Why does paladin seem like only use maces?

Story Forum
Prev 1 2 3 6 Next
Same reason why Leonardo from tmnt never cuts or kills anyone with his swords
Because at least a good proportion (if not nearly all) of the original Paladins were originally Priests, and Priests can't equip any kinds of swords or axes, but can wield one-handed maces. :P

But, in all likelihood? They probably did it for practicality's purpose. And the Ashbringer is considered the ultimate Paladin weapon more because it's, y'know, a font of holy energy so potent that it allowed its' original wielder to smite untold thousands of undead all by himself, not just because it's a blade.
Not sure what Sunwalkers are supposed to kill.


Pigs...
05/10/2013 04:43 PMPosted by Aeoden
Not sure what Sunwalkers are supposed to kill.


Pigs...


I don't think they're meant to kill orcs.
05/10/2013 11:41 AMPosted by Lena
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.



The Blood Elves were having a crisis of faith, and Kael'thas offered them M'uru to restore it in his own way.

By draining the Light, Blood Knights(former priests, remember) felt they had reduced the Light to a simple, logical magic source like the Arcane. Something they could use to their advantage without need for prayer or philosophy.

Their ranks also reflected this. They didn't have squires, the had Adepts.

It was also a boon to have the Blood Knights to get into the Horde. Thrall wanted them for obvious reasons, even though he doesn't like Blood Elves.

The Dead Scar was, is, and always has been handled by the Farstriders. That's their job.
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).


all that pluss a blunt heavy weapon is cheap to make. these are holy men, not rich men. they work with what they have and seem to have spent that on a good set of armor.

swords take a lot of time, energy, training, and money to make. spears/pikes/halberds less so. a heavy spike/hammer with a counter balance even less time/money/ect required to make.

break a sword and it takes weeks or even months to replace. break a spear and it takes a few days or a few weeks to replace depending on the condition of the head. break a war hammer or maul and it takes a few hours or days to replace. plus the maul works just as well on flesh as it does on steel.
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.


That's terrible reasoning.

Someone go ask Drizzt Do'Urden what he thinks of Blades Vs Maces.
That's terrible reasoning.


From a practical standpoint maybe, not from a spiritual one.

Someone go ask Drizzt Do'Urden what he thinks of Blades Vs Maces.


The hell does this have do do with anything?

Who cares what a character that gets to dues ex his way out of everything thinks? I can't believe they finally concluded his story.

I think the virtues of a mace in combat have already been adequately defended in this thread.
That's terrible reasoning.

Someone go ask Drizzt Do'Urden what he thinks of Blades Vs Maces.


Drizzt also has two enchanted blades, which is twice more than any normal person would have.
From a practical standpoint maybe, not from a spiritual one.


Even spiritually, it makes no sense. You're not "owned" by the type of weapon you wield, or how effective you are with it.

Drizzt also has two enchanted blades, which is twice more than any normal person would have.


In Warcraft?

Because practically every armament in this universe is enchanted in some way. It's why Rogues can be just as effective against armored opponents as a warrior wielding maces - The type of weapon is less important then the skill of the user or the power of the magic applied to it.
because in many cases people of faith tend to follow blindly to what others do so with paladins its probly just oh well uther was a good paladin and he used a mace we should to let it be written let it be done. amen anyone who doesn't agree is evil muahahaha lol
Because Uther, the first or at least most famous Paladin in human history, used a Hammer, and I guess Blizzard figured hammers fit the class better.

I certainly do
There could also be the practical standpoint that hammers, unlike swords, don't need constant maintenance that one might not be able to perform (I.E. sharpening) in order to remain effective. And whereas a sword's blade getting damaged would lessen or prevent its' performance, with a hammer, you really only need to worry about the shaft getting damaged, and even that would probably be prevented by any enchantments/protection cast on it, as well as the material used to make the shaft. Given that Paladins would've probably been on the battlefield for some time in the Second and Third Wars, it'd make sense to go with a weapon they could keep using even if it did have a few chips and cracks in it.
There could also be the practical standpoint that hammers, unlike swords, don't need constant maintenance that one might not be able to perform (I.E. sharpening) in order to remain effective. And whereas a sword's blade getting damaged would lessen or prevent its' performance, with a hammer, you really only need to worry about the shaft getting damaged, and even that would probably be prevented by any enchantments/protection cast on it, as well as the material used to make the shaft. Given that Paladins would've probably been on the battlefield for some time in the Second and Third Wars, it'd make sense to go with a weapon they could keep using even if it did have a few chips and cracks in it.


European knight swords didn't really get sharpened. They got occasionally beaten for maintenance. Sharpening makes a sharper edge, but it is extremely brittle, and you don't really need or benefit from extremely sharp when you've got a lot of force and you're swinging into armor or wood. Swords weren't terrific weapons, but it was mostly because they weren't good at any one thing; they were "decent" at everything. Maintenance would be mostly similar for all weapons.
That's terrible reasoning.

Someone go ask Drizzt Do'Urden what he thinks of Blades Vs Maces.


I've only read up to The Crystal Shard in his books, but isn't Drizzt known for having a wild, bloodthirsty side?

Kind of plays into the idea that his swords own him.



From a practical standpoint maybe, not from a spiritual one.


Maybe from a practical standpoint too, actually.

Swords have more options for finesse. They can do most of the things a warhammer can(except hook and bludgeon), but can be swung with greater accuracy and precision.

In fact, there are fencing historians today who make the claim that our western martial art of swordplay was every bit as nuanced and useful as the eastern martial arts. But because the east tied their martial arts in with spirituality, they had good reason to document their techniques over many generations.

We did not. Historians and fencing enthusiasts have a very difficult time trying to decipher our older texts that describe our martial arts style. The finer, more nuanced points of it are basically lost to history and the only way for historians to get those techniques back is by practising the sport of fencing in trial and error.



Even spiritually, it makes no sense. You're not "owned" by the type of weapon you wield, or how effective you are with it.


Tell that to Arthas. He was an ordained Paladin who put his faith in Frostmourne over the Light.



because in many cases people of faith tend to follow blindly to what others do so with paladins its probly just oh well uther was a good paladin and he used a mace we should to let it be written let it be done. amen anyone who doesn't agree is evil muahahaha lol


You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what faith actually is.



Because Uther, the first or at least most famous Paladin in human history, used a Hammer, and I guess Blizzard figured hammers fit the class better.

I certainly do


It's actually a Warhammer reference. Or I should say, yet another Warhammer reference.
05/11/2013 09:51 AMPosted by Draile
Swords have more options for finesse. They can do most of the things a warhammer can(except hook and bludgeon), but can be swung with greater accuracy and precision.


Swords were used to hook and bludgeon as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword#History
"Half-swording was a manner of using both hands, one on the hilt and one on the blade, to better control the weapon in thrusts and jabs. This versatility was unique, as multiple works hold that the longsword provided the foundations for learning a variety of other weapons including spears, staves, and polearms. Use of the longsword in attack was not limited only to use of the blade, however, as several Fechtbücher explain and depict use of the pommel and cross as offensive weapons. The cross has been shown to be used as a hook for tripping or knocking an opponent off balance. Some manuals even depict the cross as a hammer."
Okay, I'll concede that.

Still though, it sounds woefully dangerous to use a sword handle as a hook compared to a hammer's end.

Unless the actual technique is vastly different than what my mind is conjuring, that's just asking to be putting your hands too close to the enemy and leaving yourself too vulnerable.
Okay, I'll concede that.

Still though, it sounds woefully dangerous to use a sword handle as a hook compared to a hammer's end.


Swords weren't terrific weapons, but it was mostly because they weren't good at any one thing; they were "decent" at everything


There's a reason why swords were traditionally sidearms, rather than primary weapons, in armored combat around the world.
Okay, I'll concede that.

Still though, it sounds woefully dangerous to use a sword handle as a hook compared to a hammer's end.


Swords weren't terrific weapons, but it was mostly because they weren't good at any one thing; they were "decent" at everything


There's a reason why swords were traditionally sidearms, rather than primary weapons, in armored combat around the world.


But...but....but....Swordmasters in Fire Emblem!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAQPNlqj6rw

:(

Don't ruin the dream, Dwarf
Unless the actual technique is vastly different than what my mind is conjuring, that's just asking to be putting your hands too close to the enemy and leaving yourself too vulnerable.

There are two techniques (that come to mind) for using the sword handle or cross as a hook or bludgeon (for European long swords). The first is to catch the opposing weapon on a downward sweep using the cross and handle; it puts your hand in danger but you effectively disarm your opponent leaving them open to a strike by either your bare hand, shield, or off hand weapon. The second is to first parry your opponents strike, bringing it downward while at the same time bringing the handle and cross up; end result you hit your opponent in the face with enough momentum to break their nose at least.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum