I'd argue that you're reply wasn't all that much more efficient, when you could have just written "tl,dr". :p but fair enough. I'll try again:
Paladin has many good spells (most of them standard action rather than bonus action, but that doesn't really matter as you won't be making an off hand attack the turn you cast a spell regardless).
However, the best paladin combat spells (as opposed to spells like Find Steed, Remove Curse, or Revivify which are mostly cast outside of combat), including the good bonus action spells, are mostly concentration buffs or debuffs
Because of the concentration mechanics, you shouldn't typically be casting multiple concentration spells per combat.
Therefore, while a paladin should absolutely be casting spells, they shouldn't be casting multiple spells in a single combat. At least not frequently.
That leaves a lot of bonus actions open without other use from the parent class. Subclasses can provide uses for them, but once your concentration is invested, the parent class does not.
If your subclass does not provide alternative uses for your bonus action, then dual wielding becomes a strong option to consider, since it synergizes very well with existing paladin features (divine smite, improved divine smite) and spells (bless, crusader's mantle, spirit shroud), and doesn't require any additional feat investment, which matters because paladins have a lot of pressure on their ASIs from multiple ability dependency and don't get bonus ASIs to relieve that pressure.
....
But maybe you reject that reasoning. Maybe your paladin is constantly using thunderous smite for some reason. Maybe your party spellcasters like to set up damaging zones every combat, or your DM is constantly ambushing you on precarious bridges and cliff sides.
Even then, you only have so many spell slots. Most campaigns cap out around level 10. A 10th level paladin has 9 spell slots total per day. Per the DMG a typical adventuring day runs approximately 6 combats, and ime combats typically run for about 4 critical rounds, after which the combat is usually either over or in cleanup. That's 24 combat rounds in a typical adventuring day. After spending all nine of your spell slots on thunderous smite, that still leaves 15 combat rounds, more than half the rounds in the average adventuring day, where your parent class isn't providing any use for your bonus action. Because paladin ~doesn't~ make much use of bonus actions by default, not compared to classes like rogues with their cunning action or monks with their martial arts or clerics with their spiritual weapon or bards with their inspiration.
In that case, isn't dual wielding an option worth considering?
And that's a paladin who spent every single spell slot on fire and forget combat spell casting. No efficient concentration buffs. No divine smite, even on lucky crits against strong enemies. No non-combat utility spells like lesser restoration, remove curse, or revivify. If you do any of those things - all things which in my opinion make the class less boring - that means more combat rounds where you aren't casting spells and your bonus action is free to be used by something else. Maybe polearm master. Maybe great weapon master. Maybe shield master (though it's not my preference). But also maybe dual wielding.
Again, subclasses can change this considerably. Conquest paladins have spiritual weapon, and thus don't really need extra bonus action attack options. Devotion paladin's channel divinity 'sacred weapon' empowers a single weapon, and which discourages the use of an off hand weapons. And some paladin oaths lean more toward tanking and support over damage dealing, and those will value a shield over the extra damage that they could get from either a second weapon or a great weapon, even if that leaves them without as much use for their bonus action.
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.
My thinking wasn't so much to maximize Hunter's Mark, moreso that Hunter's Mark would make the damage scale better for someone wanting to go the dual wielder route (from what I recall people were discussing how to integrate Hunter's Mark into a build, however.). I wasn't thinking about Polearm Master, that is definitely a worthwhile feat if you want a big two handed weapon, but I was just thinking how I would want to play a dual wielder, and sharing my thoughts.
For the character I have in mind, I wouldn't be as concerned about increasing Charisma, as the spells I'd plan to take would either be buffing spells or smites. I would save most of my spell slots to smite enemies with and use a few to buff myself (Hunter's Mark) or the party (Crusader's Mantle). I understand the aura save bonus wouldn't be as powerful but that's the tradeoff I'd have to go for. I would still be able to take Worcester and maximize my Strength score with the other three ASIs.
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.
My thinking wasn't so much to maximize Hunter's Mark, moreso that Hunter's Mark would make the damage scale better for someone wanting to go the dual wielder route (from what I recall people were discussing how to integrate Hunter's Mark into a build, however.). I wasn't thinking about Polearm Master, that is definitely a worthwhile feat if you want a big two handed weapon, but I was just thinking how I would want to play a dual wielder, and sharing my thoughts.
For the character I have in mind, I wouldn't be as concerned about increasing Charisma, as the spells I'd plan to take would either be buffing spells or smites. I would save most of my spell slots to smite enemies with and use a few to buff myself (Hunter's Mark) or the party (Crusader's Mantle). I understand the aura save bonus wouldn't be as powerful but that's the tradeoff I'd have to go for. I would still be able to take Worcester and maximize my Strength score with the other three ASIs.
Not a big fan of the paladin smite spells, overall, but yes, you are right Hunter's Mark will do better the more attacks you have. And one of the best ways to get the extra attacks is duel wielding. I prefer Polearm Master, but that does take a feat, whereas you can duel wield and still use your ASI for something else.
I'd argue that you're reply wasn't all that much more efficient, when you could have just written "tl,dr". :p but fair enough. I'll try again:
Paladin has many good spells (most of them standard action rather than bonus action, but that doesn't really matter as you won't be making an off hand attack the turn you cast a spell regardless).
However, the best paladin combat spells (as opposed to spells like Find Steed, Remove Curse, or Revivify which are mostly cast outside of combat), including the good bonus action spells, are mostly concentration buffs or debuffs
Because of the concentration mechanics, you shouldn't typically be casting multiple concentration spells per combat.
Therefore, while a paladin should absolutely be casting spells, they shouldn't be casting multiple spells in a single combat. At least not frequently.
That leaves a lot of bonus actions open without other use from the parent class. Subclasses can provide uses for them, but once your concentration is invested, the parent class does not.
If your subclass does not provide alternative uses for your bonus action, then dual wielding becomes a strong option to consider, since it synergizes very well with existing paladin features (divine smite, improved divine smite) and spells (bless, crusader's mantle, spirit shroud), and doesn't require any additional feat investment, which matters because paladins have a lot of pressure on their ASIs from multiple ability dependency and don't get bonus ASIs to relieve that pressure.
But maybe you reject that reasoning. Maybe your paladin is constantly using thunderous smite for some reason. Maybe your party spellcasters like to set up damaging zones every combat, or your DM is constantly ambushing you on precarious bridges and cliff sides.
Even then, you only have so many spell slots. Most campaigns cap out around level 10. A 10th level paladin has 9 spell slots total per day. Per the DMG a typical adventuring day runs approximately 6 combats, and ime combats typically run for about 4 critical rounds, after which the combat is usually either over or in cleanup. That's 24 combat rounds in a typical adventuring day. After spending all nine of your spell slots on thunderous smite, that still leaves 15 combat rounds, more than half the rounds in the average adventuring day, where your parent class isn't providing any use for your bonus action. Because paladin ~doesn't~ make much use of bonus actions by default, not compared to classes like rogues with their cunning action or monks with their martial arts or clerics with their spiritual weapon or bards with their inspiration.
In that case, isn't dual wielding an option worth considering?
No options should be discarded outright, but I wouldn't recommend dual wielding for paladins. The added damage potential is negligible. More hits mean more chances to spend a spell slot for Divine Smite, but if you're not careful you'll burn through them all. Divine Smite isn't something that I think should be factored into normal equations. It simply comes with too steep a cost. The loss of versatility from expending a spell slot for a few d8s of extra damage is tremendous. That's why the smite spells exist. You get comparable damage with a rider effect. In some cases, it's even ongoing damage. Nevermind the need for material components. If you need to cast a spell that has a material component, you can't do so without dropping a weapon or picking up a ruby of the war mage; and that's DM-dependent. Unless, of course, the material component is one of the aforementioned smite spells.
Paladins can wield shields and don't have any features or spells which rely on a reaction. This makes fighting styles like Protection and Interception attractive choices. Feats like Polearm Master can even be used with a shield, and the difference in damage between a spear and a longsword is negligible. And if you wish to forego a shield, you can still manipulate a spellcasting focus with a Heavy and Two-Handed weapon in your possession, like a halberd or maul. Interception, Polearm Master, and a halberd are more than adequate. I'd much rather roll 2d10+1d4 than 3d6 and get a host of other benefits along with it.
And, no, the idea that there are supposed to be 6-8 combats per day is just false. And I'm tired that people keep repeating this canard as if it were true. Six to eight medium encounters per adventuring day are not the same as six to eight combats per adventuring day. It does not mean something in the neighborhood of 24 combat rounds per day. Yes, some days can be like that, but most fights in dungeons aren't that hard. If your DM is trying to run a party through that many per day, they're trying to kill the PCs. Do you think a 1st-level barbarian is rated for that many tough fights per day? They can only rage twice!
There are three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and social interaction. Each of those can pose its own challenges and test party resources. An encounter can make use of any one of the pillars. Break yourself of that mindset.
The paladin has tons of options to choose from for its bonus action, but they have to choose to make those options available. They might only cast one or two spells per fight, and that's okay.
No options should be discarded outright, but I wouldn't recommend dual wielding for paladins. The added damage potential is negligible. More hits mean more chances to spend a spell slot for Divine Smite, but if you're not careful you'll burn through them all. Divine Smite isn't something that I think should be factored into normal equations. It simply comes with too steep a cost. The loss of versatility from expending a spell slot for a few d8s of extra damage is tremendous. That's why the smite spells exist. You get comparable damage with a rider effect. In some cases, it's even ongoing damage. Nevermind the need for material components. If you need to cast a spell that has a material component, you can't do so without dropping a weapon or picking up a ruby of the war mage; and that's DM-dependent. Unless, of course, the material component is one of the aforementioned smite spells.
First of all, the smite spells are not 'comparable damage'. Divine Smite does more damage of typically a better damage type out of the gate, and can be pocketed for crits to double that already better damage in a way that smite spells, which must be committed to before seeing attack results, cannot be. Smite spells aren't 'comparable damage plus rider effects', rather they *are* their rider effects, and the pittance of extra damage is the consolation prize for when your enemy passes their save against those effects. And yeah, most of the smite spells are bad, because expending an entire spell slot (and concentration!) on a spell that targets only a single enemy, allows a save, and does (next to) nothing if the target passes that save will often amount to throwing that spell slot away for nothing. Particularly since paladins usually do not have the highest save DC possible during most of the levels that see regular play, since their spellcasting stat has to compete with their weapon attack stat and any feats they might want to take for their ASIs.
Paladin has lots of good spells. Bless. Shield of Faith. Protection from Evil and Good. Aid. Find Steed. Lesser Restoration. Aura of Vitality. Remove Curse. Revivify. Spirit Shroud. It's a long list of great spells. But, with relatively few exceptions (eg. Wrathful Smite for Conquest Pallies), IMO the smite spells do not make the cut.
As for spellcasting hand issues, these are similarly difficult for both sword & board and dual wielder paladins. The shield emblem spell focus is of no use for spells with somatic-but-not-material components, which includes some of the paladin's better spell options, including Spirit Shroud. A dual wielder can stow a weapon to cast a spell (they're not making any off hand attacks if they spend their standard or bonus action spellcasting that turn anyway) without leaving themselves disarmed, and can simply draw the second weapon with their next turn's item interaction. The sword and board pally cannot do the same, since the shield takes more effort to doff and don than a simple item interaction. So, if anything, this weights out in the dual wielder's favor. In practice, though, both will tend to walk around with one hand free. When combat starts, they'll cast a concentration buff or debuff spell, then draw their weapon and not generally have to worry about casting again until the fight is done and they're patching up injured party members.
...
I do agree that a paladin that uses divine smite on every hit will quickly run out of spell slots, so that's not generally going to be efficient resource use (though there are some fights where immediate damage matters more than resource efficiency). The main synergy of bonus action attacks (from two weapon fighting or otherwise) with divine smite is rather from the extra chance to score a critical hit, especially if you can get advantage on your attacks, since critical hits double the efficiency of spell slots spent on divine smite.
But it's not just divine smite. Improved divine smite at level 11 adds an extra d8 to /every/ melee weapon hit scored by the paladin, no extra resources invested. And paladins have access to spells like crusader's mantle and spirit shroud which also add extra damage to every melee weapon attack they make, and these likewise will add damage to bonus action attacks without any additional investment.
For example, let's imagine two 11th level paladins going up against a Behir, a classic D&D monster with CR 11 in 5e:
We'll say they have identical stats, both starting with 16 in Str and Cha, and that they spent their ASIs to raise both key stats to 18. Both paladins have the defense fighting style, as it's arguably the best style and also makes my math easier. Both paladins have cast spirit shroud. Both paladins are trying to conserve spell slots, so will only use 1st level divine smites on critical hits. During their travels, the party has found one +2 longsword and two +2 short swords. The other party members are pure casters or use ranged weapons, so these melee weapons all go to the paladins. Given those options, One paladin has opted to fight with the +2 longsword and a shield, and the other has chosen to dual wield the two +1 short swords. Obviously magic weapon availability is DM and adventure dependent, but these aren't unreasonable items for 11th level characters to be carrying.
Longsword Pally has two attacks at +10 to hit for 3d8 +6 damage each, with a 70% chance to hit the Behir's AC 17, for 27.3 expected damage before crits/smites. Expected smite + crit damage is 2 * 1/20 * (4d8 + 3d8) = 3.15. So 30.45 total average damage, though it will trend closer to the 27.3, and spiking well above that on crits.
Swortswords pally has two attacks at +9 to hit for 2d8 + 1d6 +5 damage, plus one at +9 to hit for 2d8 + 1d6 +1 damage, with a 65% chance to hit the Behir's AC 15, for 31.525 expected damage before smites. Expected smite damage is 3 * 1/20 * (4d8 + 2d8 + 1d6) = 4.575. So 36.1 total average damage, though it will trend closer to the 31.525, spiking well above that on crits, which will happen approximately 50% more often than for the longsword pally.
Obviously the damage numbers swing more in the shortsword pally's favor if they and longsword pally have magic weapons of the same caliber, but ime that's usually not the case for dual wielders. Even so, that's already nearly 6 points more average damage, or more than 4 points more average damage before crits, which will happen more frequently. Hardly nothing in either case. Whether that's worth sacrificing 2 points of AC is debatable. With defense style, still arguably the best style mechanically, the short swords paladin will still have pretty good AC, and, after all, they do have a sword & board paladin in the party to tank for them. :p
....
Paladins can wield shields and don't have any features or spells which rely on a reaction. This makes fighting styles like Protection and Interception attractive choices. Feats like Polearm Master can even be used with a shield, and the difference in damage between a spear and a longsword is negligible. And if you wish to forego a shield, you can still manipulate a spellcasting focus with a Heavy and Two-Handed weapon in your possession, like a halberd or maul. Interception, Polearm Master, and a halberd are more than adequate. I'd much rather roll 2d10+1d4 than 3d6 and get a host of other benefits along with it.
Re: Protection and Interception, I don't honestly like either, even for sword and board tanky paladins. They both compete with opportunity attacks and the sentinel feat for your reactions, and imo come out behind the competition in both cases. Both have awkward positioning requirements, since the characters most in need of protection aren't likely to be immediately adjacent to you. Both only work on a single attack, when the greatest danger in the game tends to come from multiple attacks for moderate damage, not one single attack for huge damage. Protection requires you to burn your reaction before even knowing whether the initial attack would have hit in the first place, and the enemy can still hit anyway. I mostly play in online formats that tell you the order dice were rolled even in situations of advantage or disadvantage, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen protection style used only to find that the first roll would have missed regardless. It's just not good. Interception is better, at least for a while, in that you can be sure it will do something when you use it, but it doesn't scale well with level. Sure, this is a common problem with fighting styles, dueling doesn't scale either, but +1 AC from defense style is just as good at level 12 as it is at level 2, and the extra utility or ranged fallback options you can get from blessed warrior likewise remain useful throughout the campaign, as does blind fighting - which is situational but hugely relevant when that situation is in play, regardless of level.
...
re: polearm master. Yes. Polearm master is better than dual wielding. You might run into trouble finding magic versions of the limited weapons that work with it, where dual wielding works with any light weapons, but for the most part polearm master is just flat better. Which it should be, because it costs a feat. And for paladins especially, feats are a MAJOR investment. Unlike pretty much every other class (apart from the monk, but... woof, let's not even go there), paladins functionally have two primary stats. And as a melee spellcaster they also need a high constitution score, for both hit points and concentration, so that is a lot of pressure on your stats - both starting stats and ability score improvements. And unlike fighters, we don't get extra ASIs to relieve that pressure. A feat is a major investment on the part of a paladin, and most probably shouldn't be taking more than maybe a single feat over the course of most campaigns, plus maybe a half feat if you start with an odd score in strength or charisma. Polearm Master is very much good enough to be that feat. As is Great Weapon Master. As is Sentinel or War Caster. But there are other feats that are likewise strong contenders - Lucky, Alert, Inspiring Leader, Healer, Resilient (Constitution), Magic Adept, Ritual Caster, etc. Or even no feat at all, because yeah, we've got two primary stats, so taking a feat instead of raising ability scores feels like twice the sacrifice that it does for other classes.
Dual Wielding gets you the major benefit of polearm master - a bonus action attack - without that commitment. Not only does that mean you probably have a better weapon attack, or better charisma, or some other useful feat, you also have the ability to walk back the decision whenever you like. do you know you happen to be walking into an area with extra dangerous enemies? you can put away one of your weapons and equip a shield instead. The magic item tables happen to drop a Holy Avenger Greatsword in your lap? Toss your dual blades and grab that greatsword, no biggie. Changing up your entire equipment style doesn't mean wasted character build resources.
And the same goes the other way. You're normally sword and board, but you're walking into the web of the wacky wizards, where every enemy attacks by forcing saves instead of rolling to hit your AC? Put that useless shield away for an adventure and pull out the spare short swords for a little extra damage. Or you normally wield a greatsword, but your party stumbles across paired frost & fire scimitars? If nobody else is going to use them grab those things. If you haven't burned a whole feat committing yourself to particular equipment sets then you're free to adapt.
...
And, finally, there's always the players that choose to put the cart before the horse. Ie, they're not asking "what's the right weapon set for my paladin character", but rather "what's the right class for my dual wielder"? That's admittedly not an optimal way to go about character building, but aesthetic style matters at least as much as the numbers do once your actually at the table playing the game. If the aesthetic style a player wants is 'warrior with two swords', then I'd very much argue the best class for that character is paladin. No other class dual wields better. sure, some might get the fighting style for it, but that style's not going to do more for your off hand attacks then divine smite, improved divine smite, and spirit shroud, and the best paladin styles (defense, blessed weapon, blind fighting) work just as well for dual wielders as anyone else. Defense even mitigates the penalty of dropping your shield, which I'd argue is a more pressing priority for dual wielders than bringing up their off hand attack damage by a few points. Yes, dual wielding is pretty weak overall in 5e, but it's weak not so much because of its base characteristics but rather because the two weapon fighting feat is way worse than equivalent feats for other weapon types. And that just doesn't hurt as much for dual wielding paladins, since their ASIs are so precious that they can easily end up skipping even the *good* weapon type feats anyway.
For pity's sake learn to pear down your answers. Nobody wants to read a 2000 word rant.
Smite spells don't work for you because you are trying to do too much. It's not hard to have a decent Charisma modifier as a paladin to boost those saving throws, but if you're trying to max out Strength, Constitution, and take a feat or two then you're going to have a bad time. If your priorities mean they don't fit your preferred playstyle, then fine. But that doesn't mean they're bad, and you don't get to whine when someone disagrees with you.
The main sticking point here seems to be the Smite spells. You seem to like them, and to be annoyed that I mostly don't rate them. The overall quality, or lack there of, of the smite spells is an entirely separate issue from dual wielding, since I mostly don't rate the smite spell line regardless of the equipment set of the paladin using them. So let's table the twinblade talk and instead just look at the smites.
...
The actual reason that the smite spells don't work for me is because even the best of them are single target save-or-sucks that don't do much of anything at all if the target passes their save - the pittance of extra damage from smite spells not being at all worth the spell slot investment on its own. Most of them don't even defeat the target outright if they do fail their save, the way spells like 'hold person' or 'banisment' can, and even those spells only get really good when up-cast to target multiple enemies so you're much more likely to at least successfully tag at least one of them. Single target save-or-sucks just aren't efficient spell slot use, especially for a half caster who gets fewer spell slots to begin with and thus can less afford to throw one away on a single target spell that might do something meaningful but only if that single target fails a saving throw. And that's before you consider that paladin spellcasting stat will often lag behind that of full casters, especially if they end up burning a feat on, well, anything.
On top of that, every one of the Smite spells, even ones that lack ongoing effects, burn your concentration, which precludes using them in the same combat with most of the paladin's actually good combat spells. Spells like Bless, or Protection from Evil and Good, or Shield of Faith, or Magic Weapon, or Aura of Vitality, or Crusader's Mantle, or Spirit Shroud. It's not that I don't think paladin's should be casting spells. Paladins should *absolutely* be casting spells. And it's not that I think paladins should always be casting the same spells to do the same thing. There are bunches of good paladin spells that do all sorts of things and support all sorts of play styles, and that's before you even get to additional spell options from your oath choice. It's just that, with rare exceptions (eg Conquest Paladins casting Wrathful Smite), the smite spells typically aren't good enough to take a spell slot away from all those other better spells.
Not a big fan of the paladin smite spells, overall, but yes, you are right Hunter's Mark will do better the more attacks you have. And one of the best ways to get the extra attacks is duel wielding. I prefer Polearm Master, but that does take a feat, whereas you can duel wield and still use your ASI for something else.
Yeah I don't think I said precisely what I meant. I'm not a huge fan of the different smites for this character idea, I meant I would save my spell slots to utilize divine smite, while maintaining concentration on a damage buff, while my aura of protection provides a passive defense buff (though with the character concept I have it probably wouldn't surpass a +2 so not that great of a buff, but better than nothing).
The main sticking point here seems to be the Smite spells. You seem to like them, and to be annoyed that I mostly don't rate them. The overall quality, or lack there of, of the smite spells is an entirely separate issue from dual wielding, since I mostly don't rate the smite spell line regardless of the equipment set of the paladin using them. So let's table the twinblade talk and instead just look at the smites.
...
The actual reason that the smite spells don't work for me is because even the best of them are single target save-or-sucks that don't do much of anything at all if the target passes their save - the pittance of extra damage from smite spells not being at all worth the spell slot investment on its own. Most of them don't even defeat the target outright if they do fail their save, the way spells like 'hold person' or 'banisment' can, and even those spells only get really good when up-cast to target multiple enemies so you're much more likely to at least successfully tag at least one of them. Single target save-or-sucks just aren't efficient spell slot use, especially for a half caster who gets fewer spell slots to begin with and thus can less afford to throw one away on a single target spell that might do something meaningful but only if that single target fails a saving throw. And that's before you consider that paladin spellcasting stat will often lag behind that of full casters, especially if they end up burning a feat on, well, anything.
On top of that, every one of the Smite spells, even ones that lack ongoing effects, burn your concentration, which precludes using them in the same combat with most of the paladin's actually good combat spells. Spells like Bless, or Protection from Evil and Good, or Shield of Faith, or Magic Weapon, or Aura of Vitality, or Crusader's Mantle, or Spirit Shroud. It's not that I don't think paladin's should be casting spells. Paladins should *absolutely* be casting spells. And it's not that I think paladins should always be casting the same spells to do the same thing. There are bunches of good paladin spells that do all sorts of things and support all sorts of play styles, and that's before you even get to additional spell options from your oath choice. It's just that, with rare exceptions (eg Conquest Paladins casting Wrathful Smite), the smite spells typically aren't good enough to take a spell slot away from all those other better spells.
Okay, I see all of that. I just disagree, and here's my reasoning why. The various smite spells don't need to do a lot of damage because they're not intended primarily as damage-dealing engines. They're riders to (mostly) melee weapon attacks. We don't knock ensnaring strike for being "save or suck" while only dealing 1d6 damage that also eats up concentration. It's a friggin' awesome spell. And we should treat them the same way. Oath of Conquest aside, wrathful smite isn't just 1d6 psychic damage. It's [weapon damage] plus 1d6 psychic damage. We have to remember that math.
Now, some of the spells you mentioned require an action to be cast and/or have a material component with a gold cost. Those are fantastic spells, and I am of the opinion that a party would benefit tremendously from at least one person having access to them. But because they don't compete for the bonus action, they don't compete with Two-Weapon Fighting. That said, magic weapon is great if you need to get past resistances or immunities to damage. But it won't always be necessary. Likewise, compelled duel and shield of faith can help protect squishier party members and NPCs. But better control options will open up over time.
And there are legitimate mechanical issues with paladins who dual wield. If a spell has a somatic component, you need a free hand to cast it. If it has a material component, then you need to manipulate that as well. Constantly having to sheath and draw a blade isn't going to break anything, but it isn't helpful, either. Learning to play a paladin means learning how to use that bonus action effectively. And I don't think there's a single Sacred Oath that doesn't grant at least one bonus action spell.
If you, as a paladin, dual wield, then you're making a statement. You value landing hits and burning through spell slots for extra damage more than casting spells to actually bolster the party. That you would sacrifice armor class and spell slots for short-term gains. It is, in my opinion, inefficient and short-sighted. And if that's what you want to do, then fine. I can't stop you. No one can. But I don't believe it's good advice.
The main sticking point here seems to be the Smite spells. You seem to like them, and to be annoyed that I mostly don't rate them. The overall quality, or lack there of, of the smite spells is an entirely separate issue from dual wielding, since I mostly don't rate the smite spell line regardless of the equipment set of the paladin using them. So let's table the twinblade talk and instead just look at the smites.
...
The actual reason that the smite spells don't work for me is because even the best of them are single target save-or-sucks that don't do much of anything at all if the target passes their save - the pittance of extra damage from smite spells not being at all worth the spell slot investment on its own. Most of them don't even defeat the target outright if they do fail their save, the way spells like 'hold person' or 'banisment' can, and even those spells only get really good when up-cast to target multiple enemies so you're much more likely to at least successfully tag at least one of them. Single target save-or-sucks just aren't efficient spell slot use, especially for a half caster who gets fewer spell slots to begin with and thus can less afford to throw one away on a single target spell that might do something meaningful but only if that single target fails a saving throw. And that's before you consider that paladin spellcasting stat will often lag behind that of full casters, especially if they end up burning a feat on, well, anything.
On top of that, every one of the Smite spells, even ones that lack ongoing effects, burn your concentration, which precludes using them in the same combat with most of the paladin's actually good combat spells. Spells like Bless, or Protection from Evil and Good, or Shield of Faith, or Magic Weapon, or Aura of Vitality, or Crusader's Mantle, or Spirit Shroud. It's not that I don't think paladin's should be casting spells. Paladins should *absolutely* be casting spells. And it's not that I think paladins should always be casting the same spells to do the same thing. There are bunches of good paladin spells that do all sorts of things and support all sorts of play styles, and that's before you even get to additional spell options from your oath choice. It's just that, with rare exceptions (eg Conquest Paladins casting Wrathful Smite), the smite spells typically aren't good enough to take a spell slot away from all those other better spells.
Okay, I see all of that. I just disagree, and here's my reasoning why. The various smite spells don't need to do a lot of damage because they're not intended primarily as damage-dealing engines. They're riders to (mostly) melee weapon attacks. We don't knock ensnaring strike for being "save or suck" while only dealing 1d6 damage that also eats up concentration. It's a friggin' awesome spell. And we should treat them the same way. Oath of Conquest aside, wrathful smite isn't just 1d6 psychic damage. It's [weapon damage] plus 1d6 psychic damage. We have to remember that math.
Now, some of the spells you mentioned require an action to be cast and/or have a material component with a gold cost. Those are fantastic spells, and I am of the opinion that a party would benefit tremendously from at least one person having access to them. But because they don't compete for the bonus action, they don't compete with Two-Weapon Fighting. That said, magic weapon is great if you need to get past resistances or immunities to damage. But it won't always be necessary. Likewise, compelled duel and shield of faith can help protect squishier party members and NPCs. But better control options will open up over time.
And there are legitimate mechanical issues with paladins who dual wield. If a spell has a somatic component, you need a free hand to cast it. If it has a material component, then you need to manipulate that as well. Constantly having to sheath and draw a blade isn't going to break anything, but it isn't helpful, either. Learning to play a paladin means learning how to use that bonus action effectively. And I don't think there's a single Sacred Oath that doesn't grant at least one bonus action spell.
If you, as a paladin, dual wield, then you're making a statement. You value landing hits and burning through spell slots for extra damage more than casting spells to actually bolster the party. That you would sacrifice armor class and spell slots for short-term gains. It is, in my opinion, inefficient and short-sighted. And if that's what you want to do, then fine. I can't stop you. No one can. But I don't believe it's good advice.
I wouldn't say it isn't good advice, the thing that should be said is make sure the party is well rounded. It also isn't short term or short sighted, as anything else in the game, it's a tactical and game play choice some folks might prefer over the alternative. Being able to take threats down quickly saves the party spell slots that would have been spent on healing, but some situations will have enemies you can't strike down as efficiently with just weapon attacks, then it is OK to change up your tactics for a fight or two.
Also, conserving paladin spell slots to burn on divine strikes doesn't mean you will be smiting every hit, likely most players will only use a couple of their spell slots to use a divine smite per battle. They can cast their other spells outside of combat when needed or during combat if the party needs more support. I should caveat that with the clarification that some stubborn fringe case players may adamantly refuse to use their spell slots on anything other than divine smite, and my previous point doesn't include them.
But, by and large, I think most players that decide to focus on dual wielding will be reasonable and adjust when the situation warrants it, and I don't think the previous post you quoted was bad advice, just like I don't think your suggestions are bad advice, either. They're both valid and have got me thinking how I might play one paladin multiple ways. In fact, if anything, your debate has shown how much flexibility the class has going for it. I'm sure any new players or players who haven't played a paladin (such as me) appreciate that illumination.
I used to think paladins were kind of a dull class but now I'm seriously considering playing one and have taken the suggestions from both of you into my calculations of what kind of paladin I'd like to play. Thanks for that.
Okay, I see all of that. I just disagree, and here's my reasoning why. The various smite spells don't need to do a lot of damage because they're not intended primarily as damage-dealing engines. They're riders to (mostly) melee weapon attacks. We don't knock ensnaring strike for being "save or suck" while only dealing 1d6 damage that also eats up concentration. It's a friggin' awesome spell. And we should treat them the same way. Oath of Conquest aside, wrathful smite isn't just 1d6 psychic damage. It's [weapon damage] plus 1d6 psychic damage. We have to remember that math.
It's fair to disagree. I personally don't think the weapon damage should be counted among the effects of the smite spell, because the weapon damage happens anyway when you hit with an attack, even if you hadn't cast the spell. The spell slot only gets you the extra effects beyond the weapon attack, and the extra effects of, eg, ensnaring strike are not, imo, worth the spell slot and concentration, not when a single passed save nullifies most all of it. Burning concentration is especially egregious imo due to the paladin's many choices of concentration buff spells - spells which always just work and don't need to worry about saves - are already better than most of the smite line simply on spell slot efficiency. If my DM's preferred short adventuring days, I might be tempted to cast the occasional Thunderous Smite or the like ~in addition~ to having a buff spell up, but that isn't an option, because casting a smite spell breaks your concentration on anything else. It's especially worth noting that Divine Smite does not burn concentration. It deals more damage than the smite spells, doesn't take a bonus action, can be used reactively - which lets you save it for crits even furthing its damage efficiency, AND you can have other buff spells up at the same time benefitting yourself or your party members. What smite spell has a rider that compares to Bless, Protection, Shield of Faith, Crusader's Mantle, or Spirit Shroud? Some of those spells are also bonus actions. Shield of Faith is, for instance. If you cast shield of faith, you can also still make your regular melee attack action and get the regular weapon damage in.
Now, some of the spells you mentioned require an action to be cast and/or have a material component with a gold cost. Those are fantastic spells, and I am of the opinion that a party would benefit tremendously from at least one person having access to them. But because they don't compete for the bonus action, they don't compete with Two-Weapon Fighting.
Actually, they do compete with two weapon fighting, just as much as bonus action spells do. You can only make the bonus action off hand attack for two weapon fighting if you take the attack action to make an attack with your main hand weapon in the same turn. So it doesn't matter if I'm casting Bless with a standard action or Shield of Faith with a bonus action, either way I'm not making a bonus off hand attack that round. But that's fine, because again while I do think paladins can and should be casting spells - different spells depending on their build and the combat situation - the spells I think are worth a paladin's time to cast are almost always concentration spells, and once one of those spells are up the paladin shouldn't have to cast spells again that combat, which leaves several rounds worth of bonus actions otherwise unused
As for handedness
*clip*
you've asked me to try to be more concise twice already, so I'll just snip out the over-long rambling trip into the weeds of the super awkward spell component system and just say that somatic components really aren't any more of a problem for dual wielders than for sword and boarders. Spells you cast on your own turn are, if anything, less of a problem for dual wielders, since the shield being a spell focus doesn't help with every spell. For one example, you can't satisfy the somatic component of Spirit Shroud with your spell focus shield, since Spirit Shroud doesn't have a material component. If you're casting a spell with a standard or bonus action then you aren't making an off hand attack that round regardless, so you can just stow your weapon with your object interaction and just draw it back out on your next turn. Shields take a whole action to don or doff, not just an item interaction, so a sword and boarder has to leave themselves unarmed for an entire round to do the same thing.
They can just drop their weapon instead of stowing it and then pick it back up with their object interaction on the same turn, but that's an awkward bit of shenanigans and invites counter-shenanigans on the DM's part... but now I'm wandering back into the weeds, so I'll just leave off here.
Just wanted to say you’re right about War Caster being important if you want to maintain concentration. Might not be essential at early on, but if you end up using concentration spells a lot, I would definitely get it at some point. in addition to the bonuses you can get from a high fortitude and later from Aura of protection, having advantage on those rolls will greatly increase your ability to maintain concentration.
oh, and on the subject of effective concentration spells.
I would go with Bless over Hunters Mark. Up to three creatures get 1d4 to add to attack rolls and saving throws. This buffs the party and increases the chance of more hits overall. AND, it will increase the chances they they will also succeed on saves to reduce damage, avoid negative effects and conditions, etc.
Or, also at 1st lv is Wrathful Smite. It deals 1d6 psychic and if they fail a Wis save they’re frightened. They can use their action to make a wisdom check to break out of it. So they’re using their action to do that instead of attacking or casting spells. And since they’re frightened they have disadvantage on the roll. They can choose not to try to break out, but then they have disadvantage on all their rolls.
At higher levels you have:
3rd lv-
Blinding Smite: deals 3d8 and has the potential to blind the target
Aura of Vitality: you can use your bonus action to heal 2d6 to anyone within a 30ft radius
4th lv-
Staggering Smite: deals 4d6 psychic and can give them disadvantage on savoring throws, attack rolls and ability checks, and they loose their reaction
5th lv- Banishing Smite: it deals 5d10! And has the potential to banish them to another plane for the duration.
Wrathful smite is definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to smite spells generally not being great. It's a first level spell, so it's not competing with too much, and it's incredibly difficult to escape from its debilitating status effect if the target fails the initial save. It still suffers from being a single target spell that doesn't really do anything if that individual target passes a save. Paladins don't have many spell slots, so it feelsbadman.jpg when you spend one of your few spell slots and nothing really happens. But Wrathful Smite's effect is big enough (especially for a conqueror) and hard enough to escape that it's worth the risk.
As for warcaster... if you're casting concentration spells regularly (something that a paladin probably should do to be optimized, but doesn't have to do to be competent), then yeah, you'll probably want something to shore up those saves. Doesn't have to be warcaster, it could be resilient con, or a first level fighter dip, or a two level warlock dip with the invocation that grants advantage on concentration saves, or even just the lucky feat in a pinch. But something, certainly.
Wrathful smite is definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to smite spells generally not being great. It's a first level spell, so it's not competing with too much, and it's incredibly difficult to escape from its debilitating status effect if the target fails the initial save. It still suffers from being a single target spell that doesn't really do anything if that individual target passes a save. Paladins don't have many spell slots, so it feelsbadman.jpg when you spend one of your few spell slots and nothing really happens. But Wrathful Smite's effect is big enough (especially for a conqueror) and hard enough to escape that it's worth the risk.
As for warcaster... if you're casting concentration spells regularly (something that a paladin probably should do to be optimized, but doesn't have to do to be competent), then yeah, you'll probably want something to shore up those saves. Doesn't have to be warcaster, it could be resilient con, or a first level fighter dip, or a two level warlock dip with the invocation that grants advantage on concentration saves, or even just the lucky feat in a pinch. But something, certainly.
Wrathful Smite competes with Bless for concentration and 9 times out of 10 Bless will be better.
Wrathful smite is definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to smite spells generally not being great. It's a first level spell, so it's not competing with too much, and it's incredibly difficult to escape from its debilitating status effect if the target fails the initial save. It still suffers from being a single target spell that doesn't really do anything if that individual target passes a save. Paladins don't have many spell slots, so it feelsbadman.jpg when you spend one of your few spell slots and nothing really happens. But Wrathful Smite's effect is big enough (especially for a conqueror) and hard enough to escape that it's worth the risk.
As for warcaster... if you're casting concentration spells regularly (something that a paladin probably should do to be optimized, but doesn't have to do to be competent), then yeah, you'll probably want something to shore up those saves. Doesn't have to be warcaster, it could be resilient con, or a first level fighter dip, or a two level warlock dip with the invocation that grants advantage on concentration saves, or even just the lucky feat in a pinch. But something, certainly.
Wrathful Smite competes with Bless for concentration and 9 times out of 10 Bless will be better.
The problem with bless is that we're ultimately talking about a DPR boost, and more importantly, a 12.5% DPR increase for those who get it. We have to account for the very fact that we've given up our action to bless, and this means we did not attack. We also have to account for the fact that we used a spell slot! this is important because it means we could have used smite instead.
suppose you're a greatsword paladin with the great weapon fighting style. at lvl 3, you could be doing an average of ~6 DPR, and with a smite, that's 15 damage that is being sacrificed in order to use bless. If you bless a quarterstaff fighter with dueling and PAM, that guy does 9.6 DPR. A crossbow expert with archery fighting style does about 9.1, and if we were to bless both of those guys and ourselves too, we'd be seeing an increase of 3 dpr thanks to bless. But we established that we sacrificed 15 in doing so. So, for bless to be worth it in this scenario, we'd have to last longer than 5 rounds. Mind you, this is considering that we blessed two min-maxed players.
So, in tier 1 we can safely say that Bless isn't worth it. This conclusion obviously changes once you factor in things like extra attack and GWM/SS. If we blessed three SS/CBE with archery and extra attack, say at lvl 5, then we're seeing an increase of 18 DPR. Still, since we have to account we lost out on about 23 damage using our action and slot, the damage increase from bless is more like 10-12 DPR depending if the fight lasts about 3 or 4 rounds like they do on average. But tell me, are you blessing three min-maxed players every time you bless? No? Then you're getting less from it.
Wrathful smite, on the other hand, is very very very useful in the right circumstances. Suppose you're fighting three ogres. Those guys have poor wisdom saves, so it's a pretty likely thing that you can get one of them to fall victim to wrathful smite. For all intents and purposes, you've effectively shut down that ogre for the whole encounter because they can't get closer and they use their ACTION to make their CHECK at disadvantage. You took the encounter down from three tough dudes, to two. What was originally meant to be a difficult challenge now is a walk in the park. This applies to trolls, zombie ogres, hill giants, etc. The list goes on.
Ultimately, wrathful smite is about battlefield control, and in a lot of situations, that's way more important than a 12.5% increase to a few dudes.
Wrathful smite is definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to smite spells generally not being great. It's a first level spell, so it's not competing with too much, and it's incredibly difficult to escape from its debilitating status effect if the target fails the initial save. It still suffers from being a single target spell that doesn't really do anything if that individual target passes a save. Paladins don't have many spell slots, so it feelsbadman.jpg when you spend one of your few spell slots and nothing really happens. But Wrathful Smite's effect is big enough (especially for a conqueror) and hard enough to escape that it's worth the risk.
As for warcaster... if you're casting concentration spells regularly (something that a paladin probably should do to be optimized, but doesn't have to do to be competent), then yeah, you'll probably want something to shore up those saves. Doesn't have to be warcaster, it could be resilient con, or a first level fighter dip, or a two level warlock dip with the invocation that grants advantage on concentration saves, or even just the lucky feat in a pinch. But something, certainly.
Wrathful Smite competes with Bless for concentration and 9 times out of 10 Bless will be better.
It depends on what you want and what your party needs. Yes, bless is great. So is bane. But being in melee without proficiency in Constitution saving throws or some other bonus (such as Aura of Protection at 6th level) means keeping it up is a gamble. Sometimes, you really want to leave an enemy Frightened with wrathful smite. Or deal fire damage with searing smite to halt regeneration for a turn. And thunderous smite is some great battlefield control. These are tools most others don't have access to. They shouldn't be so readily discarded.
Whatever you think of optimization, you also have to remember that no amount of theorycrafting will account for actually just playing the game. Spreadsheets and YouTube videos, in the grand scheme of things, don't matter one whit.
Wrathful smite is definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to smite spells generally not being great. It's a first level spell, so it's not competing with too much, and it's incredibly difficult to escape from its debilitating status effect if the target fails the initial save. It still suffers from being a single target spell that doesn't really do anything if that individual target passes a save. Paladins don't have many spell slots, so it feelsbadman.jpg when you spend one of your few spell slots and nothing really happens. But Wrathful Smite's effect is big enough (especially for a conqueror) and hard enough to escape that it's worth the risk.
As for warcaster... if you're casting concentration spells regularly (something that a paladin probably should do to be optimized, but doesn't have to do to be competent), then yeah, you'll probably want something to shore up those saves. Doesn't have to be warcaster, it could be resilient con, or a first level fighter dip, or a two level warlock dip with the invocation that grants advantage on concentration saves, or even just the lucky feat in a pinch. But something, certainly.
Wrathful Smite competes with Bless for concentration and 9 times out of 10 Bless will be better.
It depends on what you want and what your party needs. Yes, bless is great. So is bane. But being in melee without proficiency in Constitution saving throws or some other bonus (such as Aura of Protection at 6th level) means keeping it up is a gamble. Sometimes, you really want to leave an enemy Frightened with wrathful smite. Or deal fire damage with searing smite to halt regeneration for a turn. And thunderous smite is some great battlefield control. These are tools most others don't have access to. They shouldn't be so readily discarded.
Whatever you think of optimization, you also have to remember that no amount of theorycrafting will account for actually just playing the game. Spreadsheets and YouTube videos, in the grand scheme of things, don't matter one whit.
Wrong, bane is not great. Bane sucks! You can use a spell slot to buff three of your team mates, guaranteed. Or, you can waste a spell slot to affect maybe two enemies. Both cost the same, but both are giving different pay outs. If you have access to both bane and bless, you really ought to question yourself if you're picking bane.
I'm not surprised that you're trying to diminish the importance and validity of theorycrafting given your hard anti-optimizer stance. This game simply isn't as unpredictable as you think it is. Spreadsheets, videos, it all helps-- that's why it gets views and spread around. Simply put, there's only so many ways to present a combat encounter and most will have a suitable approach and solution.
I agree with Cgarciao on this one. Bane is not that great a spell. Bless with a 100% success rate is better than a chance that you may debuff some enemies who can still crit you.
Bane also isn't a general paladin spell, either, being only an option for Oath of Vengeance. Most paladin subclasses don't have to worry about taking it.
You'll start with a +3 modifier to maintain concentration and, at 6th level, add your Charisma modifier. And the DC is going to be 10 unless you take 22+ damage in a single attack. Making those checks shouldn't be a problem for a long while.
Hunter's Mark is efficient and Polearm Master is fine, but wielding a 2H weapon can get in the way of material spell components. (I have no idea why everyone goes for a glaive or halberd when spears are perfectly valid). But don't neglect your Charisma and smite spells. Thunderous smite is especially good early on, targeting an uncommon saving throw and knocking the target prone if they fail. Just don't use it against big enemies.
A 2h weapon gets in the way of spellcasting less than a shield and 1h. And wielding a spear with two hands, has no practical difference from wielding a 2h glaive or halberd.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's an awful lot of text for "I don't like using paladin spell slots for anything but Divine Smite."
You could have saved us all a lot of trouble by saying your view of the class is just boring.
I'd argue that you're reply wasn't all that much more efficient, when you could have just written "tl,dr". :p but fair enough. I'll try again:
....
But maybe you reject that reasoning. Maybe your paladin is constantly using thunderous smite for some reason. Maybe your party spellcasters like to set up damaging zones every combat, or your DM is constantly ambushing you on precarious bridges and cliff sides.
Even then, you only have so many spell slots. Most campaigns cap out around level 10. A 10th level paladin has 9 spell slots total per day. Per the DMG a typical adventuring day runs approximately 6 combats, and ime combats typically run for about 4 critical rounds, after which the combat is usually either over or in cleanup. That's 24 combat rounds in a typical adventuring day. After spending all nine of your spell slots on thunderous smite, that still leaves 15 combat rounds, more than half the rounds in the average adventuring day, where your parent class isn't providing any use for your bonus action. Because paladin ~doesn't~ make much use of bonus actions by default, not compared to classes like rogues with their cunning action or monks with their martial arts or clerics with their spiritual weapon or bards with their inspiration.
In that case, isn't dual wielding an option worth considering?
And that's a paladin who spent every single spell slot on fire and forget combat spell casting. No efficient concentration buffs. No divine smite, even on lucky crits against strong enemies. No non-combat utility spells like lesser restoration, remove curse, or revivify. If you do any of those things - all things which in my opinion make the class less boring - that means more combat rounds where you aren't casting spells and your bonus action is free to be used by something else. Maybe polearm master. Maybe great weapon master. Maybe shield master (though it's not my preference). But also maybe dual wielding.
Again, subclasses can change this considerably. Conquest paladins have spiritual weapon, and thus don't really need extra bonus action attack options. Devotion paladin's channel divinity 'sacred weapon' empowers a single weapon, and which discourages the use of an off hand weapons. And some paladin oaths lean more toward tanking and support over damage dealing, and those will value a shield over the extra damage that they could get from either a second weapon or a great weapon, even if that leaves them without as much use for their bonus action.
My thinking wasn't so much to maximize Hunter's Mark, moreso that Hunter's Mark would make the damage scale better for someone wanting to go the dual wielder route (from what I recall people were discussing how to integrate Hunter's Mark into a build, however.). I wasn't thinking about Polearm Master, that is definitely a worthwhile feat if you want a big two handed weapon, but I was just thinking how I would want to play a dual wielder, and sharing my thoughts.
For the character I have in mind, I wouldn't be as concerned about increasing Charisma, as the spells I'd plan to take would either be buffing spells or smites. I would save most of my spell slots to smite enemies with and use a few to buff myself (Hunter's Mark) or the party (Crusader's Mantle). I understand the aura save bonus wouldn't be as powerful but that's the tradeoff I'd have to go for. I would still be able to take Worcester and maximize my Strength score with the other three ASIs.
Not a big fan of the paladin smite spells, overall, but yes, you are right Hunter's Mark will do better the more attacks you have. And one of the best ways to get the extra attacks is duel wielding. I prefer Polearm Master, but that does take a feat, whereas you can duel wield and still use your ASI for something else.
Okay, fair enough. And I'm with you so far.
No options should be discarded outright, but I wouldn't recommend dual wielding for paladins. The added damage potential is negligible. More hits mean more chances to spend a spell slot for Divine Smite, but if you're not careful you'll burn through them all. Divine Smite isn't something that I think should be factored into normal equations. It simply comes with too steep a cost. The loss of versatility from expending a spell slot for a few d8s of extra damage is tremendous. That's why the smite spells exist. You get comparable damage with a rider effect. In some cases, it's even ongoing damage. Nevermind the need for material components. If you need to cast a spell that has a material component, you can't do so without dropping a weapon or picking up a ruby of the war mage; and that's DM-dependent. Unless, of course, the material component is one of the aforementioned smite spells.
Paladins can wield shields and don't have any features or spells which rely on a reaction. This makes fighting styles like Protection and Interception attractive choices. Feats like Polearm Master can even be used with a shield, and the difference in damage between a spear and a longsword is negligible. And if you wish to forego a shield, you can still manipulate a spellcasting focus with a Heavy and Two-Handed weapon in your possession, like a halberd or maul. Interception, Polearm Master, and a halberd are more than adequate. I'd much rather roll 2d10+1d4 than 3d6 and get a host of other benefits along with it.
And, no, the idea that there are supposed to be 6-8 combats per day is just false. And I'm tired that people keep repeating this canard as if it were true. Six to eight medium encounters per adventuring day are not the same as six to eight combats per adventuring day. It does not mean something in the neighborhood of 24 combat rounds per day. Yes, some days can be like that, but most fights in dungeons aren't that hard. If your DM is trying to run a party through that many per day, they're trying to kill the PCs. Do you think a 1st-level barbarian is rated for that many tough fights per day? They can only rage twice!
There are three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and social interaction. Each of those can pose its own challenges and test party resources. An encounter can make use of any one of the pillars. Break yourself of that mindset.
The paladin has tons of options to choose from for its bonus action, but they have to choose to make those options available. They might only cast one or two spells per fight, and that's okay.
First of all, the smite spells are not 'comparable damage'. Divine Smite does more damage of typically a better damage type out of the gate, and can be pocketed for crits to double that already better damage in a way that smite spells, which must be committed to before seeing attack results, cannot be. Smite spells aren't 'comparable damage plus rider effects', rather they *are* their rider effects, and the pittance of extra damage is the consolation prize for when your enemy passes their save against those effects. And yeah, most of the smite spells are bad, because expending an entire spell slot (and concentration!) on a spell that targets only a single enemy, allows a save, and does (next to) nothing if the target passes that save will often amount to throwing that spell slot away for nothing. Particularly since paladins usually do not have the highest save DC possible during most of the levels that see regular play, since their spellcasting stat has to compete with their weapon attack stat and any feats they might want to take for their ASIs.
Paladin has lots of good spells. Bless. Shield of Faith. Protection from Evil and Good. Aid. Find Steed. Lesser Restoration. Aura of Vitality. Remove Curse. Revivify. Spirit Shroud. It's a long list of great spells. But, with relatively few exceptions (eg. Wrathful Smite for Conquest Pallies), IMO the smite spells do not make the cut.
As for spellcasting hand issues, these are similarly difficult for both sword & board and dual wielder paladins. The shield emblem spell focus is of no use for spells with somatic-but-not-material components, which includes some of the paladin's better spell options, including Spirit Shroud. A dual wielder can stow a weapon to cast a spell (they're not making any off hand attacks if they spend their standard or bonus action spellcasting that turn anyway) without leaving themselves disarmed, and can simply draw the second weapon with their next turn's item interaction. The sword and board pally cannot do the same, since the shield takes more effort to doff and don than a simple item interaction. So, if anything, this weights out in the dual wielder's favor. In practice, though, both will tend to walk around with one hand free. When combat starts, they'll cast a concentration buff or debuff spell, then draw their weapon and not generally have to worry about casting again until the fight is done and they're patching up injured party members.
...
I do agree that a paladin that uses divine smite on every hit will quickly run out of spell slots, so that's not generally going to be efficient resource use (though there are some fights where immediate damage matters more than resource efficiency). The main synergy of bonus action attacks (from two weapon fighting or otherwise) with divine smite is rather from the extra chance to score a critical hit, especially if you can get advantage on your attacks, since critical hits double the efficiency of spell slots spent on divine smite.
But it's not just divine smite. Improved divine smite at level 11 adds an extra d8 to /every/ melee weapon hit scored by the paladin, no extra resources invested. And paladins have access to spells like crusader's mantle and spirit shroud which also add extra damage to every melee weapon attack they make, and these likewise will add damage to bonus action attacks without any additional investment.
For example, let's imagine two 11th level paladins going up against a Behir, a classic D&D monster with CR 11 in 5e:
We'll say they have identical stats, both starting with 16 in Str and Cha, and that they spent their ASIs to raise both key stats to 18. Both paladins have the defense fighting style, as it's arguably the best style and also makes my math easier. Both paladins have cast spirit shroud. Both paladins are trying to conserve spell slots, so will only use 1st level divine smites on critical hits. During their travels, the party has found one +2 longsword and two +2 short swords. The other party members are pure casters or use ranged weapons, so these melee weapons all go to the paladins. Given those options, One paladin has opted to fight with the +2 longsword and a shield, and the other has chosen to dual wield the two +1 short swords. Obviously magic weapon availability is DM and adventure dependent, but these aren't unreasonable items for 11th level characters to be carrying.
Longsword Pally has two attacks at +10 to hit for 3d8 +6 damage each, with a 70% chance to hit the Behir's AC 17, for 27.3 expected damage before crits/smites. Expected smite + crit damage is 2 * 1/20 * (4d8 + 3d8) = 3.15. So 30.45 total average damage, though it will trend closer to the 27.3, and spiking well above that on crits.
Swortswords pally has two attacks at +9 to hit for 2d8 + 1d6 +5 damage, plus one at +9 to hit for 2d8 + 1d6 +1 damage, with a 65% chance to hit the Behir's AC 15, for 31.525 expected damage before smites. Expected smite damage is 3 * 1/20 * (4d8 + 2d8 + 1d6) = 4.575. So 36.1 total average damage, though it will trend closer to the 31.525, spiking well above that on crits, which will happen approximately 50% more often than for the longsword pally.
Obviously the damage numbers swing more in the shortsword pally's favor if they and longsword pally have magic weapons of the same caliber, but ime that's usually not the case for dual wielders. Even so, that's already nearly 6 points more average damage, or more than 4 points more average damage before crits, which will happen more frequently. Hardly nothing in either case. Whether that's worth sacrificing 2 points of AC is debatable. With defense style, still arguably the best style mechanically, the short swords paladin will still have pretty good AC, and, after all, they do have a sword & board paladin in the party to tank for them. :p
....
Re: Protection and Interception, I don't honestly like either, even for sword and board tanky paladins. They both compete with opportunity attacks and the sentinel feat for your reactions, and imo come out behind the competition in both cases. Both have awkward positioning requirements, since the characters most in need of protection aren't likely to be immediately adjacent to you. Both only work on a single attack, when the greatest danger in the game tends to come from multiple attacks for moderate damage, not one single attack for huge damage. Protection requires you to burn your reaction before even knowing whether the initial attack would have hit in the first place, and the enemy can still hit anyway. I mostly play in online formats that tell you the order dice were rolled even in situations of advantage or disadvantage, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen protection style used only to find that the first roll would have missed regardless. It's just not good. Interception is better, at least for a while, in that you can be sure it will do something when you use it, but it doesn't scale well with level. Sure, this is a common problem with fighting styles, dueling doesn't scale either, but +1 AC from defense style is just as good at level 12 as it is at level 2, and the extra utility or ranged fallback options you can get from blessed warrior likewise remain useful throughout the campaign, as does blind fighting - which is situational but hugely relevant when that situation is in play, regardless of level.
...
re: polearm master. Yes. Polearm master is better than dual wielding. You might run into trouble finding magic versions of the limited weapons that work with it, where dual wielding works with any light weapons, but for the most part polearm master is just flat better. Which it should be, because it costs a feat. And for paladins especially, feats are a MAJOR investment. Unlike pretty much every other class (apart from the monk, but... woof, let's not even go there), paladins functionally have two primary stats. And as a melee spellcaster they also need a high constitution score, for both hit points and concentration, so that is a lot of pressure on your stats - both starting stats and ability score improvements. And unlike fighters, we don't get extra ASIs to relieve that pressure. A feat is a major investment on the part of a paladin, and most probably shouldn't be taking more than maybe a single feat over the course of most campaigns, plus maybe a half feat if you start with an odd score in strength or charisma. Polearm Master is very much good enough to be that feat. As is Great Weapon Master. As is Sentinel or War Caster. But there are other feats that are likewise strong contenders - Lucky, Alert, Inspiring Leader, Healer, Resilient (Constitution), Magic Adept, Ritual Caster, etc. Or even no feat at all, because yeah, we've got two primary stats, so taking a feat instead of raising ability scores feels like twice the sacrifice that it does for other classes.
Dual Wielding gets you the major benefit of polearm master - a bonus action attack - without that commitment. Not only does that mean you probably have a better weapon attack, or better charisma, or some other useful feat, you also have the ability to walk back the decision whenever you like. do you know you happen to be walking into an area with extra dangerous enemies? you can put away one of your weapons and equip a shield instead. The magic item tables happen to drop a Holy Avenger Greatsword in your lap? Toss your dual blades and grab that greatsword, no biggie. Changing up your entire equipment style doesn't mean wasted character build resources.
And the same goes the other way. You're normally sword and board, but you're walking into the web of the wacky wizards, where every enemy attacks by forcing saves instead of rolling to hit your AC? Put that useless shield away for an adventure and pull out the spare short swords for a little extra damage. Or you normally wield a greatsword, but your party stumbles across paired frost & fire scimitars? If nobody else is going to use them grab those things. If you haven't burned a whole feat committing yourself to particular equipment sets then you're free to adapt.
...
And, finally, there's always the players that choose to put the cart before the horse. Ie, they're not asking "what's the right weapon set for my paladin character", but rather "what's the right class for my dual wielder"? That's admittedly not an optimal way to go about character building, but aesthetic style matters at least as much as the numbers do once your actually at the table playing the game. If the aesthetic style a player wants is 'warrior with two swords', then I'd very much argue the best class for that character is paladin. No other class dual wields better. sure, some might get the fighting style for it, but that style's not going to do more for your off hand attacks then divine smite, improved divine smite, and spirit shroud, and the best paladin styles (defense, blessed weapon, blind fighting) work just as well for dual wielders as anyone else. Defense even mitigates the penalty of dropping your shield, which I'd argue is a more pressing priority for dual wielders than bringing up their off hand attack damage by a few points. Yes, dual wielding is pretty weak overall in 5e, but it's weak not so much because of its base characteristics but rather because the two weapon fighting feat is way worse than equivalent feats for other weapon types. And that just doesn't hurt as much for dual wielding paladins, since their ASIs are so precious that they can easily end up skipping even the *good* weapon type feats anyway.
For pity's sake learn to pear down your answers. Nobody wants to read a 2000 word rant.
Smite spells don't work for you because you are trying to do too much. It's not hard to have a decent Charisma modifier as a paladin to boost those saving throws, but if you're trying to max out Strength, Constitution, and take a feat or two then you're going to have a bad time. If your priorities mean they don't fit your preferred playstyle, then fine. But that doesn't mean they're bad, and you don't get to whine when someone disagrees with you.
The main sticking point here seems to be the Smite spells. You seem to like them, and to be annoyed that I mostly don't rate them. The overall quality, or lack there of, of the smite spells is an entirely separate issue from dual wielding, since I mostly don't rate the smite spell line regardless of the equipment set of the paladin using them. So let's table the twinblade talk and instead just look at the smites.
...
The actual reason that the smite spells don't work for me is because even the best of them are single target save-or-sucks that don't do much of anything at all if the target passes their save - the pittance of extra damage from smite spells not being at all worth the spell slot investment on its own. Most of them don't even defeat the target outright if they do fail their save, the way spells like 'hold person' or 'banisment' can, and even those spells only get really good when up-cast to target multiple enemies so you're much more likely to at least successfully tag at least one of them. Single target save-or-sucks just aren't efficient spell slot use, especially for a half caster who gets fewer spell slots to begin with and thus can less afford to throw one away on a single target spell that might do something meaningful but only if that single target fails a saving throw. And that's before you consider that paladin spellcasting stat will often lag behind that of full casters, especially if they end up burning a feat on, well, anything.
On top of that, every one of the Smite spells, even ones that lack ongoing effects, burn your concentration, which precludes using them in the same combat with most of the paladin's actually good combat spells. Spells like Bless, or Protection from Evil and Good, or Shield of Faith, or Magic Weapon, or Aura of Vitality, or Crusader's Mantle, or Spirit Shroud. It's not that I don't think paladin's should be casting spells. Paladins should *absolutely* be casting spells. And it's not that I think paladins should always be casting the same spells to do the same thing. There are bunches of good paladin spells that do all sorts of things and support all sorts of play styles, and that's before you even get to additional spell options from your oath choice. It's just that, with rare exceptions (eg Conquest Paladins casting Wrathful Smite), the smite spells typically aren't good enough to take a spell slot away from all those other better spells.
Yeah I don't think I said precisely what I meant. I'm not a huge fan of the different smites for this character idea, I meant I would save my spell slots to utilize divine smite, while maintaining concentration on a damage buff, while my aura of protection provides a passive defense buff (though with the character concept I have it probably wouldn't surpass a +2 so not that great of a buff, but better than nothing).
Okay, I see all of that. I just disagree, and here's my reasoning why. The various smite spells don't need to do a lot of damage because they're not intended primarily as damage-dealing engines. They're riders to (mostly) melee weapon attacks. We don't knock ensnaring strike for being "save or suck" while only dealing 1d6 damage that also eats up concentration. It's a friggin' awesome spell. And we should treat them the same way. Oath of Conquest aside, wrathful smite isn't just 1d6 psychic damage. It's [weapon damage] plus 1d6 psychic damage. We have to remember that math.
Now, some of the spells you mentioned require an action to be cast and/or have a material component with a gold cost. Those are fantastic spells, and I am of the opinion that a party would benefit tremendously from at least one person having access to them. But because they don't compete for the bonus action, they don't compete with Two-Weapon Fighting. That said, magic weapon is great if you need to get past resistances or immunities to damage. But it won't always be necessary. Likewise, compelled duel and shield of faith can help protect squishier party members and NPCs. But better control options will open up over time.
And there are legitimate mechanical issues with paladins who dual wield. If a spell has a somatic component, you need a free hand to cast it. If it has a material component, then you need to manipulate that as well. Constantly having to sheath and draw a blade isn't going to break anything, but it isn't helpful, either. Learning to play a paladin means learning how to use that bonus action effectively. And I don't think there's a single Sacred Oath that doesn't grant at least one bonus action spell.
If you, as a paladin, dual wield, then you're making a statement. You value landing hits and burning through spell slots for extra damage more than casting spells to actually bolster the party. That you would sacrifice armor class and spell slots for short-term gains. It is, in my opinion, inefficient and short-sighted. And if that's what you want to do, then fine. I can't stop you. No one can. But I don't believe it's good advice.
I wouldn't say it isn't good advice, the thing that should be said is make sure the party is well rounded. It also isn't short term or short sighted, as anything else in the game, it's a tactical and game play choice some folks might prefer over the alternative. Being able to take threats down quickly saves the party spell slots that would have been spent on healing, but some situations will have enemies you can't strike down as efficiently with just weapon attacks, then it is OK to change up your tactics for a fight or two.
Also, conserving paladin spell slots to burn on divine strikes doesn't mean you will be smiting every hit, likely most players will only use a couple of their spell slots to use a divine smite per battle. They can cast their other spells outside of combat when needed or during combat if the party needs more support. I should caveat that with the clarification that some stubborn fringe case players may adamantly refuse to use their spell slots on anything other than divine smite, and my previous point doesn't include them.
But, by and large, I think most players that decide to focus on dual wielding will be reasonable and adjust when the situation warrants it, and I don't think the previous post you quoted was bad advice, just like I don't think your suggestions are bad advice, either. They're both valid and have got me thinking how I might play one paladin multiple ways. In fact, if anything, your debate has shown how much flexibility the class has going for it. I'm sure any new players or players who haven't played a paladin (such as me) appreciate that illumination.
I used to think paladins were kind of a dull class but now I'm seriously considering playing one and have taken the suggestions from both of you into my calculations of what kind of paladin I'd like to play. Thanks for that.
It's fair to disagree. I personally don't think the weapon damage should be counted among the effects of the smite spell, because the weapon damage happens anyway when you hit with an attack, even if you hadn't cast the spell. The spell slot only gets you the extra effects beyond the weapon attack, and the extra effects of, eg, ensnaring strike are not, imo, worth the spell slot and concentration, not when a single passed save nullifies most all of it. Burning concentration is especially egregious imo due to the paladin's many choices of concentration buff spells - spells which always just work and don't need to worry about saves - are already better than most of the smite line simply on spell slot efficiency. If my DM's preferred short adventuring days, I might be tempted to cast the occasional Thunderous Smite or the like ~in addition~ to having a buff spell up, but that isn't an option, because casting a smite spell breaks your concentration on anything else. It's especially worth noting that Divine Smite does not burn concentration. It deals more damage than the smite spells, doesn't take a bonus action, can be used reactively - which lets you save it for crits even furthing its damage efficiency, AND you can have other buff spells up at the same time benefitting yourself or your party members. What smite spell has a rider that compares to Bless, Protection, Shield of Faith, Crusader's Mantle, or Spirit Shroud? Some of those spells are also bonus actions. Shield of Faith is, for instance. If you cast shield of faith, you can also still make your regular melee attack action and get the regular weapon damage in.
Actually, they do compete with two weapon fighting, just as much as bonus action spells do. You can only make the bonus action off hand attack for two weapon fighting if you take the attack action to make an attack with your main hand weapon in the same turn. So it doesn't matter if I'm casting Bless with a standard action or Shield of Faith with a bonus action, either way I'm not making a bonus off hand attack that round. But that's fine, because again while I do think paladins can and should be casting spells - different spells depending on their build and the combat situation - the spells I think are worth a paladin's time to cast are almost always concentration spells, and once one of those spells are up the paladin shouldn't have to cast spells again that combat, which leaves several rounds worth of bonus actions otherwise unused
As for handedness
*clip*
you've asked me to try to be more concise twice already, so I'll just snip out the over-long rambling trip into the weeds of the super awkward spell component system and just say that somatic components really aren't any more of a problem for dual wielders than for sword and boarders. Spells you cast on your own turn are, if anything, less of a problem for dual wielders, since the shield being a spell focus doesn't help with every spell. For one example, you can't satisfy the somatic component of Spirit Shroud with your spell focus shield, since Spirit Shroud doesn't have a material component. If you're casting a spell with a standard or bonus action then you aren't making an off hand attack that round regardless, so you can just stow your weapon with your object interaction and just draw it back out on your next turn. Shields take a whole action to don or doff, not just an item interaction, so a sword and boarder has to leave themselves unarmed for an entire round to do the same thing.
They can just drop their weapon instead of stowing it and then pick it back up with their object interaction on the same turn, but that's an awkward bit of shenanigans and invites counter-shenanigans on the DM's part... but now I'm wandering back into the weeds, so I'll just leave off here.
Just wanted to say you’re right about War Caster being important if you want to maintain concentration. Might not be essential at early on, but if you end up using concentration spells a lot, I would definitely get it at some point. in addition to the bonuses you can get from a high fortitude and later from Aura of protection, having advantage on those rolls will greatly increase your ability to maintain concentration.
oh, and on the subject of effective concentration spells.
I would go with Bless over Hunters Mark. Up to three creatures get 1d4 to add to attack rolls and saving throws. This buffs the party and increases the chance of more hits overall. AND, it will increase the chances they they will also succeed on saves to reduce damage, avoid negative effects and conditions, etc.
Or, also at 1st lv is Wrathful Smite. It deals 1d6 psychic and if they fail a Wis save they’re frightened. They can use their action to make a wisdom check to break out of it. So they’re using their action to do that instead of attacking or casting spells. And since they’re frightened they have disadvantage on the roll. They can choose not to try to break out, but then they have disadvantage on all their rolls.
At higher levels you have:
3rd lv-
Blinding Smite: deals 3d8 and has the potential to blind the target
Aura of Vitality: you can use your bonus action to heal 2d6 to anyone within a 30ft radius
4th lv-
Staggering Smite: deals 4d6 psychic and can give them disadvantage on savoring throws, attack rolls and ability checks, and they loose their reaction
5th lv- Banishing Smite: it deals 5d10! And has the potential to banish them to another plane for the duration.
Wrathful smite is definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to smite spells generally not being great. It's a first level spell, so it's not competing with too much, and it's incredibly difficult to escape from its debilitating status effect if the target fails the initial save. It still suffers from being a single target spell that doesn't really do anything if that individual target passes a save. Paladins don't have many spell slots, so it feelsbadman.jpg when you spend one of your few spell slots and nothing really happens. But Wrathful Smite's effect is big enough (especially for a conqueror) and hard enough to escape that it's worth the risk.
As for warcaster... if you're casting concentration spells regularly (something that a paladin probably should do to be optimized, but doesn't have to do to be competent), then yeah, you'll probably want something to shore up those saves. Doesn't have to be warcaster, it could be resilient con, or a first level fighter dip, or a two level warlock dip with the invocation that grants advantage on concentration saves, or even just the lucky feat in a pinch. But something, certainly.
Wrathful Smite competes with Bless for concentration and 9 times out of 10 Bless will be better.
The problem with bless is that we're ultimately talking about a DPR boost, and more importantly, a 12.5% DPR increase for those who get it. We have to account for the very fact that we've given up our action to bless, and this means we did not attack. We also have to account for the fact that we used a spell slot! this is important because it means we could have used smite instead.
suppose you're a greatsword paladin with the great weapon fighting style. at lvl 3, you could be doing an average of ~6 DPR, and with a smite, that's 15 damage that is being sacrificed in order to use bless. If you bless a quarterstaff fighter with dueling and PAM, that guy does 9.6 DPR. A crossbow expert with archery fighting style does about 9.1, and if we were to bless both of those guys and ourselves too, we'd be seeing an increase of 3 dpr thanks to bless. But we established that we sacrificed 15 in doing so. So, for bless to be worth it in this scenario, we'd have to last longer than 5 rounds. Mind you, this is considering that we blessed two min-maxed players.
So, in tier 1 we can safely say that Bless isn't worth it. This conclusion obviously changes once you factor in things like extra attack and GWM/SS. If we blessed three SS/CBE with archery and extra attack, say at lvl 5, then we're seeing an increase of 18 DPR. Still, since we have to account we lost out on about 23 damage using our action and slot, the damage increase from bless is more like 10-12 DPR depending if the fight lasts about 3 or 4 rounds like they do on average. But tell me, are you blessing three min-maxed players every time you bless? No? Then you're getting less from it.
Wrathful smite, on the other hand, is very very very useful in the right circumstances. Suppose you're fighting three ogres. Those guys have poor wisdom saves, so it's a pretty likely thing that you can get one of them to fall victim to wrathful smite. For all intents and purposes, you've effectively shut down that ogre for the whole encounter because they can't get closer and they use their ACTION to make their CHECK at disadvantage. You took the encounter down from three tough dudes, to two. What was originally meant to be a difficult challenge now is a walk in the park. This applies to trolls, zombie ogres, hill giants, etc. The list goes on.
Ultimately, wrathful smite is about battlefield control, and in a lot of situations, that's way more important than a 12.5% increase to a few dudes.
It depends on what you want and what your party needs. Yes, bless is great. So is bane. But being in melee without proficiency in Constitution saving throws or some other bonus (such as Aura of Protection at 6th level) means keeping it up is a gamble. Sometimes, you really want to leave an enemy Frightened with wrathful smite. Or deal fire damage with searing smite to halt regeneration for a turn. And thunderous smite is some great battlefield control. These are tools most others don't have access to. They shouldn't be so readily discarded.
Whatever you think of optimization, you also have to remember that no amount of theorycrafting will account for actually just playing the game. Spreadsheets and YouTube videos, in the grand scheme of things, don't matter one whit.
Wrong, bane is not great. Bane sucks! You can use a spell slot to buff three of your team mates, guaranteed. Or, you can waste a spell slot to affect maybe two enemies. Both cost the same, but both are giving different pay outs. If you have access to both bane and bless, you really ought to question yourself if you're picking bane.
I'm not surprised that you're trying to diminish the importance and validity of theorycrafting given your hard anti-optimizer stance. This game simply isn't as unpredictable as you think it is. Spreadsheets, videos, it all helps-- that's why it gets views and spread around. Simply put, there's only so many ways to present a combat encounter and most will have a suitable approach and solution.
I agree with Cgarciao on this one. Bane is not that great a spell. Bless with a 100% success rate is better than a chance that you may debuff some enemies who can still crit you.
Bane also isn't a general paladin spell, either, being only an option for Oath of Vengeance. Most paladin subclasses don't have to worry about taking it.
A 2h weapon gets in the way of spellcasting less than a shield and 1h. And wielding a spear with two hands, has no practical difference from wielding a 2h glaive or halberd.