2handed vs Sword and Board for Pally


Advice


Hearing that 2hander is the way to go for a Pally. You get to keep your offhand free for LoH and more damage with the 2hander. But looking at it, if I only have a 16 Strength im trading off 2.5 damage per round for 1 or more ac. With a Falchion im hitting at 2d4+4 (avg 9 dmg) and a Scimitar would be 1d6+3 (avg 6.5 dmg). I would think a Shield would be more helpful. Anyone running into this?


Best bet is to go with a weapon that you can wield one handed, like that scimitar, and spend most of your time two handing it. Then if you ever need the boost in AC, you can just draw your shield and not have to switch weapons.

And the last time I checked the nodachi was superior statistically to the falchion, if you care.


If you are the sole fighter type in the party go two handed, go big style. I'm not a big fan of Falchions preferring big high damage dice weapons, greatsword is a nice combo. You crit 5% less of the time but do a greater average damage the rest of the time you hit.

If there is another fighter type look to see what they are doing weapon wise and do something different. Your lay on hands means you can afford to take slightly greater risks around AC than another fighter type.


You may only have a 16 strength now, but magical items will boost that as well. Theres also power attack scaling to consider with two handed weapons. You get +3/-1 for every 4 your BAB goes up with two handed weapons versus +2/-1 for a one handed weapon.

Ultimately the qustion comes down to whether you want to be more defensive or ofensive. Remember, you could always wear a ring of force shield and activate it after your attacks were finished as a free action for the extra AC. Conversely you could also pickup a heavy shield and start picking up the shield bashing feats etc. You can wield a shield as a two-handed weapon, and with improved shield bash you retain the AC bonus even if you attack with it. Slap shield spikes on your shield plus the bashing enchant and you've got yourself a formidable two handed weapon that also provides defense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

You may only have a 16 strength now, but magical items will boost that as well. Theres also power attack scaling to consider with two handed weapons. You get +3/-1 for every 4 your BAB goes up with two handed weapons versus +2/-1 for a one handed weapon.

Ultimately the qustion comes down to whether you want to be more defensive or ofensive. Remember, you could always wear a ring of force shield and activate it after your attacks were finished as a free action for the extra AC. Conversely you could also pickup a heavy shield and start picking up the shield bashing feats etc. You can wield a shield as a two-handed weapon, and with improved shield bash you retain the AC bonus even if you attack with it. Slap shield spikes on your shield plus the bashing enchant and you've got yourself a formidable two handed weapon that also provides defense.

Captain America.


At about levels 1-3 sword and board seems to do better. You often don't need the higher damage to take down an opponent. Your hit points are not yet huge so a (un)lucky critical from a great axe can still unexpectedly take away a big slice of your total. So a couple more points on AC can be a big deal.

After that, you have more of a cushion in your hit points to absorb the occasional big hit. Later feats, crits, special attacks, and magic items slowly open up that gap until for some builds it is double damage for a two-handed weapon.
Also many of the opponents have a much higher hit point total than you. So you are more in need of the additional damage.
And I think the big one is, most of the dangerous enemies seem to hit almost all the time anyway even if your AC is a few points higher.

Usually, people building a paladin whose priority is damage have the strength start higher than 16, all the stat increases go to strength, and stat boosting magic items are bought for strength first.

Liberty's Edge

It's been my experience that as you progress in levels armor class becomes less and less relevant since you can't keep pace with the to hit increase of enemies unless you solely focus on defence. In which case apart from making the wizard happy by soaking up hits you aren't being that effective.

So personally I would go longsword and shield up to about level 5 and then two handed all the way, using your lay on hands to mitigate the extra hits you'll take.

Liberty's Edge

Kydeem wrote:
Stuff I agree with

+1


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Unless you specifically plan your paladin around Two-Weapon Fighting with weapon and shield (probably scimitar and a light quickdraw shield) to stack Smite damage, then weapon and shield costs you more in damage potential than you gain in protection. Remember that Smite Evil also gives a deflection bonus vs. the attacks from the target (usually a BBEG you want extra AC against, anyway), so your AC should remain adequate most of the time without a shield.

However, Two-Weapon Fighting with weapon and shield is feat-intensive and requires you to pretty much focus a paladin almost entirely around it. If you just want an AC boost for a non-weapon/shield paladin, then go with the sacred servant archetype and select the Defense (sub-)domain to gain shield as a 1st-level domain spell.


9 is almost 50% more than 6.5, so a guy that takes three hits to drop with the one handed option, only requires two hits to take out with the two-handed option, a huge boost.
In a one-on-one situation, a 50% increase in damage, mean 50% less attacks on yourself before the battle is over. The enemy might hit more often, but will probably damage you less.


Overall I prefer 2handers for paladins (or straight archery if the group has sufficient melee)
Shield bashing is great, but it takes too many feats for a paladin and is best left to rangers andfighters.

Just my opinion


Lord_Malkov wrote:

Overall I prefer 2handers for paladins (or straight archery if the group has sufficient melee)

Shield bashing is great, but it takes too many feats for a paladin and is best left to rangers andfighters.

Just my opinion

Not if he goes Captain America style and only uses his shield as his two handed weapon, just takes Improved Shield Bash.


I think the THW paladin is almost always mechanically superior in PF. That kinda bums me out though.

To me the heroic image of the paladin is the iconic sword and board. Using his shield to stand in harms way. Yes he can do massive damage to the forces of evil (that is what the smite damage is for).

But the THW do massive damage to the infidel/unbeliever/opposition should be more of an inquisitor schtick.

My mental image of the paladin supports sword and board, but the mechanics more supports THW.


Leisner wrote:

9 is almost 50% more than 6.5, so a guy that takes three hits to drop with the one handed option, only requires two hits to take out with the two-handed option, a huge boost.

In a one-on-one situation, a 50% increase in damage, mean 50% less attacks on yourself before the battle is over. The enemy might hit more often, but will probably damage you less.

I think this says it best. I will see more of a return when I can pick up power attack at level 5. While welding a shield will let my AC stay up there, Its also another money sink to have to spend money on.

I was leaning towards the increase crit ranged weapons (18-20) due to getting more mileage out of Keen or Bless Weapon. Im guessing the +2 average damage of the GreatSword would slowly lose out to the crit range of the Falchion? But right now it seems that the greatsword would be the way to go.


Three strong reasons I believe Sword and Board is a very strong option for Paladins.

  • Class Focus: The Paladin (somewhat similar to the Monk) is very capable of surviving a bad onslaught. Fighter/Barb might dish out more damage generally, but the Paladin will be standing after the surprise ambush by a trio of wizards or demons. Keeping AC up falls well in line with that focus. You don't want to be brought down by hits from mere minions.
  • Smite: No impact on this damage whether you're using a light weapon or a large bastard sword.
  • Smite again: That deflection bonus to AC from smite means that along with a good shield bonus you can have an AC that is truly difficult even for bruiser monsters to hit routinely.


  • I agree that it is possible to make a high AC sword and board paladin tank that stands in harms way.

    But it is harder (requires more careful planning and system mastery).

    Also since the game mechanics favor offense over defense, it in general won't be quite as effective in game play as the all out damaging THW paladin.

    Only 2 points (to maybe 4 points with a magic shield) of AC is all you will get if you are not really focusing on being a defensive tank. But it won't make all that much of difference in the number of hits you take. The mooks probably won't hit you through the plate mail. And the major opponents will probably hit you any way.

    Smite defense is ONLY if activated, against a single opponent, if evil, and is a deflection bonus (doesn't stack with other common deflection bonuses).

    So most of the paladins I see in play are either archers or THW paladins focusing on doing huge amounts of damage.


    Two hander.

    1) you have lay on hands. you can afford to be hit

    2) DR. 1d6+3-5 is going to be a LOT less than 2d6+4.

    3) there's a lot of ways to kill you that aren't damage... too many to defend against really. The only defense is to deadify them faster.

    Shadow Lodge

    this thread wrote:
    High AC...

    I'm with BigNorseWolf on this one.

    Paladins have awesome defense, yes, but you really don't want your AC so high you're unhitable all the time.
    I don't know how your GM(s) handles it, but my GM(s) tend to take a few swings at the tin can, work out it's not hitable and move onto the more squishy guys.
    Paladins still make great tanks with lower ACs mostly due to a swift action lay on hands, the right feats and races can make lay on hands an incredible source of healing as well (1d6+4 healing for every 2nd level). Don't be the tank, be the martyr.

    Shadow Lodge

    A paladin's job in combat is to wear a 15x15' evil monster suit like it was nothin'.

    When the monsters have six or seven attacks or more per round, the attrition benefits of additional AC from sword-n-board outweigh the extra damage of two-hander use.

    (Among pure melees, I'd say that 2hPA builds were the types I saw most frequently splicked in PFS -- they supercruised so long as both theirs and the DM's dice stuck to the middle of the bell curve, but died like mice whenever things went against them for more than a few rounds in a row.)


    Massive offense is the best defence if you are designing your character in isolation.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    "The best defense is a good offense" is a reflexively-quoted aphorism which is usually wrong; and especially so in higher-level PFS death-mods, where the winning characters aren't the ones who dish out the most DPR, but the ones who manage to get the job done with the least risk of dying.

    If your character is isolated (i.e., hello pit trap leading to an underground lair), not getting killed while you're holding out until the cavalry arrives is far more important than being able to drop one extra monster of a pack before it tears you to shreds.

    -- When, as a GM, I'm staring at two 3rd-level melee character sheets, and see...

    STR+18
    DEX:12
    CON:16
    INT:10
    Feats: Power Attack, Raging Vitality, Weapon Focus:(two-handed weapon)

    ...versus something like...

    STR+17
    DEX:14
    CON:14
    INT:14
    Feats: Dodge, Quick Draw, Combat Expertise

    (Both builds with 22pts spend in that block of four stats.)

    ...I know right away which PC is more likely to die repeatedly until he retires his character (to then make the next DPR flavor-of-the-week... "Hello, magus!"), and which one was thought out with an eye toward flexibility and survivability.

    And here's the funny thing: it's entirely possible that both characters would have been nearly identical at, say, 13th level. But the aspect which most fascinated the player -- as readily apparent on their low-level character sheet -- is always a good "tell" for me.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    "Isolation" -- In a home game with a stable group, your allies (both the meat-puppets and and their characters) are a known commodity to you, as are you to them. In such a group, your barbarian with beached-whale armor-class is buffed and healed as an after-thought by the party, and the casters plan their lists with you in mind. You 2hPA struts like a god.

    In PFS, you pull your character out at a convention where table balance hasn't been tweaked to perfection by months of prior cooperative play among a group of friends who've selected each other's company for their endearing social attributes. Instead, you suddenly find yourself in the company of similarly-minded DPR junkies, like gish casters who want to buff themselves or their pets instead of battlestudmuffin you in defiance of any logical strategy, or STR:18 machinegun archers with full hitpoints and a rusty greatsword across their back who won't enter melee even when an ally is bleeding on the ground and about to eat a coup de grace. Your 2hPA is in for a world of pain.


    Firstly one of those characters is going to put monsters down far more quickly than the other and so face less attacks. Also the co-operative element of play is something I would stress (and did so far earlier in this thread). Perhaps I am fortunate enough to play with a group who realise that an enlarged 2 handed weapon fighter with a Lucerne Hammer dealing 3d6+large amount damage and dominating the immediate area means that they as a mage are both less of a target and safer too.

    Party tactics are the key to answer of this thread not just an individual build. If you have your murder-lord barbarian with a great axe in your group then yes I would advocate something like sword and shield in order to have the option/ability to hold a position in the group.


    It seems to me that PFS meta-game is pretty much an entirely different game than the home one. Slow and steady damage with high defense sounds like it's the way to go in PFS.

    This leads to some curious ideas e.g. take crane wing on everything you can.


    Well, I've also seen some PFS games that went the other way. Everyone had a high defense, saves, DR buffs, etc... But they couldn't hardly take anything down. Everyone was planning on being the last man standing. So they were all just kinda standing around not doing much.

    But I readily admit, that is not the norm.


    I'm gonna stick with the same answer I gave earlier.
    Do both.

    Not that it's beneficial to wield a bastard sword, but at later levels when you want to wield a sunblade it is entirely to your benefit to use your longsword/scimitar/warhammer/bastard sword/katana/whatever one handed weapon you want in two hands, rather than using a two handed weapon. Carry a shield, and when sh*t gets rough, draw the shield and get that needed boost in AC.

    Shadow Lodge

    master_marshmallow wrote:

    I'm gonna stick with the same answer I gave earlier.

    Do both.

    Not that it's beneficial to wield a bastard sword, but at later levels when you want to wield a sunblade it is entirely to your benefit to use your longsword/scimitar/warhammer/bastard sword/katana/whatever one handed weapon you want in two hands, rather than using a two handed weapon. Carry a shield, and when sh*t gets rough, draw the shield and get that needed boost in AC.

    Agreed.

    Quick Draw and a light quickdraw shield are a powerful combo.


    Speaking from experience. Playing a sword and board pally actively harmed my group and nearly got us killed on a couple of occasions. Granted this was not PFS.

    Shadow Lodge

    I agree with doing both as well, but I think the best is +5 buckler and Scimitar/Longsword/whatever for sword and board, as you can do defense and offense as a free action to switch, without investing feats. You can go high offense then high defense depending on what is needed.

    Shadow Lodge

    TarkXT wrote:
    Speaking from experience. Playing a sword and board pally actively harmed my group and nearly got us killed on a couple of occasions.

    How so?

    My most effective melee ever was a halfling paladin multiclass (two levels of rogue). He finessed a rapier in celestial armor & buckler, and held back huge, drooling multiattack monsters while the rest of the party shivered in puddles of their own urine.


    Well at Level 3 already some of the big baddies don't focus me. The best way to make them pay for that is to do lots of damage, so i use a two-hand weapon. My typical PFS grp (I say typical cause PFS is very limited and small in my area, I end up at the table with the same guys week after week) is mostly melee oriented, we have one ranged caster (Sorcerer2/Oracle1). So the bad guys are targeting our ninja and cleric a lot. I realizing that a shield while helps me survive, probably isn't the best for my group. That isn't to say if you had a group of mostly range and you ran interference, then a shield might be better cause your the only target to attack without AoO's and other fun repercussions.


    Sir Thugsalot wrote:
    TarkXT wrote:
    Speaking from experience. Playing a sword and board pally actively harmed my group and nearly got us killed on a couple of occasions.

    How so?

    My most effective melee ever was a halfling paladin multiclass (two levels of rogue). He finessed a rapier in celestial armor & buckler, and held back huge, drooling multiattack monsters while the rest of the party shivered in puddles of their own urine.

    It's simple, when an enemy is impossible to hit, and you still need to reduce the enemies numbers you start attacking an enemy that you can hit because otherwise you are just mindlessly waiting to die.

    Bad Guy tactics 101.

    This isn't WOW, there is no aggro feature that makes enemies automatically attack whoever is on the front line.


    I often make a human for the extra feat and take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword. Stow a shield on your back. Now you can shift gears for a move action. Hack the minions two-handed, pull the shield out if the boss is a threat


    Sir Thugsalot wrote:
    TarkXT wrote:
    Speaking from experience. Playing a sword and board pally actively harmed my group and nearly got us killed on a couple of occasions.

    How so?

    My most effective melee ever was a halfling paladin multiclass (two levels of rogue). He finessed a rapier in celestial armor & buckler, and held back huge, drooling multiattack monsters while the rest of the party shivered in puddles of their own urine.

    Because while I would hold down one monster the other 6 would rip up the party. Given that it would take me many rounds to down my one monster while the party was forced to split their attention...well.

    It's happened several times where the most effective I've been is one on one when the ret of the group failed a save. But those moments are few and far between. More often we're outnumbered against one or more nasty opponents.

    In narrow confines we had a different problem. We could not easily stuff ourselves into a little tunnel and expect good things to come from it. After all with our damage nerfed due to not brining our full party to bear failing a save or getting knocked out was an inevitability (and math supports this inevitability no matter how high your saves and ac are). So we would have to fall back (made easier by having me their until I failed a save by rolling a 1. Which has happened.) to a better position where the above problem can still occur.

    There was nothing wrong with my build (though low rolling on my hp did not help), nor any problem on part of the group which I spent a good while discussing tactics and builds with, in the end they turned out competent and worked well. The problem was me.

    You see my poor paladin was tough but as the party's Rogue/cavalier put it "hit like a warm piece of lettuce". Worse, his reach and actual influence over the field was limited both by his speed (armor is heavy) and his damage (twf with sword and board and 18str) was not nearly enough. In short I was this rock where the enemy bounced off and around me and killed the rest of the group. Not very good for them is it?

    So, after some talk with the gm I made a few changes and in exchange for effectively 3 ac I got a bigger reach, leveraged my high dex into Combat Reflexes giving me more potential attacks per round than merely twf and overall just followed my own damn advice.

    And it's a pattern I've seen repeated both in games I've played in, games I've run, and even games I've just watched. The tower shield specialist dumping his door to two hand agaisnt enemies he can't hurt, the polearm or greatsword wielder dominating the encounter by dint of flat out ending it this round rather than 4 rounds later, the two weapon fighter getting frustrated by enemies that won't stand still long enough to take a full attack. Defense stops being about numbers (which fail inevitably by design) and become a game of risk vs. reward. Does the enemy want to risk going through my threat to get to me? Or the wizard? How high is the damage I'm doing compared to the damage they can take?

    In the end, yeah, wielding a shield lets you weather the assault of a huge multiattack scary thing. But the reach weapon lets me negate its multiple attacks and force it to act in the way I deem fit while taking few if any attacks if at all possible. I reduce 5% to 0% not by dint of high numbers but of better positioning. That I think is a point many people often miss in these discussions.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    strayshift wrote:
    Massive offense is the best defence if you are designing your character in isolation.

    Which is probably the WORST approach you can take in an essentially cooperative game.


    I don't know what thugs a lot is really talking about in pfs?

    My gunslinger and my summoner's eidolon both do a lot of damage, and it has saved the party many a time.

    People who have a shield and swing for 1d8+4, definitely do not though

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    One more item... if you play a Paladin in Wrath of the Righteous, you're going to have a strong incentive to go sword and board.

    Grand Lodge

    I don't think this thread was referring to PFS specifically. But I will say, MOST pfs builds are built for DPS, and you usually have plenty at the table. I have had 2 games where nearly everyone was a control caster of some kind. Its hilarious when the enemies are blinded, stunned, in pits and prone, and the party collectively is doing like 10d6 damage a round;) Having a heavy hitter in that situation is certainly better than the defense, since all the enemies are worthless anyway.

    That being said, the defense game is hard to win. I actually have a few defensive builds that work quite well, but it takes much more rule mastery and optimizing to make them work. And a lot of money has to be thrown into defense. By level 10 or so, if you aren't rocking 33+ AC, your badly loosing the AC game, and I won't go the defense route unless I can reasonably get to 35+ by level 10.

    I agree, killing is better defense than AC in PF, most of the time.


    Worldbuilder wrote:
    I don't think this thread was referring to PFS specifically.

    While the title did not state it, it was.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Well in PFS you simply cannot prepare for everything. But a sword and board is going to be prepared for more things more often. Pallys are feat-starved but that one feat (EWP: Bastard Sword) goes a long away for playing a switch-hitter.

    Like many others here I've been in DPS heavy table that couldn't find the elephant in the room, much less identify the elephant...or speak any language other than common. I've also been in PFS groups that aced every skill challenge...and couldn't out DPS a baddie cleric in melee with a weapon she's wasn't even proficient with.

    In the face of that...I'd pick which build is more fun for *YOU*. :)

    Yes I know a sword and board has a bigger tool-kit. But a 2-hander (for me) is just more fun.


    Rerednaw wrote:

    Well in PFS you simply cannot prepare for everything. But a sword and board is going to be prepared for more things more often. Pallys are feat-starved but that one feat (EWP: Bastard Sword) goes a long away for playing a switch-hitter.

    Like many others here I've been in DPS heavy table that couldn't find the elephant in the room, much less identify the elephant...or speak any language other than common. I've also been in PFS groups that aced every skill challenge...and couldn't out DPS a baddie cleric in melee with a weapon she's wasn't even proficient with.

    In the face of that...I'd pick which build is more fun for *YOU*. :)

    Yes I know a sword and board has a bigger tool-kit. But a 2-hander (for me) is just more fun.

    I disagree, EWP can be mitigated in various ways, if raising that damage die is really so important, one of these should work just fine. There's also the Impact Weapon Ability that can raise the damage die on a regular weapon.

    You can also pick up a Sunblade, for the same damage die without wasting the feat.


    All good comments. But in the end, What Do You want to play as a character. If you go full defensive, will that bore you? Do you like going for high DPR, etc.

    A build fully relies on the player liking the build style.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Rerednaw wrote:

    Well in PFS you simply cannot prepare for everything. But a sword and board is going to be prepared for more things more often. Pallys are feat-starved but that one feat (EWP: Bastard Sword) goes a long away for playing a switch-hitter.

    Like many others here I've been in DPS heavy table that couldn't find the elephant in the room, much less identify the elephant...or speak any language other than common. I've also been in PFS groups that aced every skill challenge...and couldn't out DPS a baddie cleric in melee with a weapon she's wasn't even proficient with.

    In the face of that...I'd pick which build is more fun for *YOU*. :)

    Yes I know a sword and board has a bigger tool-kit. But a 2-hander (for me) is just more fun.

    I disagree, EWP can be mitigated in various ways, if raising that damage die is really so important, one of these should work just fine. There's also the Impact Weapon Ability that can raise the damage die on a regular weapon.

    You can also pick up a Sunblade, for the same damage die without wasting the feat.

    Um...PFS right? :)

    10,000 (rock) or 50,335 gp (sun blade) or 18,000 gp (min cost for Impact) solutions are nice...but I don't think he can start with those or expect them to be available sooner than the 1st level feat.

    Which is why I suggested if he wants the best of both worlds (S&B and 2-H) spend the feat (even in a feat starved class, 1 isn't too much of a tax) to enable both. He can opt to retrain out later if necessary if he decides one is more fun than the other.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rerednaw wrote:
    Which is why I suggested if he wants the best of both worlds (S&B and 2-H) spend the feat (even in a feat starved class, 1 isn't too much of a tax) to enable both. He can opt to retrain out later if necessary if he decides one is more fun than the other.

    Why Spend a feat for an increase of 1 point of damage per swing? Just use a longsword. You can use it in 2hands if you want the 1.5 STR bonus.


    LazarX wrote:
    strayshift wrote:
    Massive offense is the best defence if you are designing your character in isolation.
    Which is probably the WORST approach you can take in an essentially cooperative game.

    And that is why I emphasise co-operation and context in 90% of my posts...


    Take 'Fey Touched' and two hand a big weapon. You now have a bazillion hp.

    I built a Sword and (defensive) board pally (see the avatar) for Cot AP.
    The shield stays stowed in my pack now. My LOH is soo good I don't bother with the shield.

    Shadow Lodge

    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Sir Thugsalot wrote:
    TarkXT wrote:
    Speaking from experience. Playing a sword and board pally actively harmed my group and nearly got us killed on a couple of occasions.

    How so?

    My most effective melee ever was a halfling paladin multiclass (two levels of rogue). He finessed a rapier in celestial armor & buckler, and held back huge, drooling multiattack monsters while the rest of the party shivered in puddles of their own urine.

    It's simple, when an enemy is impossible to hit, and you still need to reduce the enemies numbers you start attacking an enemy that you can hit because otherwise you are just mindlessly waiting to die.

    Bad Guy tactics 101.

    This isn't WOW, there is no aggro feature that makes enemies automatically attack whoever is on the front line.

    So, after flailing impotently for several rounds (because how else are they going to know I'm "impossible to hit" without trying to first?), they forfeit their full attack to run past me, eating AoOs, to go after a squishy....

    I'm ready for that. (And having a full load of hitponts due to not being hit makes it work beautifully.)

    Dark Archive

    Where Sword and Board CAN be better is if you make an Oath of Vengence Pally. Here you expect to be smiting a LOT; and when smiting, you are going to get more "bang for your buck" by wielding two weapons.

    The issue with the build is SEVERE mad; you need a solid dex, str, and chr (Dex has to be at least 15, and you'll have to use items to get it to a 17 quickly). Also, you'll need improved shield bash AND two-weapon fighting before you really start, so this is a build that is pretty mediocre until level 4.

    Having said that, here is the build-out.

    Angelic Aasimar (+Str +Chr) Oath of Vengence Paladin 5

    Str: 16 (18 with item)
    Int: 7
    Wis: 7
    Dex: 15
    Con: 12
    Chr: 18 (17+ level-up) (20 with item)

    1) Improved Shield Bash
    3) Two-Weapon Fighting
    5) Double-Slice

    Smites as often as evil exists (it's how he rolls).

    When smiting, he hits like a brick with both attacks. Without he is weaker (2d6+12 vs d8+4/d6+4 @ same to hit yields a difference of 3 damage... with it they become 2d6+17 vs d8+9/d6+9, giving him a 2 point advantage).

    Probably wears Full plate despite not getting AC advantage from it (looks iconic, cheapest way to AC). With no magic towards AC that and his shield put him @ 22 (probably 23 with a trait), and it will scale up nicely when he needs it to.

    It scales insanely well if you go to high levels... @ level 11 he'll crush his two-handed weapon friend, because his shield will be +5 (he gets to use the enhancement bonus to both AC and damage thanks to Shield Master feat), the two-weapon fighting style yields much more extra damage from smites, and his AC will be 7 higher (again thanks to being able to have a +5 shield).

    Dark Archive

    The paladin I use goes with a light shield and longsword. Use a throwing shield from the Adventurer's Armoury so that you can go two-handed quickly, and rely on smite for heavy damage when using the shield. It's worked so far.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I know we're talking between sword and board and two hander, but the most effective paladin I've ever seen is a halfling paladin with a lance riding a raptor. Second to that is a Paladin running golfbags (three one handed weapons of different damage types and all of them as d8s) with a steel shield.

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / 2handed vs Sword and Board for Pally All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.