Good is Not Nice: A Paladin's Guide

[Malifice]

Arguably or not, it is a good match for Fiend Patron, too, if your pact with the fiend was struck unwillingly (maybe, if you were a tiefling as suggested, the pact was made unknowingly to you - maybe your parents traded your unborn soul to a fiend in return of a service, and now you serve Him/Her, whether you want it or not) or as the necessary evil to fight for greater good.

Any reason that I cant be a LE Vengance Paladin who openly worships Asmodeus, and is also a Fiend Warlock with him as my patron?

[Arkhios]

Any reason that I cant be a LE Vengance Paladin who openly worships Asmodeus, and is also a Fiend Warlock with him as my patron?

If you read the tenets of the oath of vengeance and played the game by the book, then I would say "no", because even the Oath of Vengeance strives to fight back the evil, even if their own methods were on the grey area more often than not. Open servitude to Asmodeus screams of evil more than I would allow without breaking the oath. And then there's the issue with your alignment. How can you serve a greater good, if your own ideals are on the "dark side"? Alignment isn't just something you stamp on your forehead and do whatever you wish; on a very basic level, alignment defines what kind of person your character is. A lawful evil person isn't kind or caring person at heart.
A good example of an Oath of Vengeance paladin who isn't particularly good nor outright evil, either, is Batman, whom I'd consider being lawful neutral, who aims for the greater good of his community, but isn't afraid of using violence or deception to achieve it.

[Malifice]

If you read the tenets of the oath of vengeance and played the game by the book, then I would say "no", because even the Oath of Vengeance strives to fight back the evil, even if their own methods were on the grey area more often than not. Open servitude to Asmodeus screams of evil more than I would allow without breaking the oath. And then there's the issue with your alignment. How can you serve a greater good, if your own ideals are on the "dark side"? Alignment isn't just something you stamp on your forehead and do whatever you wish; on a very basic level, alignment defines what kind of person your character is. A lawful evil person isn't kind or caring person at heart.
A good example of an Oath of Vengeance paladin who isn't particularly good nor outright evil, either, is Batman, whom I'd consider being lawful neutral, who aims for the greater good of his community, but isn't afraid of using violence or deception to achieve it.

From Asmodeus perspective, what's evil and good differ though don't they? You can be a person who works towards the 'greater good' (as you see it) but still be a thoroughly evil person who employs torture, murder and even genocide.

Look at the Punisher or Azrael similar vigilante types that employ acts of utter evil and depravity for 'good ends'. Ditto with certain zealot crusaders and inquisitors (who toss babes on the pyre for the 'greater good'). It's so common as to be a trope of its own. They might be working for a good end (either subjectively, or objectively) but are prepared to utilise thoroughly evil means to get there. (Making them evilly aligned)

I currently have a LE Vengance paladin of Bane who views Torm (LG God of Paladins) as the 'true' evil (my parents were martyred to Torm in the bay of Tantras and my brother died in his service). I honestly believe Torm is a deceptive monster, and blame him and his faith for betraying my family and killing them, leaving me an orphan. I fight for the 'greater good' (a fascist theocratic society with Bane at its head - which I am sure would finally provide Faerun with unity, cohesiveness and a lasting peace).

Along the way I intend to employ genocide, holy wars and pogroms. I show no mercy to my enemies (particularly Tormites) and am highly intolerant of other faiths.

I think you're being way too limiting with your 'no evil paladins' thing. There is plenty of room for an evil paladin who fights for a good cause using evil means or even an evil paladin who fights against a cause he simply views as evil (even though it's not).

It's your campaign though so interpret it how you want.

[EvilAnagram]

As long as you stick to the tenets of your oath, it's fine.

[VoxRationis]

As long as you stick to the tenants of your oath, it's fine.

Spoiler: Vocabulary nitpicking

Show

Tenets. Your oath is not available for rent.
Sorry; a lot of people get this wrong and I had to say something this one time.

[EvilAnagram]

Spoiler: Vocabulary nitpicking

Show

Tenets. Your oath is not available for rent.
Sorry; a lot of people get this wrong and I had to say something this one time.

I hope I can blame that one on auto-correct, but I don't know that I was on my phone. Thanks!

[Arkhios]

Why exactly would Dual Wielder be bad for a paladin? Just because Paladins don't get Two-weapon Fighting Style can't be the only reason for it? Combined With Defense Style, wielding two weapons gives both a decent protection and an extra opportunity to land a Divine Smite (or a Smite Spell). Already decent from level 2 forward, but after 11th level, with Improved Divine Smite it becomes incredible! Sure, it can mean you're burning through your slots faster, but that's not very likely in the end, thanks to bounded accuracy.
Of course, many spells a Paladin can cast are cast with a Bonus Action, but I don't think that's going to be a big issue, as those are generally buffs that last much longer than for one round. One round less to attack with both weapons doesn't hurt you. After all, you'll still have that +1 to AC when you hold two weapons. (Mind you, you can cast first and then draw both weapons, unless (or until) you take War Caster feat.)

Another question: Could a barbarian/paladin use Divine Smite while raging?

(I know it's been a long while since there was last post in this thread, but I noticed that OP has updated the first few posts very recently, so I wouldn't consider this thread necromancy, correct me if I'm wrong)

[Rysto]

TWF and DW on a Paladin appears to be a solid option to me, and I'm giving it a try in one campaign. Another nice thing about the build is that you can start with Fighter 1 and then multiclass into Paladin from there, which gives you CON save proficiency (but you lose WIS save proficiency). The big downside is delaying your Paladin features by one level.

There's a very stupid part of me that's telling me I should eventually go for 3 levels of Fighter, take Champion and fish for crits to use with my smites, but I'm ignoring that for now.

However, PAM is a strictly better build from an optimization standpoint. You still get the benefit of the 3 attacks per round, you don't delay your Paladin progression, and you can wield a quarterstaff one-handed and use a shield with it and still do more DPR than TWF+DW (no, seriously).

[Saggo]

Why exactly would Dual Wielder be bad for a paladin? Just because Paladins don't get Two-weapon Fighting Style can't be the only reason for it? Combined With Defense Style, wielding two weapons gives both a decent protection and an extra opportunity to land a Divine Smite (or a Smite Spell). Already decent from level 2 forward, but after 11th level, with Improved Divine Smite it becomes incredible! Sure, it can mean you're burning through your slots faster, but that's not very likely in the end, thanks to bounded accuracy.
Of course, many spells a Paladin can cast are cast with a Bonus Action, but I don't think that's going to be a big issue, as those are generally buffs that last much longer than for one round. One round less to attack with both weapons doesn't hurt you. After all, you'll still have that +1 to AC when you hold two weapons. (Mind you, you can cast first and then draw both weapons, unless (or until) you take War Caster feat.)[/SIZE]

For optimization, Polearm Master is better. There's a brief period (levels 1-3) where 2d6+mod (2x Light Weapons) is marginally better than 1d10+mod (Halberd). But at 4, if you're picking a feat for a bonus action attack, 2d10+1d4+3*mod is better than 3d8+2*mod. Polearms with PAM have better damage, better feat support, better fighting style support, better range, better AoOs, same chances of smiting, and don't require War Caster to reliably cast. Dual Wielding's only benefit is +1 AC.

But if you're into the idea of a Paladin with 2 axes or 2 swords as a character concept, you should probably take it.

[Arkhios]

Just because one option is better doesn't make the other explicitly bad.

EDIT: nevermind, I misread something.

As a matter of fact, I do have an idea of going dual warhammering in our campaign, with my OotA paladin; I just couldn't help it and question the reasoning why it's rated red in the guide.

[DracoKnight]

Another question: Could a barbarian/paladin use Divine Smite while raging?

Rage forbids you from casting or concentrating on a spell using it. Divine Smite is a class feature that uses the same resources as spells but is not a spell. I've actually seen this multiclass in play (Barbarian 2/Paladin 6 - the player dropped the campaign after graduation) and it's fairly god-tier. Throw in 3 levels of Champion, combined with Reckless Attack and Divine Smite, and you've got pretty awesome DPR. Have fun

[Lollerabe]

You are mixing up PAM and GWM.

PAM allows for a d4 + mod whenever you take the attack action, Pam is just a strictly better option than dual wielding from a optimization standpoint as mentioned.

That's where dual wielding falls flat on its nose, it's outgunned in every single way when it comes to dpr (even more so on palas)

[Saggo]

Just because one option is better doesn't make the other explicitly bad.

That's true, but when the purpose of a guide is to answer "Is this worth taking?", one is inferior to the other.

[R.Shackleford]

That's true, but when the purpose of a guide is to answer "Is this worth taking?", one is inferior to the other.

That doesn't mean it isn't worth taking.

You are mixing up two different things.

A) Is this option better than another option?

B) Does picking this option make me bad?

Picking DW for a Paladin doesn't make you a bad Paladin and you can NOVA quite well. You may not do as much damage as you would with PAM but that doesn't matter when we are talking about (B).

[Saggo]

That doesn't mean it isn't worth taking.

You are mixing up two different things.

A) Is this option better than another option?

B) Does picking this option make me bad?

Picking DW for a Paladin doesn't make you a bad Paladin and you can NOVA quite well. You may not do as much damage as you would with PAM but that doesn't matter when we are talking about (B).

Bad is subjective. It is, however, inferior and that's the important factor when cross-comparing the options and rating them. TWF, even with DW, offers little to nothing mechanically that PAM can't do better and for less opportunity cost. That means if you pick it you're choosing to be inferior, at a cost, specifically to uphold a character concept. By most measures, that makes it a red choice.

I don't like it, TWF has always been my favorite style, but I have to agree that red is the right rating.

[Arkhios]

You are mixing up PAM and GWM.

PAM allows for a d4 + mod whenever you take the attack action, Pam is just a strictly better option than dual wielding from a optimization standpoint as mentioned.

That's where dual wielding falls flat on its nose, it's outgunned in every single way when it comes to dpr (even more so on palas)

Yes, originally I did mix PAM with GWM. I noticed it, and edited it away.

Actually PAM isn't that much better.

3d8 average is 13,5
2d10+1d4 average is 13,5
likewise, both have a maximum of 24 damage from the dice. (crits are equal as well)

Only difference is one instance of stat modifier; if a Paladin were to multiclass into fighter, he could even out the difference. (or if a DM would let paladin take the style; not awfully game breaking)

After that, between DW and PAM it's either +1 AC and better two-weapon handling OR potential for additional case of Opportunity Attack.

[Saggo]

Yes, originally I did mix PAM with GWM. I noticed it, and edited it away.

Actually PAM isn't that much better.

3d8 average is 13,5
2d10+1d4 average is 13,5
likewise, both have a maximum of 24 damage from the dice. (crits are equal as well)

Only difference is one instance of stat modifier; if a Paladin were to multiclass into fighter, he could even out the difference. (or if a DM would let paladin take the style; not awfully game breaking)

After that, between DW and PAM it's either +1 AC and better two-weapon handling OR potential for additional case of Opportunity Attack.

With GWF, 2d10+1d4 is 15.6.

If you're focusing in on damage, PAM is easier to support. Out of the box it's better damage that DW. If you multiclass for TWF, you're delaying Paladin levels. That's fine, but you could just pick GWF and have better damage while getting the same Fighter features. PAM also let's you use GWM, and synergize with Sentinel better. You can also do Defense+PAM vs TWF+DW, have the +1 AC, better Feat support and same damage, and not worry about fumbling with the 2nd weapon just to cast (and skip War Caster).

Alternatively, as mentioned by Rysto, you can use PAM, a Quarterstaff, and a Shield. You'll do 2d8+1d4, have a chance for 3 Smites, and can take Defense or Protection as a style or Shield Master as a feat. You'll have similar damage, same Nova, and far better tanking options. Or take Dueling and have superior damage and superior AC. Worth noting that GWF style works with quarterstaff, when using both hands.

It's not that the damage is a bit better (although 3*mod is more than a bit better than 2*mod), it's that PAM has better support for the same or better damage.

[Lollerabe]

That's not a fair comparison, it's 3d8 + 6 (assuming lvl 5 no vhuman) so = 19,5 versus 2d10 + 1d4 + 9 = 22,5

And that's without mentioning the AOOs (which happens a lot with PAM from my experience) and the added a benefit of reach.

Yes you can dip into fighter to get another fightstyle, at that point you are still doing less damg and have now slowed your pala progression.

There's no need to discuss this, TWF is inferior - I'm not saying that to flame anyone who wants to play a TWF pala, I think the image is awesome. However it is a fact (dpr wise)

[R.Shackleford]

Bad is subjective. It is, however, inferior and that's the important factor when cross-comparing the options and rating them. TWF, even with DW, offers little to nothing mechanically that PAM can't do better and for less opportunity cost. That means if you pick it you're choosing to be inferior, at a cost, specifically to uphold a character concept. By most measures, that makes it a red choice.

I don't like it, TWF has always been my favorite style, but I have to agree that red is the right rating.

You are mixing up what is being looked at.

When seeing how good an option is, you don't compare it to another option.

You compare each option to what those options go up against.

In this situation the comparison isn't option A versus option B. The comparison is A versus the game and B versus the game.

Both A and B allow you to keep up with and surpass the game so they are both great.

If you have a car that does 200 MPH and I have a car that does 100 MPH and the minimum speed limit s 45 MPH... Then you having 100 MPH over me doesn't matter one bit. We will both meet and exceed the minimum speed limit.

The minimum speed limit for a Paladin is "can I be effective versus the game" and both option A and B fulfill that criteria with a huge gold star.

[Arkhios]

You are mixing up what is being looked at.

When seeing how good an option is, you don't compare it to another option.

You compare each option to what those options go up against.

In this situation the comparison isn't option A versus option B. The comparison is A versus the game and B versus the game.

Both A and B allow you to keep up with and surpass the game so they are both great.

If you have a car that does 200 MPH and I have a car that does 100 MPH and the minimum speed limit s 45 MPH... Then you having 100 MPH over me doesn't matter one bit. We will both meet and exceed the minimum speed limit.

The minimum speed limit for a Paladin is "can I be effective versus the game" and both option A and B fulfill that criteria with a huge gold star.

Well said, couldn't have done it better. Besides, DPR is not an Arms Race.

[R.Shackleford]

Well said, couldn't have done it better. Besides, DPR is not an Arms Race.

Thank you.

[Saggo]

When seeing how good an option is, you don't compare it to another option.

If one option offers more offense and defense for the same or less cost, you most certainly want that reflected in the rating.

If you have a car that does 200 MPH and I have a car that does 100 MPH and the minimum speed limit s 45 MPH... Then you having 100 MPH over me doesn't matter one bit. We will both meet and exceed the minimum speed limit.

The minimum speed limit for a Paladin is "can I be effective versus the game" and both option A and B fulfill that criteria with a huge gold star.

Nice analogy, but it's not really applicable. For the same opportunity cost and without an arbitrary limit, PAM has better offense, better defense, and better feat support.

[R.Shackleford]

If one option offers more offense and defense for the same or less cost, you most certainly want that reflected in the rating.


Nice analogy, but it's not really applicable. For the same opportunity cost and without an arbitrary limit, PAM has better offense, better defense, and better feat support.

You're wrong, the anology works due to the game having specific mechanics (AC, HP, Attack, Damages) that is the minimum to keep g up with the system.

You are still confusing the issue.

Option A and option B don't interact with each other. They both interact with the game.

[Rysto]

That makes PAM strictly better than DW, but that doesn't mean that DW is outright bad for a Paladin. It's just not optimal. A DW Paladin is far from useless. Personally I'd bump it up to at least black, but note the caveats. I could even see making it blue -- three smite chances per round is far from a bad thing.

By my math, a GWM/GWF Paladin 12+ has a lower AC than a DW/TWF Fighter 1/Paladin 11+ and does worse DPR unless the GWM Paladin can reliably get advantage (and the difference gets slightly more stark if the DM doesn't allow GWF to reroll 1s and 2s on smite dice). Should GWM also be red for Paladins?

[Saggo]

You are still confusing the issue.

The issue is why is Dual Wield a rated red and therefore bad. Whatever EvilAnagram's reasoning, there is a better option in PAM, the numbers show it. Any other issue is a different conversation.

[Corran]

You are mixing up what is being looked at.

When seeing how good an option is, you don't compare it to another option.

You compare each option to what those options go up against.

Ofc you do. That is the purpose of a guide afterall. To help you evaluate the several different options, that compete for a place in your build. And thus to help you choose the best options for your character.

Edit: Comparing just how option B deals with what it goes up against, is not so informative by itself. What we actually have to compare, is how option B deals with what it goes up against vs how option A deals with what it goes up against. In most cases, it is just simpler to directly compare the two options themselves, as that simpification rarely is misleading.

[Saggo]

That makes PAM strictly better than DW, but that doesn't mean that DW is outright bad for a Paladin. It's just not optimal. A DW Paladin is far from useless. Personally I'd bump it up to at least black, but note the caveats. I could even see making it blue -- three smite chances per round is far from a bad thing.

TWF and DW are two different things. TWF works in a Nova build that isn't taking feats for offense. But if you choose to take DW on top of that, you get a better build if you switch to PAM instead. TWF (not the style) is average depending on your build. DW is a bad use of a feat.

By my math, a GWM/GWF Paladin 12+ has a lower AC than a DW/TWF Fighter 1/Paladin 11+ and does worse DPR unless the GWM Paladin can reliably get advantage (and the difference gets slightly more stark if the DM doesn't allow GWF to reroll 1s and 2s on smite dice). Should GWM also be red for Paladins?

GWM is situational on Paladin, combos very well with OoV. It can reduce DPR, since base damage is higher with Smites, but it can also improve DPR when you're not smiting. OoV with PAM and GWM easily surpasses TWF as seen here. So no, I don't think so.

But more specifically, I consider DW red because everything it does, AC, weapon damage, and bonus attack, PAM does better.

[Rysto]

My fundamental disagreement here is that this is a binary thing. PAM is strictly better than DW, I agree. That doesn't make DW an outright bad, "you should never, ever take this option".

You're rating DW on a Paladin on the same level as pumping INT, or multiclassing into Druid or Monk. You're saying that you can't build an effective character around the concept, and that's going too far. A DW Paladin can be effective. It's just not optimal.

[Saggo]

My fundamental disagreement here is that this is a binary thing. PAM is strictly better than DW, I agree. That doesn't make DW an outright bad, "you should never, ever take this option".

You're rating DW on a Paladin on the same level as pumping INT, or multiclassing into Druid or Monk. You're saying that you can't build an effective character around the concept, and that's going too far. A DW Paladin can be effective. It's just not optimal.

Consider that you only get 4 ASIs and some will be used for stats. Taking a feat is very costly. By and large feats do something unique even if they're not optimal for DPR, except for weapon and armor proficiencies and DW. You really shouldn't take it unless you just want to be loyal to a concept.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

PAM does several things for a Paladin. First off, you get the same bonus attack you'd be getting as if you TWF, so basically it is free TWF with your reach and the ability to provoke on ENTERING your 10', not simply trying to leave it. By this metric, it is strictly superior to TWF.

Having said that, TWF is not a BAD option. I'd rate it probably dark blue. It's solid, you get bonus attack which means more smiting attempts. But it's not the crazy sky blue that PAM is. Then again, Paladins are REALLY hurting for bonus attacks, since most of their smite spells are bonus action cast and typically produce some very useful debuff/lockdown effects, so being able to make an attack as a bonus action isn't as effective for a Paladin. So maybe Black after all. But by no means red.

My paladin I am currently playing has both PAM and Sentinel, so he's very solid area-denial. Coupled with entangling strike from OoA, Misty Step from OoA, and various other useful tools, he's a big walking 'nope' sign. Damage output is bonus, but that's secondary in my lineup. My party has sufficient DPR to handle anything I lock down, but having the ability to Smite for some burst DPR at need is nothing to sneeze at either. Bonus attack is bonus, but most of my smite spells are competing with that bonus action pretty heavily.

Honestly, I'm loving Sentinel. Go ahead, disengage mister Rogue dude. I still got ya, and still keep ya locked down anyway. Sucker.

Also, Ranseur is an amazing Polearm for a Paladin with Great Weapon style because base damage is 2d4, which, because you re-roll 1's and 2's, means you are looking at 6-8 base plus bonuses, which is excellent for consistent DPR and gives you a better chance of finishing off something that's already been hurt badly.