, thanks to bounded accuracy and the paucity of Athletics-proficient monsters who aren't giants. And the rest of the time I'll be a summoner, healer, tank, scout, sniper, or all of the above.

And of course other times I'll just be a big stupid barbarian who smashes whatever is in front of him with an axe, but not because I'm under the delusion that it's an effective survival strategy, just because I feel like being Gronk.

[Whit]

Twf paladin. I’ll do this quick.
1-4 1 attack with light weapon 1d6 +str; bonus attack 1d6 no str
Lvl 4 duel wield +1 ac; weapons now 1d8+str and bonus attack 1d8 no str.
Lvl 5 > 2 attacks 1d8 +str & 1d8+Str; bonus attack 1d8 no str. 3 attacks.

Going back to lvl 2 divine smite. Use spell slot for extra 1d8 per spell lvl up to 5d8 lvl
Lvl 11 improve divine smite add 1d8 per attack hit free. So 3 attacks =1d8 extra each.

Purpose of duel wield. 1. Looks wielding 2 long swords, battle axes etc. and pulling the weapons out or sheathing. 2. Extra 1 bonus attack. +1 ac on top. Damage dice go from 1d6 to 1d8.
What u lose.
1. Bonus attack str 3-4 extra damage
2. No shield -2 ac until duel wield now -1 ac
3. No warcaster feat so casting spells a problem
4. Most spells a bonus action. do u cst a bonus action spell or bonus attack
5. Vengeance advantage attacks is a bonus action. Hunters mark bonus action
6. If u get warcaster then that’s 4 asi lost lvl 4 and 8. After that u can go asi
7. You need good strength Con charisma.

What u gain and why u took it
1. That extra bonus attack and how it works.
U want to hit and smite lvl 2 when needed but u really want to hold it until u CRIT them do max smite. !!!!! That’s why yr roling more to hit dice to CRIT
2. 3 attacks improve smite 1d8 per extra hit. It makes up for no strength to bonus attack.

How to make it better. Up to u but some options may or not be worth it.
1. Lvl 1 fighter dip for Tws but is that strength damage for 1 bonus attack worth it?
2 lvl 1 Hexblade. U get bonus action curse to increase crit chance. But once again another bonus action cutting into yr bonus attack for 1 round. Use vs boss creatures.
One weapon can Use charisma for hit & damage. So your primary uses cha. And yr bonus attack uses str.
How does that work. 1. Focus on con and cha. But u need 15 strength for plate armor. So it’s still a 3 stat.

Is it all worth it. Yes. U will not maximize in most things like asi stats but more feats. But your nova damage when crit will be unlike all others
And at 11 lvl yr damage is very nice for normal attacks. 1d8+str +1d8 imp smite, 1d8+str+1d8 imp smite , bonus attack 1d8 +1d8 imp smite
Not including vengeance. hunters mark 1d6 per attack or lvl 2 smite. And if u go Hexblade 1 u get hex curse like hunters mark.

[GlenSmash!]

Exactly. Ditto for e.g. Disarming (DMG rule). I will take a proficiency or learn a spell (like Hex or Enlarge) in order to make sure the tactic is in my tool kit, but I will never build a character around grappling or disarming--yet I'll be approximately as effective as a specialist when grappling is called for, thanks to bounded accuracy and the paucity of Athletics-proficient monsters who aren't giants. And the rest of the time I'll be a summoner, healer, tank, scout, sniper, or all of the above.

And of course other times I'll just be a big stupid barbarian who smashes whatever is in front of him with an axe, but not because I'm under the delusion that it's an effective survival strategy, just because I feel like being Gronk.

I must admit Gronk is my go to, but I do make sure he can sneak, track, and grapple too.