What is the ideal weapon for a paladin to wield, and why is it NOT longsword & shield?
>muh "depends on da setting lol ebin meme"
Forgotten Realms or your setting of choice.
Well, if you're on a horse like a holy knight probably should be you probably ought to be using a lance first and foremost, and if you're in full plate and that makes you sooper tuff like it did historically then you probably ought to use a two handed sword or warhammer or something, but if neither is the case then a shield and arming sword seems a pretty solid choice.
>muh "depends on da setting lol ebin meme"
Nah, this depends on the SYSTEM.
In 3.x, a polearm is better for its reach. AC isn't as important in an edition where the really dangerous shit is all based on saves.
Depends what sort of paladin you're going for. A vengeful one all about smiting and little else would use a warhammer or a giant mace of some sort to crush evil wherever he can. One more oriented towards defending peers might use a giant tower shield or something. I guess.
Polearms are pretty shitty if you're not in a formation and Paladins would be meant to be lone crusaders. Even as a party, they won't be exactly forming an effective combat formation for polearms.
Shields are an excellent choice for a fighter who likes to survive. You want to have something to protect you from enemy blades, arrows, flame breaths, acid sprays and so on.
Longswords are a great choice for an adventurer too, considering that swords are excellent for parrying, parrying is good to stay alive and staying alive tends to be close to top in most adventurers' agendas. Dual-edged swords with a good pointy tip for thrusting are even better.
Of course, if you're going to fight big scary monsters, lances (or at least spears with really big, thick heads) are a great option too, but only if you can use them togheter with the shield - having a little more range with a thrusting weapon is great when you're facing opponents with a long melee range and paws so big they can tear you and your armor apart.
Axes are good too for such occasions, since hacking with an axe will probably do some slightly more serious wounds to a large monster than just swords or spears.
If your setting has skeletons or other stuff that is hard to kill with slashing or piercing weapons, you'll better pack a small mace or warhammer too, but just as a side weapon.
Oh, and a shortbow to hunt when you're in the wilderness and to not be completely useless in those fights where you can't get your hands on the opponent - because they're flying or some other stuff.
This is how my paladin was set up. Had javelins for ranged attackers and a magic mace and spell shield for melee. The mace itself was a customized +2 masterwork that gave an extra d4 when smiting and had the face of my paladin's deity covering the head, shit was pretty sweet.
>Cheap, simple, easy to maintain
>Can penetrate any body armour with a decent blow
>Unlikely to get stuck in armour
>A non-penetrating hit is still likely to inflict crippling injuries (broken bones, crushed skull, internal bleeding)
A paladin's go-to should always be the mace. A sword or spear are explicitly weapons. A mace can also help build the shelter, the soup kitchen, and the church. It's foremost a tool, that happens to have use as a weapon, like a paladin should be.
>Polearms are pretty shitty if you're not in a formation
oh boy here we go
OP, it really does depend on the rules of the setting. In most D&D settings it's going to be sword and shield or mace and shield. In Warhammer Fantasy it's going to be a giant two handed hammer or two handed sword. In the Tattered Realms it's whatever is good against the armor of the guy you're fighting. Charlemagne's Paladins are going to have really fucking important swords used with a shield.
Well, my pally in GURPS had sword and shield, and it was pretty good. I had two attacks in round (Telegrafic Dual-Weapon Attack with shield and sword; later I did buy it up as technique), and enjoyed my buffed up defences (shield is good in GURPS). Later I bought Weapon Master and never regretted my choice of arms. Swords have cutting and impaling damage; shields bring crushing when you need it; also, it's hard to parry shield strike.
It's dumb to make blanket statements about any kind of weapon, especially with a bunch of arms and armor autists on the board. Pollaxes, which is a tremendous category covering axes, hammers, and spikes, are short and nimble weapons used in single combat as well as larger battles. Extremely knightly and paladin like (See pic).
WARHAMMER. ALL DAY. EVERY DAY. FINAL DESTINATION.
THIS IS HOW YOU SMITE THE EVIL, BOY!
Since you'll want to be smashing skellies and slashing zombies, there should be a weapon that does both. Maybe a hammer on one side and an axe on the other. Why don't fantasy settings have weapons that would be useful in their world but not ours?
Alright, if you take polearms by the broadest meaning and include battle axes and warhammers and such things, I'll admit, they can be pretty good weapons for one-on-one combat too.
But usually that term is used to refer to halberds, pikes and other such weapons, and those aren't exactly good weapons for adventuring.
A Goddamn Shotgun, what the hell do you think? If modern weapons are available I am going to smite evil with what is versatile and effective. In a medieval setting, yeah I'll have a crossbow for a ranged option and then the arguments about melee choice can happen. But you just can't beat a boomstick against deadites.
*Someone* clearly needed to get into their armor in a hurry.
And one for YOU.
What am i doing with my life?
The obvious upgrade, Bastard Sword + Shield
>sword'n'board for when you need an AC boost
>two-handed for when bitches must be smote
>bonus points for a weaponized shield you can throw as an opener pre-smote
>we captain america now
You have to burn a feat to use it properly, though (maybe two or three for the shieldnanigans, idk) :\
Sword and Shield are an ideal multi-tool for almost any situation that a Paladin would find himself in.
Certainly he might have a flanged mace or something to beat up the rich Plate-wearing nobles, or perhaps he prefers to simple half-sword and trip his opponents before pushing the tip of his blade through an eye socket or the back of the knee, or perhaps he's fine simply gripping the sword by the blade and hammering in the opponent's face plate.
If he was on horseback he might fancy himself a spear, or a saber but even when lacking a curved blade the Longsword is just as deadly on horseback.
If he were a Soldier I would expect him to have a Polearm, a Sword and a Dagger, maybe an axe-tool of some sort.
I feel a Paladin is mostly a political figure and he while he may see combat he's certainly not leading the frontlines, and when he is he probably has his own Paladin War-Kit for that. Or maybe the Holy Sword of Pelor because God's don't usually make Lucerne Hammers of Divine might.
Personally OP, I think you're just demented because you assume that a Paladin is some Final Fantasy character and every class gets one weapon type and only that weapon type.
In terms if reality: a warrior living in a society that values war as the lifeblood of the state is trained in multiple weapons. A warrior skilled in the use of a single weapon is about as versatile as a painter who has only a single color of paint.
> Shields are an excellent choice for a fighter who likes to survive.
Ehhh. That's what the plate armor is for. Shields don't help tha tmuch more. Better to have a two-handed weapon of some sort unless I'm jousting.
A proper longsword. Not a D&D longsword, which is actually an arming sword. Pic related.
Then, I'd have my squire have a flanged mace and shield as a backup in case I am fighting an opponent in plate armor.
I really think D&D Paladins should get a squire instead of a bonded mount. Like the Gallant kit in 2E.
An elite monster slaying warrior should at the very least be trained in the usage of the sword, the spear, every type of shield available, and mounted archery. A real operator would know how to use a mace and an axe too if need be, and have some experience in ambushing, tracking, and company command.
In the field, they should carry at least one knife, a sword, and whatever armor and weapons are useful on their current mission. For example, when hunting a dragon alone, they'll need a bow with magic arrows, or a ballista. Armor won't do them any good, except to make them easier to catch and eat, and it certainly won't help against engulfing flame. But if they're hunting orc, the more armor they have, the better, and they can't go wrong with a sharp sword and a strong horse.
It doesn't depend on the setting, but rather the circumstances. A paladin isn't worth the cost to feed him in your army or adventuring party if he's too stupid to tailor his loadout for the fight.
Not him, but I'd certainly say not. The damage of the longsword in 5e is still 1d8 (versatile 1d10), the same base damage as in 3.x. The greatsword is 2d6. It'd be more appropriate to have the arming sword be 1d8 (versatile 1d10) and have a new weapon profile for longsword be an intermediary with perhaps 1d10 (versatile 1d12) (yes, longswords could be used single-handedly).
1) Longswords, that is, actual longswords, and not the arming swords as they are depicted in most media, were primarily two-handed weapons, though they could be used in one hand.
2) proliferation of plate armor during and following the hundred year's war meant that shields were less and less common and necessary (swords also diverged much more quickly in this period, with heavier and heavier 'longswords' that required two hands and thinner sideswords and smallswords for more genial affairs).
That is, using sword and shield is quite an anachronistic choice when plate armor is common enough that it may show up on the opposing side of a pitched battle; the one-handed sword is mostly useless (you'll want a pick or a hammer), and the shield will not necessarily offer more protection (remember, the best protection is not being on the battlefield that day, the second best is killing your enemy first).
I am disappointed, /tg/.
>Carsomyr is a weapon of legend, perhaps one of the most powerful blades ever forged on Faerun, though its origin and history is thought purposefully forgotten, such that the sword itself never overshadow the importance of the struggles that must be fought today. It is infused with the very essence of virtue, and requires as much from any paladin that would hope to wield it. The evils of the Realms must truly stand aside when this weapon is brought to bear, their magic dispelled with a word, steadfastly resisted with ease. Carsomyr also harbors a special distaste for the forces of evil and chaos, and such creatures must fear additional damage from its touch in battle.
>Iconic, yes. Best? Not so much.
For an Forgotten Realms Setting, Longswords are pretty good for a Paladin, since it is an iconic weapon also means you find lots of magic longswords suited for Paladins in adventures.
nah mate Longswords could not be wielded in one hand, they might be able to be lifted with one hand but not wielded.
A longsword is a two handed weapon, if you don't believe me then try even running a simple drill with a long sword in one hand, let alone fighting with it.
Longsword is a pretty broad term, anon. It really just depends on the weight of the specific type of sword in question. Late Danish bastardswords, for example, could certainly be wielded with only one hand. And given that longswords are only 3lbs in 5e, that more or less seems to be what they're going for.
When people talk about polearms, generally they're talking about weapons that are taller than you are. That axe isn't really in the same category as say, a halberd or a 7ft spear.
Polearm is a broad term, most "axes" are polearms, as are polehammers and warpicks they are weapon on a pole. A pike isn't the only type of polearm, neither is a halberd which was actually used very little but I guess when people see a guisarme or bardiche they assume its a halberd or poleaxe.