Why does paladin seem like only use maces?

Story Forum
1 2 3 6 Next
Why does it seem like paladin only use 2 hand maces, the only one differed from this rule is ashbringer.
It's a fantasy convention adopted from the loose and old myth that holy men who went to war did not use edged or impaling weapons since those would make someone bleed more easily and were thus more violent.
Because hammers and maces are the best weapons for fighting guys in armour. Cause you can't cut armour, but you can crush it. And if you crush a guy's breastplate, he's gonna get owned by his ribcage.

Paladins are smart.
Alliance paladins prefer hammers. Blood knights prefer blades. Idk about sunwalkers
Because hammers and maces are the best weapons for fighting guys in armour. Cause you can't cut armour, but you can crush it. And if you crush a guy's breastplate, he's gonna get owned by his ribcage.

Paladins are smart.

Well, a heavy axe could smash armor.

I find that Pallys do prefer maces, Death Knights prefer swords, and Warriors favor axes.
Silver Hand Paladins used Warmauls in Warcraft III. It carried over.
Because hammers and maces are the best weapons for fighting guys in armour. Cause you can't cut armour, but you can crush it. And if you crush a guy's breastplate, he's gonna get owned by his ribcage.

Paladins are smart.

Well, a heavy axe could smash armor.

I find that Pallys do prefer maces, Death Knights prefer swords, and Warriors favor axes.


Well, that's true. But you need a pretty heavy axe. You can put some decent dents in armour plating with a one-handed mace however, so you'll still have the option of a shield.

Yeah, DKs prefer swords. Or in my case, I love Polearms.
armor back in middle age was costly to. about 5 years or more for good plate armor. I just don't get it. We have swords on our armor. The ult paladin weapon is sword, but the main image is paladin using hammers. Heck even crusader known to used swords also.
WC2 paladins used warhammers and shields; WC3 paladins used two-handed mauls.

In addition to being effective against armored opponents, bludgeoning weapons are ideal for use against the undead. A skeleton has no flesh to cut or organs to pierce; you have to smash its bones.
armor back in middle age was costly to. about 5 years or more for good plate armor. I just don't get it. We have swords on our armor. The ult paladin weapon is sword, but the main image is paladin using hammers. Heck even crusader known to used swords also.


Why can't they use more than one type of weapon?
Because 2hand Hammers are effective against a legion of Undead.

Just think about it, if you're being swarmed by an undead mob, and your sword happen to get stuck on some sniveling ghoul's ribcage, the time it takes you to remove your sword from the ghoul would be close to the time that abomination is gonna cut you down with that butcher knife.

Where as the Hammer, you can smash as many skeletal and ghoul skulls, dealing potentially more lethal damage, without all the repercussion of a sword! You can cut a ghoul, sure, but it won't kill it cuz it won't bleed. But if you crush it's arm, heh, say good bye to that swinging arm !!

So yeah, Paladins are the stalwart defender of the Light, and during the Third War, it totally make sense for holy warriors to fight using Hammers.
Weren't paladins created to fight demons and warlocks?
Weren't paladins created to fight demons and warlocks?

The Silver Hand was created to be the commanders/vanguard against the imminent Horde Threat in WC2.

So kinda?
Because hammers and maces are the best weapons for fighting guys in armour. Cause you can't cut armour, but you can crush it. And if you crush a guy's breastplate, he's gonna get owned by his ribcage.

Paladins are smart.


The realism argument is moot, because actually, no, you don't bludgeon people through armor. Maces have spikes or narrow flanges on them and a warhammer looks more like a tool hammer with a very long haft. These weapons pierce armor. What we have are... mallets, used to drive stakes into wood, stone and ground without damaging.

The reason swords are bad against armor isn't that they're edged, it's that the design lends itself to being deflected by reinforced armor if your aim is even a little bit off, which it frequently will be. A mace reduces the need for accuracy, while a warhammer will do considerably more damage with a strike.
I read an old fantasy book(I think it was a Forgotten Realms one?) when I was a kid that had a Paladin character.

At one point his peers put him in a tent and gave him a choice of several weapons. He chose a sword and felt empowered by it, because of how well he could parry, block, dodge, etc. He found it a lot more flexible than the warhammer's his order used.

Which is why he didn't understand why they never used swords.

So they had him go into a duel with this sword so he could find out himself. He then realized that he found himself so effective with the sword that the sword was almost a part of him, and in some ways, what defined him.

Thus, making him a slave to the sword.

So he put the sword down and only used a mace for the remainder of the book.

It was all pretty cheesy, but it's as good an explanation as any.
Actually you can bludgeon people through armor. It's the transfer of linear momentum.

As Fifira mentioned, edged weapons were more prone to glancing off the armor, and therefore they imparted very little of their momentum to the target.

Bludgeoning weapons were designed to impart the maximum amount of momentum to the target with the smallest point of contact possible while minimizing the chance of deflection. Thus true warhammers had heads that came to a smaller knob like the hammer you use on nails, and maces typically had flanges or spikes of some kind to concentrate force on a small area.

The goal was to break bones and pulverize internal organs. Cutting a person to pieces is more immediately lethal (blood loss), but was impractical due to heavy armor making cutting and piercing too difficult (the whole point of the armor).
Yeah, you are hurting them via bludgeoning, but it's not the way people usually think of it - the traditional WC Paladin Maces are mallets and are thus totally bad for being weapons, so I wanted to differentiate before anyone went around thinking that Paladins are combat geniuses by not using bladed weapons.

Armor Piercing weapons were a thing for a while, but the final era of plate armor WAS pretty impervious to everything, yeah.
Weren't paladins created to fight demons and warlocks?


Human paladins were created to fight the orcs, so kind of. Draenei paladins were created to kill demons. Blood Knights probably came around to help clean the Dead Scar. Not sure what Sunwalkers are supposed to kill.
Not sure what Sunwalkers are supposed to kill.


Everyone else, cause Tauren are awesome.

/tottallyunbiased
It's a fantasy convention adopted from the loose and old myth that holy men who went to war did not use edged or impaling weapons since those would make someone bleed more easily and were thus more violent.


This essentially.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum