Beamdog Forums - Paladin: 2hander vs Weapon and Shield (2024)

Given equal enhancements, 2H swords only deal 2 more damage average (1 from 1D10 vs 1D8 average, and 1 from 1 point in 2H style) over Long Swords. If we factor in the increased crit range then that's a ~10% boost in damage if you hit on an 11 or better. If you hit on a 2 or better then it's a ~5% boost in damage.

Long Swords are everywhere in this game.

Also Quarterstaves are blunt weapons.

Finally, Paladins can only put 2 pips in a weapon max, gain them at the rate Fighters gain them (level wise) so proficiencies will certainly not be a reason for them to stick to one weapon.

Zyzzogeton said:

Also Quarterstaves are blunt weapons.

Exacting righteous fury with...a quarterstaff? Please. Only tree-huggers use those for any righteous fury (of nature), and the paladin is no tree-hugger.

elminster said:

I'd probably stick with using a sword (or whatever weapon) along with a shield compared to a two-handed weapon.

Yeah, I see reason with this. I'm thinking Long Swords, Bastard Swords, and Maces.

GamingFreak said:

Zyzzogeton said:

Also Quarterstaves are blunt weapons.

Exacting righteous fury with...a quarterstaff? Please. Only tree-huggers use those for any righteous fury (of nature), and the paladin is no tree-hugger.

elminster said:

I'd probably stick with using a sword (or whatever weapon) along with a shield compared to a two-handed weapon.

Yeah, I see reason with this. I'm thinking Long Swords, Bastard Swords, and Maces.

My paladin wields a staff. We call it the Holy Bludgeoner.

I usually start a paladin with two points in longsword and two points in a one-handed blunt weapon. I run them with a shield and swap weapons based on enemy type, biased towards the longsword. Useful early on for the Vale of Shadows and all the skeletons.

Mostly, like Zyzzogeton said, the fact that you can only get to proficient with a paladin, but get points every three levels, means that you really don't need to worry about it that much. Pick whatever. In six levels you'll be picking something else anyway.

Also: Hand of the Gloomfrost can kind of screw your party over with the suffocation thing. Unlike the other Gloomfrost weapons, that's an area of effect bonus that effects everyone on the area, including your folks. I'd probably rather have any other potential weapon there.

Why not dual wielding? Early Bastard Sword of Action +1 gets a high number of attacks (4 at level 7) and isn't exactly coveted by others.

I'd probably recommend main handing axes as there's some very nice axes and again, not overly coveted by other classes. Plus you have a ranged weapon thrown in for free (heh, thrown in, get it?).

A bludgeoning weapon is always a good idea too ...

Best weapons of the game are 2 handed: Holy avenger, ravager, silver sword, unholy avenger (the one for blackguards), soul reaver, staff of the ram among others.

So, late game, 2 handed is best than anything 1 handed can bring (i would make exception for blackrazor and Axe of the Unyielding with upgrade that are in the same level).

Sum to this fact that, in Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal moment, that AC is a bit irrelevant and shields in this game doesn't provide much bonus besides the AC itself (except shield of balduran specifically to fight beholders), follow this with the fact that sword and shield proficience is useless (only raise ranged AC with an shield), and finish by knowing that 1 single point in 2 handed weapons make critical hits with an 19+ roll (excelent for classes with low thac0 progression that goes melee) and for me the answer is easly to reach:

2 Handed sword by far is better than sword and shield.

However, if the discussion is between 2 weapons style vs 2 handed weapon style, then i will have my doubts.

Wowo said:

Why not dual wielding? Early Bastard Sword of Action +1 gets a high number of attacks (4 at level 7) and isn't exactly coveted by others.

I'd probably recommend main handing axes as there's some very nice axes and again, not overly coveted by other classes. Plus you have a ranged weapon thrown in for free (heh, thrown in, get it?).

A bludgeoning weapon is always a good idea too ...

Because Rangers. If I want to dual-wield using a class that levels slower than a fighter and can only specialize, I might as well pick rangers for the free 2 pips in Two Weapon fighting.

@Kamuizin and yeah, this is a strict IWD related question. I know Carsomyr with Greater Whirlwind is really good, lol.

Oops edited my original post away.

TLDR

Paladins get enough pips for 2 weapon specializations and 3 in TWS

Zyzzogeton said:

If I want to dual-wield using a class that levels slower than a fighter

This makes no sense at all.

By Level 9, which is only 50k XP more than a Fighter, a Paladin would already have 3 pips in TWS, and 2 pips in a blunt weapon and another weapon. That's still long before high end magical weapons with bonuses that actually really matter become available even on Core difficulty.

Agreed. You don't even need the third pip in TWF'ing as it provides half the benefit of the other two pips if taken at first level and much, much less once you get additional mainhand attacks (eventually it might become +2 attack with 20% of your attacks on the weapon that contributes the least damage).

In terms of melee prowess rangers don't stand a chance once paladins pull out the big guns with DUHM.

Pale Justice and Longsword of Action +4 seems an obvious combination, no?

Okay let's be frank. Dual Wielding Paladins? No dice for me. Not just as simple "this makes no sense" deal, but also the fact that role-play wise... how many paladins do you know that dual-wield?

Rogues? Sure, two short and small weapons. Fighters? Of course, they're weapon masters, handle anything. Rangers? They're practically *known* for dual-wielding (or archery). Paladins? yyyyyeaaa-no.

Besides this was a question/discussion about TWO-HANDING vs WEAPON AND SHIELD. Not Two-weapon fighting. So *ahem* thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

GamingFreak said:

Okay let's be frank. Dual Wielding Paladins? No dice for me. Not just as simple "this makes no sense" deal, but also the fact that role-play wise... how many paladins do you know that dual-wield?

Rogues? Sure, two short and small weapons. Fighters? Of course, they're weapon masters, handle anything. Rangers? They're practically *known* for dual-wielding (or archery). Paladins? yyyyyeaaa-no.

Besides this was a question/discussion about TWO-HANDING vs WEAPON AND SHIELD. Not Two-weapon fighting. So *ahem* thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

Paladins are martial warriors and can be just as effective at TWF'ing as any ranger or barbarian.

In fact it's kind of needed if you care at all about a characters capacity to kill things.

Before you pull out your crucifix and try to burn me with righteous fire as a dirty power game consider the following:

The actual damage per hit is pretty similar regardless of the weapon choice. Generally speaking the per hit damage is about 5 to 10% better.

However, the most attacks per round that a paladin will get with a single weapon is 2.5 (at level 13) which will increase to 3 with haste or 5 with improved haste.

In contrast, by level 7 a paladin can have 4 attacks per round if you give the paladin either of the fast weapons available in dragons eye. These numbers increase to 5 with haste, 8 with improved haste and this is all before you even hit level 13 (where you get an extra half an attack).

So, which do you prefer? 9 attacks or 5 attacks? 5 attacks or 3 attacks?

GamingFreak said:

SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH.... Last sentence. Read again. PLEASE.

The answer is that in IWD they are both equally terrible.

I'm sure you can figure out yourself that sword and board is more thematic for a paladin so go with that.

Personally I'd save it for BG2 where carsomyr is all the rage.

"equally terrible". Let me tell you something: 5 attacks is nice. No contesting that. More attacks? Good thing. 2 attacks more on a paladin who does roughly 20-40 more damage with this ever popular 2-weapon fighting ability? Nowhere near as good as a barbarian or fighter of the same level; hell I would even say here and now that the damage is *NEGLIGIBLE* when playing with a 4-6 man group where at least 2 others are with you in melee. If I was running a party with a Stalker, who could backstab, I'd have them dual-wield. If I was using a Fighter? Sure, why not dual-wield; hell they can grand-master, that's awesome!

Barbarians? Hey they don't need dumb shields anyway, and they can just charge in with their buffed up strength (which by the way is gonna be more reliable with more uses than a paladin with limited castings of DUHM, *AND* this assumes they can actually cast it in the case of an Inquisitor, especially true if the Barbarian is a half-orc which unfortunately you can't have Half-Orc Paladins in this game legit).

Now let's get to business with the rest. Longsword of Action +4 is a nice blade you can use on your off-hand. It's also a +4 weapon with a decent enchantment that you can use on your main-hand with a shield with special benefits! Now there's a perfectly good argument to reason with as to why two-weapon fighting is gradually considered better for this, or just in general, but let me say 2 more things:

1) I hate hate hate hate HATE how stupid squabbles in BG (and now this game too) factored with stupid APR arguments. Every time APR is brought up it's a really stupid power-gaming argument that has no point whatsoever. And now it made it into this perfectly honest discussion, which leads to #2:

2) I mentioned *TWICE* how the discussion was about not dual-wielding paladins, and rather about 2-handed weapons (greatsword/greataxe) vs playing a weapon + shield on a paladin. I didn't want this dumb argument.

Hell why even play a paladin? We want that awesome team of kick-ass dual-wielding guys, let's just make a whole team of multi-classes! Hell, I don't even need that. Two Fighter/Mage/Clerics and one Fighter/Mage/Thief! Let's do it! POWER GAMING ACTIVAAATE...

You asked for the best all the while discussing gameplay mechanics, then you made statements about gameplay mechanics regarding Paladins, Rangers and Two Weapon Style.

The you went on a spiel about classes and Two Weapon Style, all involving gameplay mechanics.

If you wanted "which is better in a roleplaying/thematic sense" discussion, then why not just say it from the beginning. Because weapons don't matter if all you care about is roleplaying, nearly every weapon class is well represented in the game. The differences being a extra point or two of damage per attack which, if you don't care about APR, shouldn't concern you.

What's the topic title say? That's all I have to say in regards to that. And besides that, I mentioned which one would be suitable for my new paladin that I was creating. Right there, right at the end of the post. This was not geared to be a debate of 'best set-up'. Never was.

Anyway, thanks for people who said their two cents, but the topic is gonna be closed before I get a massive head-ache.

EDIT: And I don't know if I actually *CAN* close the discussion. Crap.

This was not geared to be a debate of 'best set-up'. Never was.

I can't wrap my head around which is better for a Paladin

Fairly obvious you were going for the best between the two.

That's all I have to say in regards to that.

And yet you went on about how Rangers get 2 pips in TWS. If you didn't want TWS because you didn't want a dual wielding Paladin because it doesn't fit your image of a Paladin then why not say onlythat? Why turn it into a gameplay mechanics discussion about Rangers and Paladins and TWS and XP?

Why even involve other classes by talking about Fighters and Grandmastery and how them dealing more damage makes them good with TWS (which, by the way makes very little sense to bring up unless for some reason there's a an extremely limited amount of weapons for both the Fighter and Paladin to dual wield)

"Which is better" clearly meant out of the two that I listed, both in that same post and in the topic title. Where did it say "Dual-Wield"?

As for preferring rangers or fighters for dual-wielding? Why not? Rangers can specialize in more for free than a paladin can, making them quite more versatile warriors. Because of this they can actively switch their roles more often than a paladin.

Also want to point out that dual-wielding paladins outside of the BG series and IWD in regards to D&D are rather unfocused and incompetent without multi-classing due to having to juggle not one, not two, but 4 freaking stats to maintain some silly notion of two weapons and extra attacks on top of their Wisdom and Charisma. That's why I said it doesn't make any sense on paper QUITE LITERALLY.

Now I'm done arguing this.

"Which is better" clearly meant out of the two that I listed, both in that same post and in the topic title.

Which given that you immediately went into gameplay mechanics makes it a power gaming question. Albeit limited to those two options.

Where did it say "Dual-Wield"?

Nowhere, but the moment someone brought up dual wielding your replied with some nonsensical gameplay mechanics as your justification not to want dual wielding Paladins. If you didn't want dual wielding Paladins, how hard would it be to just say "I don't want dual wielding Paladins" only instead of bringing up XP Levels and Rangers?

Sure the person shouldn't have brought up TWS. But if you didn't want the discussion to be about gameplay mechanics of TWS, then don't talk about it yourself.

in regards to D&D

Except we're talking about IWD.

If you're talking about game mechanics, it doesn't matter one bit how things are in D&D if it doesn't apply to IWD. If you wanted to factor in D&D mechanics, fine, but you should have at least stated that.

macomeau said:

Also: Hand of the Gloomfrost can kind of screw your party over with the suffocation thing. Unlike the other Gloomfrost weapons, that's an area of effect bonus that effects everyone on the area, including your folks. I'd probably rather have any other potential weapon there.

That sounds like a bug. It never did something of sorts in the original game.

GamingFreak said:

"equally terrible". Let me tell you something: 5 attacks is nice. No contesting that. More attacks? Good thing. 2 attacks more on a paladin who does roughly 20-40 more damage with this ever popular 2-weapon fighting ability? Nowhere near as good as a barbarian or fighter of the same level; hell I would even say here and now that the damage is *NEGLIGIBLE* when playing with a 4-6 man group where at least 2 others are with you in melee. If I was running a party with a Stalker, who could backstab, I'd have them dual-wield. If I was using a Fighter? Sure, why not dual-wield; hell they can grand-master, that's awesome!

Barbarians? Hey they don't need dumb shields anyway, and they can just charge in with their buffed up strength (which by the way is gonna be more reliable with more uses than a paladin with limited castings of DUHM, *AND* this assumes they can actually cast it in the case of an Inquisitor, especially true if the Barbarian is a half-orc which unfortunately you can't have Half-Orc Paladins in this game legit).

Now let's get to business with the rest. Longsword of Action +4 is a nice blade you can use on your off-hand. It's also a +4 weapon with a decent enchantment that you can use on your main-hand with a shield with special benefits! Now there's a perfectly good argument to reason with as to why two-weapon fighting is gradually considered better for this, or just in general, but let me say 2 more things:

1) I hate hate hate hate HATE how stupid squabbles in BG (and now this game too) factored with stupid APR arguments. Every time APR is brought up it's a really stupid power-gaming argument that has no point whatsoever. And now it made it into this perfectly honest discussion, which leads to #2:

2) I mentioned *TWICE* how the discussion was about not dual-wielding paladins, and rather about 2-handed weapons (greatsword/greataxe) vs playing a weapon + shield on a paladin. I didn't want this dumb argument.

Hell why even play a paladin? We want that awesome team of kick-ass dual-wielding guys, let's just make a whole team of multi-classes! Hell, I don't even need that. Two Fighter/Mage/Clerics and one Fighter/Mage/Thief! Let's do it! POWER GAMING ACTIVAAATE...

See this is the reason that I wanted to provide you with the facts in the first place. You're clearly uninformed.

Paladin will have better damage output than ranger or barbarian while dual wielding with either of the 3 kits (discounting inquisitor) in many situations once a few spell slots are gained and it's not 1 or 2 extra attacks it's up to 4 additional attacks (which, under DUHM, is at least an extra 100 damage/round probably).

And being that paladin is the only pure warrior class that can get to 25 strength you can actually be a better damage dealer than a pure fighter (non kensai - though in some situations even that would be close) if you equalise the APR discrepancy via the ring.

There's a reason that a blackguard made an appearance in a power gamers recent level 1 HoF run.

The topic is closed at the request of the OP.

Everyone, please, try to stay on topic generally, so that in the future we won't have such thread-derailing as it happened here.