I'm not here to argue, but I will say this. Depending on your choice of race/ancestry and how long the game goes on for, your character might never get to wear plate. Most campaigns peter out by 10th level. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's something to be cognizant of.
I swear, too many people have one-track minds when it comes to how to play. Maybe I'm an outlier, but if you're not going to exercise your imagination then what's the point?
I'm not here to argue, but I will say this. Depending on your choice of race/ancestry and how long the game goes on for, your character might never get to wear plate. Most campaigns peter out by 10th level. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's something to be cognizant of.
I swear, too many people have one-track minds when it comes to how to play. Maybe I'm an outlier, but if you're not going to exercise your imagination then what's the point?
I agree with you fully, it all depends on the playstyle.
Fortunately (for me) my core group comes from 3.5 background so no one is really skittish with magic items and no one will cry if a full plate gets dropped by level 5 (esp. since it's possible to get one even earlier on in one of the official D&D modules). I do agree that if you are building a character for a random game outside your regular group, you shouldn't assume anything and make your character as if you are not getting anything from the DM.
As for excercising your imagination, sure, but sometimes when people have a limited occasion to play and only one shot at a longer campaign (because lack of group, real life etc.) then I can't really blame them for trying to create this one character they always wanted to play instead of experimenting with unusual choices ;-)
(I have no idea why everyone goes for a glaive or halberd when spears are perfectly valid)
Because heavy (elligible for -5/+10 component of Great Weapon Master feat), reach (helps immensely with Sentinel, AoO all around) and 1d10.
With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to homebrewing a greatspear that has similar stats but piercing damage type.
I find it a boring combination because of its popularity in the meta. It also eats up...two ASIs if you get both, and it gets in the way of casting spells requiring a material component. A spear and Dueling only averages 1 DPR less than a glaive/halberd and Great Weapon Style. And you still get to keep your shield with a holy symbol on it out.
That's a build that doesn't come "online" until 12th level; 8th if you're a variant human. It also means not preparing as many spells, having a reduced bonus to saves past 6th level, and possibly even not having better armor than chainmail.
I am planning on taking PAM, just for the opportunity attack, when somebody enters my reach and the bonus attack, with the butt of the glaive. But I also tend to agree with you. The PAM and Sentinel has a very "cookie cutter" feel to me. I have debated about not going PAM, since I don't get the free feat, as a half orc and it will cut into my ability scores, even more so, since we are doing a point buy, which makes an 18 stat to start impossible and a 17 very difficult. So our starting stats, are going to be decent, but there will be holes and needed ASIs. I only have 16 strength starting out and 14 charisma (I'm figured I'd go with 16 constitution, then pump up my two primary stats with levels). The two ASIs and a greatsword would probably do well, also...just, sadly, my racial, doesn't give full weapon damage with Savage Attacks, but only one die of extra damage.
I understand what you are saying about the historical uses of a pike, but in the world of D&D, a pike is mechanically a glaive/halberd but with piercing damage. The only difference, as you note, is not being able to use a pike with PAM. That is a big difference, I have to say, and probably why you don't see a lot of characters using pikes.
Even then I'd allow for a spear with a long blade that can deal slashing damage (like the spear Oberyn Martell used in Game of Thrones) - a yari essentially.
You just described a glaive. A spear with a long blade on the end.
(I have no idea why everyone goes for a glaive or halberd when spears are perfectly valid)
Because heavy (elligible for -5/+10 component of Great Weapon Master feat), reach (helps immensely with Sentinel, AoO all around) and 1d10.
With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to homebrewing a greatspear that has similar stats but piercing damage type.
I find it a boring combination because of its popularity in the meta. It also eats up...two ASIs if you get both, and it gets in the way of casting spells requiring a material component. A spear and Dueling only averages 1 DPR less than a glaive/halberd and Great Weapon Style. And you still get to keep your shield with a holy symbol on it out.
That's a build that doesn't come "online" until 12th level; 8th if you're a variant human. It also means not preparing as many spells, having a reduced bonus to saves past 6th level, and possibly even not having better armor than chainmail.
I am planning on taking PAM, just for the opportunity attack, when somebody enters my reach and the bonus attack, with the butt of the glaive. But I also tend to agree with you. The PAM and Sentinel has a very "cookie cutter" feel to me. I have debated about not going PAM, since I don't get the free feat, as a half orc and it will cut into my ability scores, even more so, since we are doing a point buy, which makes an 18 stat to start impossible and a 17 very difficult. So our starting stats, are going to be decent, but there will be holes and needed ASIs. I only have 16 strength starting out and 14 charisma (I'm figured I'd go with 16 constitution, then pump up my two primary stats with levels). The two ASIs and a greatsword would probably do well, also...just, sadly, my racial, doesn't give full weapon damage with Savage Attacks, but only one die of extra damage.
For the most damage potential, half-orcs want single die weapons like a greataxe because their Savage Attacks feature yields a higher average: 19 (3d12) vs the Greatsword's 17 (5d6). That said, Great Weapon Fighting also has more effect on a greatsword instead of a greataxe because there's a greater chance of getting a 1. They're basically negligible in your character's hands unless you're playing a barbarian and get those sweet Brutal Critical dice: starting at 26 (4d12) vs 21 (6d6) and ending at 39 (6d12) vs 28 (8d6).
TL;DR Don't sweat the greatsword, you're fine. An extra point or two of damage isn't worth agonizing over.
Since you said you're starting with 16s in both Strength and Constitution and only 14 in Charisma, you'd have to spend 4 ASIs to bring all three to 18. That only leaves 1 for a feat, assuming you play up to 19th level or higher. That said, if you leave Constitution alone then you're done pumping stats at 12th level. And if you have access to Xanathar's, then you can also choose from the Orcish Fury (you'll want an odd Strenght or Constitution) and Prodigy feats.
I understand what you are saying about the historical uses of a pike, but in the world of D&D, a pike is mechanically a glaive/halberd but with piercing damage. The only difference, as you note, is not being able to use a pike with PAM. That is a big difference, I have to say, and probably why you don't see a lot of characters using pikes.
Even then I'd allow for a spear with a long blade that can deal slashing damage (like the spear Oberyn Martell used in Game of Thrones) - a yari essentially.
You just described a glaive. A spear with a long blade on the end.
A polearm with an edged blade would generally be a glaive, yes. (Halberds have identical statistics but are functionally different.) In feudal Japan, this would be a naginata, which were especially popular for cutting down cavalry and among the women in noble households. Japan also had pointed spears, like the yari, which are traditional thrusting weapons.
I understand what you are saying about the historical uses of a pike, but in the world of D&D, a pike is mechanically a glaive/halberd but with piercing damage. The only difference, as you note, is not being able to use a pike with PAM. That is a big difference, I have to say, and probably why you don't see a lot of characters using pikes.
Even then I'd allow for a spear with a long blade that can deal slashing damage (like the spear Oberyn Martell used in Game of Thrones) - a yari essentially.
You just described a glaive. A spear with a long blade on the end.
A polearm with an edged blade would generally be a glaive, yes. (Halberds have identical statistics but are functionally different.) In feudal Japan, this would be a naginata, which were especially popular for cutting down cavalry and among the women in noble households. Japan also had pointed spears, like the yari, which are traditional thrusting weapons.
When I mentioned yari I meant the straight yari (su yari) which has longer blade compared to the spear and double edged making it possible to cut with it.
I understand what you are saying about the historical uses of a pike, but in the world of D&D, a pike is mechanically a glaive/halberd but with piercing damage. The only difference, as you note, is not being able to use a pike with PAM. That is a big difference, I have to say, and probably why you don't see a lot of characters using pikes.
Even then I'd allow for a spear with a long blade that can deal slashing damage (like the spear Oberyn Martell used in Game of Thrones) - a yari essentially.
You just described a glaive. A spear with a long blade on the end.
And yet what I have in mind looks nothing like a glaive ;-)
Resilient is the way I went with my Paladin. I needed a point in constitution plus your proficient in it. My constitution is 16 and my charisma is 16. At lvl 6 Aura of protection you add 3 from charisma so constitution save would be 3+3+3. Constitution +proficient +aura of protection. Plus if I add Bless my save could be 1d4 more. So Bless would stay up.My party would love that. If I use Hunter Mark. I would have (sword)1d8 +2 (dueling) plus 1d6 It would be like Divine Smite on every attack. Plus I can keep it on every attack because my concentration saves are so high and I can maintain to the next creature I attack vs one Divine Smite on one spell slot.
Resilient is the way I went with my Paladin. I needed a point in constitution plus your proficient in it. My constitution is 16 and my charisma is 16. At lvl 6 Aura of protection you add 3 from charisma so constitution save would be 3+3+3. Constitution +proficient +aura of protection. Plus if I add Bless my save could be 1d4 more. So Bless would stay up.My party would love that. If I use Hunter Mark. I would have (sword)1d8 +2 (dueling) plus 1d6 It would be like Divine Smite on every attack. Plus I can keep it on every attack because my concentration saves are so high and I can maintain to the next creature I attack vs one Divine Smite on one spell slot.
Nothing wrong with that. Anything that helps us preserve concentration is really nice! Paladins, as half casters, can't really afford to be wasting spells by losing concentration. We have so darn few! I think Resilient (Con) or War Caster make a lot of sense.
If you want to maximize your hunter's mark damage potential, consider going Two Weapon Fighting, you can take the Fighting Initiate feat from Tasha's and pick up the appropriate fighting style. You'll get to attack twice per turn until level 5, then 3 times per turn, then at level 11 you will have your improved divine smite granting additional damage, plus, you can always expend a divine strike spell slot to add even more damage on top of your (probably) 1d6+1d6+1d8+ability modifier+magic weapon modifier per hit. May not look like much but with bounded accuracy you're going to hit regularly, and the damage will add up.
Don't forget that if you choose to dual wield something like short swords or scimitars, you can use your strength or dexterity as the attack ability.
If you want to maximize your hunter's mark damage potential, consider going Two Weapon Fighting, you can take the Fighting Initiate feat from Tasha's and pick up the appropriate fighting style. You'll get to attack twice per turn until level 5, then 3 times per turn, then at level 11 you will have your improved divine smite granting additional damage, plus, you can always expend a divine strike spell slot to add even more damage on top of your (probably) 1d6+1d6+1d8+ability modifier+magic weapon modifier per hit. May not look like much but with bounded accuracy you're going to hit regularly, and the damage will add up.
Don't forget that if you choose to dual wield something like short swords or scimitars, you can use your strength or dexterity as the attack ability.
If you’re going to take a feat, dual wielder is probably a better choice. Fighting style lets you add ability mod to off hand. Dual wielder lets you go with non-light weapons in each hand, so you bump a damage die, which just about evens out the damage boost from off hand (if your str is 17 or lower it’s even. At 18, the off hand bonus pulls ahead a little). But dual wielder also gives you the AC bonus. And drawing them both at once. It’s a better use of a feat, imo.
If you want to maximize your hunter's mark damage potential, consider going Two Weapon Fighting, you can take the Fighting Initiate feat from Tasha's and pick up the appropriate fighting style. You'll get to attack twice per turn until level 5, then 3 times per turn, then at level 11 you will have your improved divine smite granting additional damage, plus, you can always expend a divine strike spell slot to add even more damage on top of your (probably) 1d6+1d6+1d8+ability modifier+magic weapon modifier per hit. May not look like much but with bounded accuracy you're going to hit regularly, and the damage will add up.
Don't forget that if you choose to dual wield something like short swords or scimitars, you can use your strength or dexterity as the attack ability.
If you’re going to take a feat, dual wielder is probably a better choice. Fighting style lets you add ability mod to off hand. Dual wielder lets you go with non-light weapons in each hand, so you bump a damage die, which just about evens out the damage boost from off hand (if your str is 17 or lower it’s even. At 18, the off hand bonus pulls ahead a little). But dual wielder also gives you the AC bonus. And drawing them both at once. It’s a better use of a feat, imo.
Yeah, I would pick up both feats myself, but I like having the "floor" of 1+STR mod damage on an off-hand hit, may not be the most optimized but it makes me feel more comfortable taking Fighting Initiate over Dual Wielder if I can only grab one feat.
Two feats is a lot for a paladin. Remember that you want to raise both a weapon attack stat and your charisma, and unlike fighters you don't get extra ASIs to do so. I personally don't recommend any feat investment into two weapon fighting for a paladin, not unless you absolutely must be able to wield non-light weapons for aesthetic reasons. Between divine smite, improved divine smite, and spells like Crusader's Mantle or Spirit Shroud, you'll already be able to deal more damage with your off hand than most dual wielders of other classes, with or without feats. A whole feat for like a couple extra damage on a single attack per round just isn't worth it, imo. The extra point of AC stops it from being actively bad, but even so, a paladin's ASIs are precious. IMO there are better choices for them.
That's not to say that dual wielding is bad for paladins - it's probably better for paladins than for any other class. Paladins don't typically have great bonus action options out of the box, and paladin damage features can apply to any or ever attack they make, unlike bonus damage features of some other classes that can only be applied once per round. dual wielding is a perfectly valid combat option for paladins. It's just that the specific additional mechanics designed around dual wielding - the combat style and the feat - aren't particularly great and aren't worth going out of your way for, imo. Better to just go with base dual wielding and a pair of short swords or scimitars, and invest those ASIs in raising your two key stats or taking more generally valuable feats like resilient or war caster or alert or lucky or inspiring leader or sentinel or fey touched or elven accuracy or slasher or etc.
Paladins have so many features and spells which rely on their Bonus Action that I don't think dual-wielding is worth it. It just competes with too much.
Paladins as a base class don't actually have a ton of bonus action spells worth worrying about, and hardly any bonus action features. Subclasses can add relevant spells, channel divinities, & other features that compete for bonus actions. If your subclass adds a lot of bonus action business then dual wielding isn't worth bothering with, but if not it can be nice to have an at will bonus action attack option that doesn't require the investment of an entire feat.
If you want to maximize your hunter's mark damage potential, consider going Two Weapon Fighting, you can take the Fighting Initiate feat from Tasha's and pick up the appropriate fighting style. You'll get to attack twice per turn until level 5, then 3 times per turn, then at level 11 you will have your improved divine smite granting additional damage, plus, you can always expend a divine strike spell slot to add even more damage on top of your (probably) 1d6+1d6+1d8+ability modifier+magic weapon modifier per hit. May not look like much but with bounded accuracy you're going to hit regularly, and the damage will add up.
Don't forget that if you choose to dual wield something like short swords or scimitars, you can use your strength or dexterity as the attack ability.
Why on earth would you want to dual wield and waste a feat on Fighting Initiate just to maximize Hunter's Mark? Just take Polearm Master and go spear/staff with a shield, more AC and you still get your bonus action attack. Also Divine Favor is probably more efficient than Hunter's Mark, while the damage is slightly lower (d4 instead of d6) the damage is Radiant and you don't need to spend bonus actions to move it when your target dies.
Hunter's Mark has the advantage of lasting longer so could potential see use in more than 1 battle.
Paladins as a base class don't actually have a ton of bonus action spells worth worrying about, and hardly any bonus action features. Subclasses can add relevant spells, channel divinities, & other features that compete for bonus actions. If your subclass adds a lot of bonus action business then dual wielding isn't worth bothering with, but if not it can be nice to have an at will bonus action attack option that doesn't require the investment of an entire feat.
I wouldn't call 13 spells, when the most they can prepare is 15, nothing.
1. concentration spells with ongoing effects are generally only cast once a combat. Unless those effects require additional bonus action investment, you're still going to have a lot of bonus actions that you'll need other uses for, since you're typically only going to cast one ongoing concentration spell per combat, due to the concentration mechanic. Additionally, using concentration means they have to compete with more powerful standard action spells like Bless, though that's not as significant for this particular discussion since you can't make off hand attacks for dual wielding if you spend your standard action on something other than attacking with your main hand.
2. smite spells are generally bad. They burn your concentration, they do less damage than divine smite (a lot less damage vs. fiends or undead), they have to be used in advance of your attack instead of reactively on a hit. A couple of them have additional effects worth casting - though some of these are too situational to be worth memorizing, and the ones that aren't often rely on ongoing effects to be good, which puts them in the same camp as other ongoing concentration spells. Ie, you'll cast them at most once a combat, leaving multiple bonus actions still to find a use for.
So, rating the paladin bonus action spells.
1st level:
Compelled Duel: Ongoing concentration spell. Also kind of bad imo, but some folks like it so I won't harp on it.
Divine Favor: Ongoing Concentration. Also kind of bad due to Bless being so much better for the same slot level.
Searing Smite: Smite Spell. Also bad.
Shield of Faith: Ongoing concentration. At least this one's a decent spell.
Thunderous Smite: Smite spell. Also kind of bad, though there circumstances where it's worth casting.
Wrathful Smite: Smite spell, but actually kind of good. Except that it also counts as an ongoing concentration spell.
So all of these are either bad, or they're ongoing concentration spells (which you're generally going to cast only one of per combat). or both.
2nd level
Branding Smite: Smite spell, additional effects too situational to be worth memorizing unless you know you'll be dealing with invisible enemies in advance, even then it's an ongoing concentration spell.
Magic Weapon: Ongoing concentration spell.
3rd level
Blinding Smite: Smite spell. Kinda bad, in that it's too high a spell slot to burn on a single target save or suck resisted by the most commonly high monster saving throw imo. Even if it works, it's an ongoing concentration spell.
Spirit Shroud: Fantastic spell, but ongoing concentration.
4th level
Staggering Smite: smite spell. Bad. Even if you do use it, it's ongoing concentration. just bad though, don't memorize it.
5th level
Banishing Smite: Smite spell. I don't much care for it, but some like it. Even then, ongoing concentration.
Holy Weapon: Arguably good, but ongoing concentration. Ideally you'll use up a whole second bonus action to end the spell, but only the one.
.....
So, out of all of those spells, most are kind of bad, and every single one that isn't bad is an ongoing concentration spell.
So what generally happens is on the first round of combat your paladin opts to cast a concentration spell. Maybe one of these, maybe a more powerful standard action concentration spell like Bless. From that point on, your concentration is now spoken for, so you won't be casting any of these, which leaves your bonus action free as a bird and begging for some thing useful to do with it for the rest of the fight. An off hand weapon gives you something useful to do - between divine smite, improved divine smite, and spells like Spirit Shrouds it can be something *very* useful - without having to invest any additional character resources to do it. There are other ways to get useful bonus action options - Polearm Master being a prime example - but that burns a feat and restricts your weapon selection, both of which can be significant costs for a paladin. Granted, there are other costs to fighting with two weapons - slightly lower base weapon damage, no shield - so it isn't always optimal, just an option worth considering.
....
At least, it's an option worth considering until we get to subclass choice. Vengeance Paladins get Vow of Enmity which will burn one bonus action per rest, and they get misty step and, if they choose to cast it over other concentration spells, hunters mark, which takes a bonus action not just on the turn you cast it but also on every turn that they target changes. These paladins have much less need of additional bonus action options. On the other hand, Vow of Enmity makes bonus action attacks even better for fishing out crits to smite on, so while an Avenger doesn't need bonus action options as much, they value bonus action weapon attacks specifically even higher than other paladins might.
For a more cut and dry example there's oath of Conquest paladins. Conqueror's are a more tanky role thanks to their control aura, which leans them towards shield use. And they get spiritual weapon as an oath spell, which doesn't use concentration AND will give them something to do with every bonus action they have for the duration of that combat. So Conquerors in particular should probably skip dual wielding, at least from level 5 onward.
Then there's devotion paladins. They don't have much in the way of bonus actions, but their signature feature only buffs a single weapon, so they're probably better off going with a great weapon and the great weapon master feat, which can provide some bonus action attacks itself, albeit unreliably.
and so on and so forth. The point is, as I said earlier, whether dual wielding is good for paladins depends mostly on their subclass, since the parent class heavily rewards additional attacks, and doesn't really offer much in terms of alternative bonus action options. For the paladin subclasses that do like dual wielding, they're probably better at it than any other class in the game, even without the combat style and even if they never take the feat. After all, what are the other signature dual wielders? Rogues. Whose additional damage feature can only trigger once per turn, and who have other good bonus action options built into their cunning action feature. Rangers who get, like, nothing for dual wielding apart form the combat style. Improved Divine Smite alone makes any paladin a better class for dual wielding than ranger. Barbarians who more than any other class should be going straight for great weapon master and the big weapons. Fighters, whose signature feature is making more attacks than anybody else... but the more attacks you make, the less that one additional attack matters, and thus the less significant dual wielding is for them.
So yeah, if you want to play a paladin, dual wielding is a legitimate option to consider. It's not always the best option, but it at least deserves a spot at the table. On the other hand, if you want to play a dual wielder, and don't care about your class, then you should absolutely play a paladin. Nobody else does it better in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not here to argue, but I will say this. Depending on your choice of race/ancestry and how long the game goes on for, your character might never get to wear plate. Most campaigns peter out by 10th level. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's something to be cognizant of.
I swear, too many people have one-track minds when it comes to how to play. Maybe I'm an outlier, but if you're not going to exercise your imagination then what's the point?
I agree with you fully, it all depends on the playstyle.
Fortunately (for me) my core group comes from 3.5 background so no one is really skittish with magic items and no one will cry if a full plate gets dropped by level 5 (esp. since it's possible to get one even earlier on in one of the official D&D modules). I do agree that if you are building a character for a random game outside your regular group, you shouldn't assume anything and make your character as if you are not getting anything from the DM.
As for excercising your imagination, sure, but sometimes when people have a limited occasion to play and only one shot at a longer campaign (because lack of group, real life etc.) then I can't really blame them for trying to create this one character they always wanted to play instead of experimenting with unusual choices ;-)
It's only "unusual" because theorycrafters lack imagination. I'd much rather play the character I want rather then what everyone else thinks I should.
I am planning on taking PAM, just for the opportunity attack, when somebody enters my reach and the bonus attack, with the butt of the glaive. But I also tend to agree with you. The PAM and Sentinel has a very "cookie cutter" feel to me. I have debated about not going PAM, since I don't get the free feat, as a half orc and it will cut into my ability scores, even more so, since we are doing a point buy, which makes an 18 stat to start impossible and a 17 very difficult. So our starting stats, are going to be decent, but there will be holes and needed ASIs. I only have 16 strength starting out and 14 charisma (I'm figured I'd go with 16 constitution, then pump up my two primary stats with levels). The two ASIs and a greatsword would probably do well, also...just, sadly, my racial, doesn't give full weapon damage with Savage Attacks, but only one die of extra damage.
You just described a glaive. A spear with a long blade on the end.
For the most damage potential, half-orcs want single die weapons like a greataxe because their Savage Attacks feature yields a higher average: 19 (3d12) vs the Greatsword's 17 (5d6). That said, Great Weapon Fighting also has more effect on a greatsword instead of a greataxe because there's a greater chance of getting a 1. They're basically negligible in your character's hands unless you're playing a barbarian and get those sweet Brutal Critical dice: starting at 26 (4d12) vs 21 (6d6) and ending at 39 (6d12) vs 28 (8d6).
TL;DR
Don't sweat the greatsword, you're fine. An extra point or two of damage isn't worth agonizing over.
Since you said you're starting with 16s in both Strength and Constitution and only 14 in Charisma, you'd have to spend 4 ASIs to bring all three to 18. That only leaves 1 for a feat, assuming you play up to 19th level or higher. That said, if you leave Constitution alone then you're done pumping stats at 12th level. And if you have access to Xanathar's, then you can also choose from the Orcish Fury (you'll want an odd Strenght or Constitution) and Prodigy feats.
A polearm with an edged blade would generally be a glaive, yes. (Halberds have identical statistics but are functionally different.) In feudal Japan, this would be a naginata, which were especially popular for cutting down cavalry and among the women in noble households. Japan also had pointed spears, like the yari, which are traditional thrusting weapons.
When I mentioned yari I meant the straight yari (su yari) which has longer blade compared to the spear and double edged making it possible to cut with it.
And yet what I have in mind looks nothing like a glaive ;-)
Resilient is the way I went with my Paladin. I needed a point in constitution plus your proficient in it.
My constitution is 16 and my charisma is 16. At lvl 6 Aura of protection you add 3 from charisma so constitution save would be 3+3+3. Constitution +proficient +aura of protection. Plus if I add Bless my save could be 1d4 more. So Bless would stay up.My party would love that. If I use Hunter Mark. I would have (sword)1d8 +2 (dueling) plus 1d6 It would be like Divine Smite on every attack. Plus I can keep it on every attack because my concentration saves are so high and I can maintain to the next creature I attack vs one Divine Smite on one spell slot.
Nothing wrong with that. Anything that helps us preserve concentration is really nice! Paladins, as half casters, can't really afford to be wasting spells by losing concentration. We have so darn few! I think Resilient (Con) or War Caster make a lot of sense.
If you want to maximize your hunter's mark damage potential, consider going Two Weapon Fighting, you can take the Fighting Initiate feat from Tasha's and pick up the appropriate fighting style. You'll get to attack twice per turn until level 5, then 3 times per turn, then at level 11 you will have your improved divine smite granting additional damage, plus, you can always expend a divine strike spell slot to add even more damage on top of your (probably) 1d6+1d6+1d8+ability modifier+magic weapon modifier per hit. May not look like much but with bounded accuracy you're going to hit regularly, and the damage will add up.
Don't forget that if you choose to dual wield something like short swords or scimitars, you can use your strength or dexterity as the attack ability.
If you’re going to take a feat, dual wielder is probably a better choice. Fighting style lets you add ability mod to off hand. Dual wielder lets you go with non-light weapons in each hand, so you bump a damage die, which just about evens out the damage boost from off hand (if your str is 17 or lower it’s even. At 18, the off hand bonus pulls ahead a little). But dual wielder also gives you the AC bonus. And drawing them both at once. It’s a better use of a feat, imo.
I’m mostly support. Defense with a some what damage.
Yeah, I would pick up both feats myself, but I like having the "floor" of 1+STR mod damage on an off-hand hit, may not be the most optimized but it makes me feel more comfortable taking Fighting Initiate over Dual Wielder if I can only grab one feat.
Two feats is a lot for a paladin. Remember that you want to raise both a weapon attack stat and your charisma, and unlike fighters you don't get extra ASIs to do so. I personally don't recommend any feat investment into two weapon fighting for a paladin, not unless you absolutely must be able to wield non-light weapons for aesthetic reasons. Between divine smite, improved divine smite, and spells like Crusader's Mantle or Spirit Shroud, you'll already be able to deal more damage with your off hand than most dual wielders of other classes, with or without feats. A whole feat for like a couple extra damage on a single attack per round just isn't worth it, imo. The extra point of AC stops it from being actively bad, but even so, a paladin's ASIs are precious. IMO there are better choices for them.
That's not to say that dual wielding is bad for paladins - it's probably better for paladins than for any other class. Paladins don't typically have great bonus action options out of the box, and paladin damage features can apply to any or ever attack they make, unlike bonus damage features of some other classes that can only be applied once per round. dual wielding is a perfectly valid combat option for paladins. It's just that the specific additional mechanics designed around dual wielding - the combat style and the feat - aren't particularly great and aren't worth going out of your way for, imo. Better to just go with base dual wielding and a pair of short swords or scimitars, and invest those ASIs in raising your two key stats or taking more generally valuable feats like resilient or war caster or alert or lucky or inspiring leader or sentinel or fey touched or elven accuracy or slasher or etc.
Paladins have so many features and spells which rely on their Bonus Action that I don't think dual-wielding is worth it. It just competes with too much.
Paladins as a base class don't actually have a ton of bonus action spells worth worrying about, and hardly any bonus action features. Subclasses can add relevant spells, channel divinities, & other features that compete for bonus actions. If your subclass adds a lot of bonus action business then dual wielding isn't worth bothering with, but if not it can be nice to have an at will bonus action attack option that doesn't require the investment of an entire feat.
Why on earth would you want to dual wield and waste a feat on Fighting Initiate just to maximize Hunter's Mark? Just take Polearm Master and go spear/staff with a shield, more AC and you still get your bonus action attack. Also Divine Favor is probably more efficient than Hunter's Mark, while the damage is slightly lower (d4 instead of d6) the damage is Radiant and you don't need to spend bonus actions to move it when your target dies.
Hunter's Mark has the advantage of lasting longer so could potential see use in more than 1 battle.
I wouldn't call 13 spells, when the most they can prepare is 15, nothing.
spells ~worth worrying about~
2 notes going in:
1. concentration spells with ongoing effects are generally only cast once a combat. Unless those effects require additional bonus action investment, you're still going to have a lot of bonus actions that you'll need other uses for, since you're typically only going to cast one ongoing concentration spell per combat, due to the concentration mechanic. Additionally, using concentration means they have to compete with more powerful standard action spells like Bless, though that's not as significant for this particular discussion since you can't make off hand attacks for dual wielding if you spend your standard action on something other than attacking with your main hand.
2. smite spells are generally bad. They burn your concentration, they do less damage than divine smite (a lot less damage vs. fiends or undead), they have to be used in advance of your attack instead of reactively on a hit. A couple of them have additional effects worth casting - though some of these are too situational to be worth memorizing, and the ones that aren't often rely on ongoing effects to be good, which puts them in the same camp as other ongoing concentration spells. Ie, you'll cast them at most once a combat, leaving multiple bonus actions still to find a use for.
So, rating the paladin bonus action spells.
1st level:
So all of these are either bad, or they're ongoing concentration spells (which you're generally going to cast only one of per combat). or both.
2nd level
3rd level
4th level
5th level
.....
So, out of all of those spells, most are kind of bad, and every single one that isn't bad is an ongoing concentration spell.
So what generally happens is on the first round of combat your paladin opts to cast a concentration spell. Maybe one of these, maybe a more powerful standard action concentration spell like Bless. From that point on, your concentration is now spoken for, so you won't be casting any of these, which leaves your bonus action free as a bird and begging for some thing useful to do with it for the rest of the fight. An off hand weapon gives you something useful to do - between divine smite, improved divine smite, and spells like Spirit Shrouds it can be something *very* useful - without having to invest any additional character resources to do it. There are other ways to get useful bonus action options - Polearm Master being a prime example - but that burns a feat and restricts your weapon selection, both of which can be significant costs for a paladin. Granted, there are other costs to fighting with two weapons - slightly lower base weapon damage, no shield - so it isn't always optimal, just an option worth considering.
....
At least, it's an option worth considering until we get to subclass choice. Vengeance Paladins get Vow of Enmity which will burn one bonus action per rest, and they get misty step and, if they choose to cast it over other concentration spells, hunters mark, which takes a bonus action not just on the turn you cast it but also on every turn that they target changes. These paladins have much less need of additional bonus action options. On the other hand, Vow of Enmity makes bonus action attacks even better for fishing out crits to smite on, so while an Avenger doesn't need bonus action options as much, they value bonus action weapon attacks specifically even higher than other paladins might.
For a more cut and dry example there's oath of Conquest paladins. Conqueror's are a more tanky role thanks to their control aura, which leans them towards shield use. And they get spiritual weapon as an oath spell, which doesn't use concentration AND will give them something to do with every bonus action they have for the duration of that combat. So Conquerors in particular should probably skip dual wielding, at least from level 5 onward.
Then there's devotion paladins. They don't have much in the way of bonus actions, but their signature feature only buffs a single weapon, so they're probably better off going with a great weapon and the great weapon master feat, which can provide some bonus action attacks itself, albeit unreliably.
and so on and so forth. The point is, as I said earlier, whether dual wielding is good for paladins depends mostly on their subclass, since the parent class heavily rewards additional attacks, and doesn't really offer much in terms of alternative bonus action options. For the paladin subclasses that do like dual wielding, they're probably better at it than any other class in the game, even without the combat style and even if they never take the feat. After all, what are the other signature dual wielders? Rogues. Whose additional damage feature can only trigger once per turn, and who have other good bonus action options built into their cunning action feature. Rangers who get, like, nothing for dual wielding apart form the combat style. Improved Divine Smite alone makes any paladin a better class for dual wielding than ranger. Barbarians who more than any other class should be going straight for great weapon master and the big weapons. Fighters, whose signature feature is making more attacks than anybody else... but the more attacks you make, the less that one additional attack matters, and thus the less significant dual wielding is for them.
So yeah, if you want to play a paladin, dual wielding is a legitimate option to consider. It's not always the best option, but it at least deserves a spot at the table. On the other hand, if you want to play a dual wielder, and don't care about your class, then you should absolutely play a paladin. Nobody else does it better in 5e.