>Swords are the hero's weapon because they take skill to make and are only useful as weapons, making them a symbol of nobility and wealth

>Swords are the hero's weapon because they take skill to make and are only useful as weapons, making them a symbol of nobility and wealth
All of that equally applies to maces, but I've never seen a main character wield one.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >a main character
    in pen and paper roleplaying game?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      obviously he means media, you fuckhead. pic related

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >we've reached the point where people get mad if you're not discussing videogames and movies instead of traditonal games
        What went so wrong?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Then why is the thread on the traditional games board and not the fucking boards for discussing media you dumb fucking masturbator?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because you're a newfag and don't understand /tg/. Lurk moar.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for the non-answer you stuttering fucking parrot.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              And the newfag fags new.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I was half-joking about the parrot line but look at you go!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Says the stereotypical newfag who is pretending to not be a newfag. Stick around long enough, and you'll learn how to read the IP tracker and how not to look like a newfag.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever my man, thanks for the (You)s!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Says the stereotypical newfag who is pretending to not be a newfag. Stick around long enough, and you'll learn how to read the IP tracker and how not to look like a newfag.

                God, you're both idiots

                >a main character
                in pen and paper roleplaying game?

                /tg/ likes to trawl fantasy literature for inspiration.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Them he should go to Ganker, you nogames sodomite.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mace thread? Mace Thread!

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > a symbol of nobility and wealth
    It also helps that swords are expensive as shit. If you owned a sword, you were at least fairly well off.
    Maybe not filthy stinking rich, but definitely not a peasant.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      WRONG!

      only "relitively expensive compared to the bare minimum of other weapons. And often peasents, especially in late medieval, even had them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because by that time steel was easy to make. Before, in the high middle ages it was expensive and laborious to make steel with just bloomeries.
        Not just that, but craftsmanship also played a big role into the sword cost. Shoddy swords were cheaper but badly sharpened, forged and balanced. It's why a messer falchion was cheaper, despite also having a lot of steel compared to a spear or axe.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Messers aren't machetes, which usually are just sheeth metal with an edge.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're right, it's because I forgot to delete the messer, since I changed it with falchion (notably cruder compared to the various -messers)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Falchions are usually either premiere italian artsy shit or no less complex than Messers. They come with distal taper and pretty complex geometries after all.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not only that but Falchions are incredibly thin with their tapering, their edges iirc get to the point of only being 0.5mm thick, which is why ones recovered from the ground will have their edges pitted to hell with holes all over as the oxidization eats clean through with ease. They are NOT cheap weapons. The confusion is that we call anything that's a dirty big looking cleaver a falchion, when such thin falchions are probably quite different from the bizarre blades we see in the hands of peasants (or some nobles) in manuscripts such as the Maciejowski Bible.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          roman army also used them as legion standard. seax's and other short swords were popular umong the lower classes in migration and earlier medieval as well.

          I think during most common "fantasy-esque" time periods, swords werent all that uncommon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Seax
            I suppose we should argue over if it's a sword or a knife but the difference seems academic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What about second hand swords?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >. If you owned a sword, you were at least fairly well off.
      >Maybe not filthy stinking rich, but definitely not a peasant.

      If you watched the same 5 HEMA channels as the rest of us you'd know two things
      >spear beats sword
      >basic swords were cheap as dirt by the mid-medieval period. Like a day's wages for a common soldier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >spear beats sword
        Close, but no.
        Spear beats sword in battlefield formation. Literally anything alongside a shield beats spear in loose formation skirmish.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          beats sword
          This is a popular myth spread by HEMA because
          a) HEMA assumes absolute lack of armor on top of by nature not being able to reliably judge stopping wounds and other wounds, meaning it's easier to kill someone in HEMA than in reality - and by kill I mean force him to reset the match and go back to spear favored distance.
          b) The few you see it's a mid sized longsword vs like a 2m+ spear. Let people use either a shield or a full size two hander.
          c) HEMA very rarely has any interest with spear so there isn't any ruleset for sparing spear vs spear or spear vs sword which means 99% who tried it did it during spars where you rarely fight at fully intensity and where you tap out on any touch even if during a tournament hit would be obviously no score or afterblow

          Romans absolutely had no bigger problems fighting mainly polearms and a lot of other sword designs of the ages. Sword and board and later two handed troops were also a thing in context where you didn't have to worry about cavalry.

          Spear beats sword in all circumstances. Shields don't help because they are strictly inferior to just wearing armor. There's a reason everybody stopped using them even before plate armor became a thing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Spear beats sword in all circumstances.
            Okay, so explain the gladius?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              A short sword of the Roman era.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And how many spear-using peoples were subjugated under the banner of the roman sword-users?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The romans could have fought with their cocks and still won. There was a lot more going on there than their weapon of choice.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Wow, sounds a lot like spear doesn't beat sword in all circumstances.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Strictly speaking, no. Sword and shield was generally better than spear and shield. The spear is just too big and with the shield to negate it's first hit the swordsman can just keep pushing back the spearman. This doesn't mean much on the dueling ring but in battle there are allies behind you.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You get stabbed in the uncovered place and die. Shields are irrelevant and only force you into using a shittier weapon. Just wear armor instead.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Most shields were big enough to cover nearly you're entire body. When used in combination with armor the user was essentially unkillable from the front. Most of the casualties were from the tail end of the battle when one side broke and ran.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Most shields were big enough to cover nearly you're entire body.
                No, not most. And there's a very good reason they stopped using that unwieldy shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >No, not most. And there's a very good reason they stopped using that unwieldy shit.
                The Hoplon and Scutum shields come to mind. Even into the Medieval period we saw Kite and Heater shields. It was only after full body plate armor was developed that smaller shields became popular.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Shields have been irrelevant for centuries before plate armor.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, we see large shields being used well into the high medieval period with the Pavise. It was only when the introduction of gunpowder made wood a liability did shields finally die off.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It was only when the introduction of gunpowder
                i know i'm being autistic but the Pasive didn't die off when gunpower started being, but when muskets actually started actually being accurate (accurate meaning that it would hit the target 1/5 times) and when it started to get decent range. Most early era gunpowder units were highly inaccurate, didn't work half the time, and you had to be within shouting distance to hit them since the muskets weren't powerful enough to sling them without basically standing in front of the person.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We actually know for a fact that the Crusaders used shields. The Knights Templar were famous for bearing the cross on large kite shields.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How do you survive whilst being this stupid? How have you not forgotten how to breathe yet?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're making generalizations about a span of history extending multiple thousands of years, it's patently absurd. Look at the Romans engaging Pyrrhus and his Epirotes. You had battles in which the Macedonian style phalanx got stick in face to face gridlock with Romans with swords and shields for twelve hours with no clear victor arising until the cavalry or elephants finally outflanked and routed one side--which is how the Romans eventually defeated the Epirotes, because at Pydna the phalanx was just not flexible enough to react to the more mobile manipular system.

            To me it's pretty clear that the entire discussion about the virtues of specific weapons is modern victorian neologism, you go back to the actual time period and you never hear about some Greek expounding the specific virtues of the sarissa over the hasta or anything like that, that's what nerds do NOW because nobody fights wars with swords and spears and axes anymore, so the entire subject exists in the realm of speculation where any idiot's opinion can be selectively supported by some autistic Spanish fencing treatise from the 16th century.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Spear beats sword in battlefield formation
          Spears/polearms become horrific outside of formations lol. If in formation warfare all you have to worry about are reach & spear-thrusts, outside of it you're gonna watch out for the wielder using the polearm as a fighting stave as well. Sweeps, cuts, parries are now available to the spearfag.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In most Asian martial arts circles there is a rule of thumb where you need to be 3 "ranks" higher than your opponent in order to over come a reach disadvantage. A barehanded/knife fighter needs 3 more ranks to reliably beat someone armed with a sword/axe/mace. Someone armed with a melee weapon needs 3 more ranks to beat someone with a spear or polearm.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        beats sword
        This is a popular myth spread by HEMA because
        a) HEMA assumes absolute lack of armor on top of by nature not being able to reliably judge stopping wounds and other wounds, meaning it's easier to kill someone in HEMA than in reality - and by kill I mean force him to reset the match and go back to spear favored distance.
        b) The few you see it's a mid sized longsword vs like a 2m+ spear. Let people use either a shield or a full size two hander.
        c) HEMA very rarely has any interest with spear so there isn't any ruleset for sparing spear vs spear or spear vs sword which means 99% who tried it did it during spars where you rarely fight at fully intensity and where you tap out on any touch even if during a tournament hit would be obviously no score or afterblow

        Romans absolutely had no bigger problems fighting mainly polearms and a lot of other sword designs of the ages. Sword and board and later two handed troops were also a thing in context where you didn't have to worry about cavalry.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There came a time when cheap swords were easy to come by -- in late medieval England a man could buy a cheap, mass-produced sword for as little as sixpence, though a better quality blade would set him back 1-2 shillings. In the same period a cow cost 12 pence and a horse from six shillings to £2, while a carpenter earned 3 pence a day and a mason 5 1/2 pence.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Swords are the hero's weapon because they're visually dramatic, versatile in terms of the actions that can be depicted with them, easy to stow in non-action scenes so they don't get in the way, and are more expensive to make, associating them with advantaged people.
    >equally apply to maces
    Can a mace perform a visually dramatic impalement or decapitation? No? Swords are better

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      agreed. Maces rely on strength, Swords take skill. The classic idea of the Sword fantasy is that even an untrained farm boy can pick up a sword for the first time and kill a monster because he's smart enough to figure out where to strike.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Maces rely on strength, Swords take skill
        Swords may have a higher skill ceiling, but maces absolutely take skill to use in combat effectively.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          not writing that off, i'm just talking in the loosest, most associative sense. Fantasy tropes and all that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Maces rely on strength, Swords take skill. The classic idea of the Sword fantasy is that even an untrained farm boy can pick up a sword for the first time and kill a monster because he's smart enough to figure out where to strike.
        Probably also why the Mace is used more as an enemy weapon; Brutes and Tyrants bludgeoning others into submission instead of leading with virtue.
        Scepters originally started as a type of mace, didn't they?

        >t. historylet
        Sceptres are descended from the mace, and maces are still in use as ceremonial weapons of office in some parts these days. Stephan Batory had one as the commander in chief of PLC and Zaporozhians.

        >Sceptres are descended from the mace
        Thought so!

        As for you, maces were mostly a symbol of office for members of the Clergy as well as Kings who were propped up by said religious entities

        >As for you, maces were mostly a symbol of office for members of the Clergy as well as Kings who were propped up by said religious entities
        So it's a good thing Macy uses one?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      /thread
      As usual the real problem is the mechanical reproduction of images.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I dunno, seeing somebody slam a motherfucker's head clean off with a mace would be pretty fucking dramatic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A mace is a refined version of Hulk Smash, which is a perfectly fine thing for the hero to do, but it's more fitting for a side character. A typical hero has dramatic battles, which means trading hits, a Hulk fight is either a slugfest, or one side sucking at whack-a-mole, and the other side trying not to die.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > slam a motherfucker's head clean off
        But that's the thing. If you're strong enough to tear the head from someone's shoulders then you're incredibly strong already and it's hard to put you on the backfoot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Can a mace perform a visually dramatic
        I mean, if you hit someone in the head with a mace like op's image the head is not gonna fly off, but it's gonna be pretty fucking brutal since it will cave the skull in, the head is gonna look like a deflated ball, about other visuals, if cape midia can make a guy fighting with two sticks look cool, then they can do the same with two maces

        Swords can be both a heavy, brutish weapon, or a fine, delicate finesse weapon, and everything in between. Swords are better.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not enough to justify the lack of MCs with maces, the same can be said about axes and yet there are many that use them, the disdain for maces is odd

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Axe is a cool weapon, you can lop off arms and heads with it. Vikings made it popular too. Maces, less so.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I wonder if maces have an untapped potential, at least hammers have had some characters using them, our imagination can only do it to a point, so maybe if maces became more popular and used we could change our views on it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Can a mace perform a visually dramatic
      I mean, if you hit someone in the head with a mace like op's image the head is not gonna fly off, but it's gonna be pretty fucking brutal since it will cave the skull in, the head is gonna look like a deflated ball, about other visuals, if cape midia can make a guy fighting with two sticks look cool, then they can do the same with two maces

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    thats a flange

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Still a Mace sperg.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obuch
    >In old Poland, wearing an obuch was so common (for nobles) that it spawned the saying: Bez karabeli ani z pościeli, bez obuszka ani od łóżka ("An obuch is to a sabre as bedding is to a bed"). It was a common secondary weapon to a Polish sabre (karabela).
    Anything can be a symbol of nobility, noble fashion is fickle and all it cares about is how easy it is to carry around.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I've never seen a main character wield one

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >main character
      >jobs in two timelines

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's fine, main characters get fucked all the time.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As for you, maces were mostly a symbol of office for members of the Clergy as well as Kings who were propped up by said religious entities

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >a symbol of nobility and wealth
    Dumb meme. In medieval Europe especially after wars you could get swords fucking everywhere. Every other peasant just had a sword stowed away in their house that they got from their grandfather who fought in a war or whatever.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >U-UH ACTUALLY MY FAVORITE MEDIEVAL WEAPON IS BETTER THAN SWORDS
    ok? then go play a character with that weapon.
    these threads are always no games as fuck and made by shadiversity autists to get retards arguing over which piece of steel is better in combat that doesn't apply to 99% of tabletop games

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not to mention that said sad people who get their information from youtubers think the type of weapon really means jack shit compared to the skill of the user or the fucking ground they're fighting on and what kind of shoes they have. Having distinct rules for most melee weapons is silly and only serves childish glee in thinking that the difference between a longsword, an estoc, or a messer means fuckall at the level of abstraction of a multi person melee and that your chest cavity really cares about what exact kind of metal object is lodged 30 centimeters through it.

      IMO, fighting styles and skill should matter more than the most generalized types of weapons classified mostly by reach or grip type, otherwise the differences between a mace, an arming sword, or a battle-axe is less meaningful than whether or not your shoes have texture or the ground isn't slick.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Which is hilarious since most weapon Youtubers, even total retards like Skalla and Shad, are pretty fucking adamant that the individual weapon is one of the the least important factors in combat.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You say that, and yet an untrained spearman can defeat a master swordsman 10/10 times.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Skall is but I've never seen that attitude from Shad, dude's an idiot that likes to 'rank' all of the things. Skall at least is an actual fencer, I don't think Shad even practices a fencing art.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The only combat art shad practices is fending off other people in line at the all you can eat buffet

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >shadiversity autists
      Have to disagree there, Shad decided the ideal fantasy adventurer weapon was a falchion.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Shad's a fucking moron then considering Falchions are fiendishly tapered blades on the edge thickness that makes them more liable to damage. But it's not like one would be surprised the Aussie mormon's an idiot.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Bring two. Dual wield if you want.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Aussie mormon
          Shad is an Australian Mormon?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's a mormon, even worked as a priest for a while. Learning he was a mormon completely explained why I find him insufferable and intolerable.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Swords you can do the thing where a character gets a minor cut that doesn't really get their way that can become a cool scar. Mace tends to be all or nothing.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    too grisly for broad audience appeal

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >are only useful as weapons
    I can use a sword to make a sandwich.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I can use a mace to drive tent pegs into the ground

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hercules.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >All of that equally applies to maces, but I've never seen a main character wield one.
    Yeah it really is expensive to cast a brass mold and slap it on the end of a stick.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ?t=192

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maces go WAY back man. The original main-characters were kings and the OG kingly weapon is the mace. Check out my main man Narmer here laying down the ancient law.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Okay, but what the fuck is that bird doing?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Brain out through the nose procedure. Has the hook and everything. The twinkie body shape is probably a crude version of burial wrappings depicted.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I've never seen a main character wield one
    How about Warcraft franchise? Now in fairness Lothar is kind of the hero of Warcraft 1 and he wields a sword. However, Teron Gorefiend has truncheon and he is the real badass of Warcraft 2. First Deathknight. Rode Deathwing personally to go rob Dalaran. Generally all around madman. By the time of Warcraft 3, Uther and Arthas both use hammers - basically the same thing. Honorable mention to the Mountain Kings who use a hammer+axe combo. Thrall uses a hammer and he's Orc Jesus. There are a bunch of other random bludgeoning characters like Chen Stormstout with his staff too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Or Warhammer, its inspiration. Sigmar uses the titular Warhammer as forged by the Dorfs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >warhammer
        >mace

        Anon have you considered apples are not oranges.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Swords are great weapons to keep on yourself in non-combat situations.
    Of all the medieval-ish weapons that you could wear when over civilian clothes, the sword has the most reach, defends the best, and engages multiple enemies the best.
    Heroes go around looking for trouble, but are also always ready to act without having to run and grab their weapon, that sort of mobilization is for soldiers, not heroes.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A mace is not a symbol of nobility or wealth, in fact blunt instruments in general are quite synonymous with the working class of society. Baseball bats, crowbars, wooden clubs, a lead pipe, or even just a simple fucking stick. You don't need to be trained how to wield a club, you just use your monkey instincts and bludgeon people to death with it.

    A proper sword is expensive and worn on the hip as a sign of prestige and status, nobody is impressed to see you walk around with an iron rod strapped to your waist

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Maces and clubs are different. Maces are expensive, usually all metal, and are specifically for hitting people with. A club can be anything. This is like a machete vs a sword. Despite being very similar, one's going to be a cheap poor man's weapon, the other's gonna be a rich(er) man's mostly ceremonial weapon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You need to think about what it's like to kill someone with a mace, vs. with a sword. Bludgeoning someone with a blunt object and disfiguring their face while the brains and blood spray everywhere is hardly evocative of a refined upper class nobleman. Compare that with stabbing someone in the chest with the tip of a long blade. Sure, it's still violence, but there's far more refinement to it. It's elegant and clean, only breaking into bloody violence in rare occasions. Longswords are primarily a piercing weapon after all. So you're not gonna get blood and brains spraying everywhere during a duel. Two men will cross blades trying to outwit each other, and then one will get stabbed, fall to his knees, and bleed to death. It's much more symbolic of upper class life in that sense, whereas a mace is much more brutal and barbarian.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >A mace is not a symbol of nobility or wealth

      >Esther 5:2 - "When the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, she obtained favor in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand. So Esther came near, and touched the top of the scepter."

      >Scorpion Mace of Protodynastic Egypt

      >Narmer Mace of Early Dynastic Egypt

      >Royal Figure with Mace (Babylonian repeated motif)

      >Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria

      >Smahshi-Adad V of Assyria

      >Protoallagatorial Matzoukas

      >Sergeant-at-Arms maces of France and England e.g. the Hedon Mace (Pic related)

      >Genesis 49:10 - "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of people be."

      >Valluvar (pre-Christian poet) - "It was not his spear but the sceptre which bound a king to his people"

      >Royal Sceptre of Tsar Boris III of Bulgaria (pic related)

      I guess what I am trying to say here is "Are you fucking high?"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lmao I had two "pic related" - I ended up going with Boris III's scepter but you can find the hedon mace online too.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A scepter is not a mace. the rest of your post can be pretty handily ignored from that. Unless you think harry potter swings around a mace when saying abracadabra
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sceptre

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You don't need to be trained how to wield a club, you just use your monkey instincts and bludgeon people to death with it.
      Exactly. Easy to learn. Hard to master.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Baseball bats, crowbars, wooden clubs, a lead pipe, or even just a simple fucking stick.
      All amazing weapons and personal favorites of mine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So you're saying they're a good weapon for a hero of the common man instead of a lickspittle for the corrupt wealthy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t. historylet
      Sceptres are descended from the mace, and maces are still in use as ceremonial weapons of office in some parts these days. Stephan Batory had one as the commander in chief of PLC and Zaporozhians.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure priests on Europe had to use maces and hammers as to not draw blood, which is why they are associated with clerics in dnd

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Common myth but one without merit. Maces were often spiked in order to draw blood and blunt force can tear the skin from the right angle. It's far more likely that priests used maces because they were easy to use. A sword needs training and practice to get good at. Bare minimum you need to learn to keep the edge lined up with the swing and being even passable means knowing how to parry, thrust, and sharpen a sword.

        A mace needs none of that. Just order one from the local blacksmith, grab a shield, and start swinging. Certainly, there were advanced techniques but you required almost no training for basic proficiency. For priests that spent all their time praying or administrating other priests this was perfect.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think you are confusing maces with cudgles, it was common for priests, monks, or anyone who was religious to carry a cudgel (basically anything wooden and heavy, usually 1 handed) or a shillelagh (a wooden walking stick/cane that had 1 end whittled into a ball or had a round stone lodge into it) because they wanted to defend themselves with out killing anyone.

          Almost always Maces were wielded by men-at-arms or knights and maces in general were expensive and were seen as an aggressive military weapon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That actually explains it better. Priests are associated with maces because they usually carried cudgals. I also expect that while on crusade many priests would just get an iron head for their cudgal to get a mace.

            >It was only when the introduction of gunpowder
            i know i'm being autistic but the Pasive didn't die off when gunpower started being, but when muskets actually started actually being accurate (accurate meaning that it would hit the target 1/5 times) and when it started to get decent range. Most early era gunpowder units were highly inaccurate, didn't work half the time, and you had to be within shouting distance to hit them since the muskets weren't powerful enough to sling them without basically standing in front of the person.

            Fair. I sometimes forget we had cannons for centuries before we had matchlocks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That actually explains it better. Priests are associated with maces because they usually carried cudgals. I also expect that while on crusade many priests would just get an iron head for their cudgal to get a mace.

            [...]
            Fair. I sometimes forget we had cannons for centuries before we had matchlocks.

            The dude's probably mixing shit up. Pilgrims generally carried a staff, but them and clerics would wear and use swords or knives, no problem. The whole mace thing is a total meme with no purchase on reality beyond that one picture of Odo. Actual clerics of his status would use whatever whenever they were required to horse up and fight for control of their property as they were born and raised members of nobility that recieved the expected training of their class anyway.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty sure the flanges were there to punch through plate armor. Even chain.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They're associated with clerics in D&D because Victorian brainlets couldn't wrap their heads around Bishop Odo participating in that big bash his family held in England.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Interesting point, anon. Since you definitely play games, you should post a photo or screenshot (if you play on a VTT) of your character sheet so we can all see it.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tolkien ruined maces when he made the weapons of evil (Witch King and Sauron both wield them). Ever since, they've been associated as weapons of cruelty and brutality, given they're designed to cave heads in. Very messy.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >never seen a main character wield one

    There are no main characters in RPGs.

    If you mean "important person in fiction or reality" then almost every king has a club as a symbol of office.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The strongest character is the main character in the RPG.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I wish this was true, but rpgs aren’t free of pecking orders. There’s no rules I’ve seen to govern the hierarchy of players or their shares of loot, attention, abilities, and decisions.
      Maybe being the boss bitch doesn’t make you the main character but your table won’t believe you.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The archetypical cleric wields mace and shield, though. Why are you being retarded on purpose?

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Swords have the symbolic authority of nobility by way of
    >Nobility holds the power over life and death
    >Sword is the first weapon specifically designed to murder/execute people
    >With great nobility comes great responsibility (to abuse)
    Sword = Nobility, simple as.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes my character wields a guillotine the weight of a grand piano and grapples his opponents into it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A guillotine is specifically designed to kill everyone equally and impersonally, while a sword is wielded by a executioner. That's why the guillotine was invented- to kill everyone humanely and the same way. A guillotine is mob rule- a sword is noble privilege.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Though I wouldn't exactly call mob rule humane either. Point stands- it's impersonal and administrative rather than deliberate and 'arbitrary'.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wasn't there a visual novel where the main character did this?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Sword is the first weapon specifically designed to murder/execute people
      sick of this meme

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Mace
    >Uncomplicated
    >Literal beatstick
    >Sturdy enough to block with
    >Less danger to the welder on a fuckup
    >Nearly idiot proof in function
    Even using a mace "well" is not that dissimilar to the guy slamming it at you without any thought. It's a blunt, foolproof weapon and lacks any nobility in form or through elegance. You don't need to be particularly skilled to swing a mace
    Swords are considered a heroes weapon because it's something you have to set aside time to master, it's a weapon. Whereas an axe is a tool and a mace is just a stick with teeth

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Poison and bombs are ignoble weapons despite requiring a big brain to manufacture. I don’t think intelligence is the issue here.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Macey often look creepy and heavy and not at all elegant. And it's also finesse of the sword (imaginary or real) VS the quite literally blunt force of the mace. Of used by a hero it'll be the bruiser, not the MC.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I've never seen a main character wield one.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The Talon Of Horus
      >?????
      Motherfucker's larp glove is renowned, not the beatstick

  29. 1 month ago
    Smaugchad

    God Save Her

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    spiky = evil

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maces are THE symbol of parliamentary authority. Every legislature that ever had a kind thought about an Englishman has a mace. Also all those colleges & universities you ban evading dregs couldn’t get into have official maces.

    pic rel is the Mace of the US House of Representatives ie the “Nazi symbol” on the Seal of the Speaker of the House

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Actually, sticks are the hero's weapon.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everything has its purpose in combat.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And the mace's purpose is being the weapon you use when you're supporting cast.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      except flails of course

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >itt: scepterfags trying to be relevant

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Out of all the weaponfags I hate spearmorons the most. Besides a ranged weapon what is most effective against these cunts?
    I’m talking 1v1 and not
    >le pike formation

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm a huge weaponfag in general, I feel like every weapon can be cool or made to look cool.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you just posted cringe man wtf

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Throwing weapons. Carry a bag of rocks to pelt them. This is genuinely how it was done in reaility. Throwing rocks at someone with any weapon will make them wince, or get their face hit and disorientate them. Spears have a very bad profile for defensive action against close range projectiles, if they raise the spear then they are completely exposed, and if they keep it lowered to attack then they run the risk of getting hit in the face. Things like swords and maces etc can be used as effectively with one hand, so even just raising the other hand outstretched to take the blows of the stones is enough to defend yourself and still keep some offensive capability, a spear doing the same becomes unwieldy and nowhere near as effective, especially if you throw them at closer range where ou can exploit that window.

      Unironically, everyone should carry some rocks just to whip at an enemy, this shit was done throughout all warfare but you never see it represented, most people carried them just to have an offhand projectile.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >OOK OOK USE ROCK THROW
        >OOK OOK SPEAR TRIBE CRINGE OOK OOK UNBASED AND CRINGE OOK OOOK

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          hey retard are you illiterate?

          Polegays LIVID
          Reminder that your mommies sat on my big fleshy spear

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        hey retard are you illiterate?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *blocks your path*

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Based and Cavepilled!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Throwing weapons. Carry a bag of rocks to pelt them. This is genuinely how it was done in reaility. Throwing rocks at someone with any weapon will make them wince, or get their face hit and disorientate them. Spears have a very bad profile for defensive action against close range projectiles, if they raise the spear then they are completely exposed, and if they keep it lowered to attack then they run the risk of getting hit in the face. Things like swords and maces etc can be used as effectively with one hand, so even just raising the other hand outstretched to take the blows of the stones is enough to defend yourself and still keep some offensive capability, a spear doing the same becomes unwieldy and nowhere near as effective, especially if you throw them at closer range where ou can exploit that window.

          Unironically, everyone should carry some rocks just to whip at an enemy, this shit was done throughout all warfare but you never see it represented, most people carried them just to have an offhand projectile.

          Rock throwing is one of the most insidiously lethal human activities. The history of war is the history of rock throwing. We will never know who threw the first rocks, but they must have seen the murderous effect. From there the race was on to find more effective and efficient ways to throw rocks. They would tie leather strips around rocks and send them sailing. They could launch them from slings made of leather. To get leather they scraped meat off animal hides with sharp rocks. They learned to chip stone into slender points. Such points could be attached to long sticks to form spears. As arrow heads they could be attached to reed-thin sticks and launched from a bow, sending a small stone farther than ever. After the invention of the wheel, they could create rolling platforms for catapults to launch even larger rocks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            were at the point where we make our own flint shards made out of metal that can now travel long distances to kill people. While metal isn't really a rock, its still the concept of "if i take this thing and throw it hard enough at you, you will die or at least be hurt" concept that the cavemen had, just now we are making not only the thing that throws but the object that the thing is throwing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      longer spear

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just get a big fuckoff shield and rush them. Spears, especially individually, just struggle against a shield user. I've fought people in stereotypical Roman kit before and getting around a scutum is impossible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Either you get something longer like a halberd or you get a big shield or you get full body armor and limit them to trying to hit your eyes and armpits instead of your big meaty gut.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not as elegant (according to some people)

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Too brutish. You need zero skill to swing a mace around while a sword at least requires some edge alignment.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Swords are just seen as cooler looking by many. I think that's it.

    Like even in Japan Katanas get more okay then jitte and such

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maces are a symbol of religion, because you can pretend maces are non-lethal, whereas swords are obviously only good for killing. The two are distinct because of the popes/kings parallel authority system of medieval Europe. Kings are cooler than popes, so swords are the standard PC weapon.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like maces too, and battle axes as well. I generally avoid picking swords in my games whenever I play a martial class.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I seriously need you guys to go from
    >$WEAPON is strictly superior to everything else
    to
    >weapon A is best in situations 1, 2, 3, weapon B is best in situations 4, 5, 6

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That requires nuance and a desire to engage in informative conversation, anon. That's not the priority of gays parroting hyperbolic assertions to phish for (you)s here.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >but I've never seen a main character wield one.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think the kid in The Wizard Knight used a bar mace for a while.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If we're talking bar maces then what about Detective Dee's Dragon Taming Mace.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He's not even the main character in the movies named after him.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Swords are the hero's weapon because they take skill to make and are only useful as weapons
    False

    Swords are the hero's weapon because contemporary people jack off to King Arthur- and Samurai-inspired shit.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm gonna rehuse this thread.
    Any good hombrew/sourcebook to give every weapon in 1e/2e/osr some utility / distinct feeling?

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is so amaceing that the bait should continue.

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not even close.
    Swords are the hero's weapon because narratively they're for 1v1, for dueling. They come across in a narrative as a "Fair fight". Your entire premise is flawed.
    No one is dueling with a mace, a mace is a big heavy threat a boss type villain holds over the hero, landing it heavily within inches of his head.

    It's a symbol of nobility and wealth? That's not usually the domain of heroes. Often that's where you find villains. In stories people are drawn to an underdog. If it's a noble blooded hero they want him to have been raised on a humble farm. He won't swing a big slow weapon that relies on strength and weight alone, he'll swing something humbler that relies on skill and finesse, that will balance against the sword of his enemy, allowing them to fight nobly.

    You can give the mace to a friend or ally of the hero. The big guy of the group. The big friendly guy is allowed a giant weight based weapon, swung at a slow but powerful speed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >giant weight based weapon
      Does anybody on this board know what a fucking mace even is.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A big metal stick that has more metal on the end that might be sharp. No matter how you try and look at it, it's a type of club. It's purpose is to hit hard. It achieves this from the weight on the end.

        It's weight based.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >A big metal stick that has more metal on the end that might be sharp. No matter how you try and look at it, it's a type of club
          WRONG ALL CLUBS ARE JUST LEVERS WITH NO ANCHOR POINT, I WIN AGAIN!!!!! HOW WILL YOU EVER COPE NOW?!?!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes it's weight based, they also weigh LESS than a sword. The mace in OP should, if accurately made, be only two pounds. The much more common brass, bronze, or even iron casting should weigh even less than that considering most of it is just wood. You don't need large muscles or size to use a mace effectively, if anything you get diminishing returns above the usual medieval body type, which is just 5'7" to 511" and probably around 145-180 pounds with some moderate toning.

          A mace is a perfectly suitable weapon for light women to even use, it's literally the simplest weapon there is in terms of finesse needed or strength required. If a villain uses it and it isn't some stupid monster sized weapon like the Witch King's flail in LOTR, everyone should laugh at his piddly little death stick until he collapses the skull of somebody with it to hammer the point home. These are small weapons, and not very threatening looking unless one is on a horse, then they're scary as fuck.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >they also weigh LESS than a sword.
            not relevant. He said it wasn't weight based, that's what I was replying to. In my original post I was talking about stories and how these weapons fit thematically making the sword the go-to hero weapon. And the key problem:
            How do two people fight 1v1 with maces? I'm not asking if it's possible, I'm asking what it looks like. It's not a dance, it's not noble looking, it ain't fucking hollywood looking. That's why heroes usually get swords. They just look more heroic in fights.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >How do two people fight 1v1 with maces?
              tbh it's not going to be much different than how a sword functions in actual combat either anon, at least assuming both parties are wearing armor. If they aren't then sure, swords get a lot more 'beautiful' looking when the cutting edge actually can do its job, but two knights going at each other with a heater shield and one handed weapon is going to be fairly roughly similar whether it's an arming sword, an axe, or a sword.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >tbh it's not going to be much different than how a sword functions in actual combat
                we're not talking about 'actual combat', we're talking about in a story, a performance, on a stage. Two maces clashing against each other in wide swings isn't something the hero and villain can monologue over.

                I keep going back to pointing out how this is about theming and storytelling and not "realism" but you keep going back to realism. OP asked why a hero has a sword. The answer is because it's flashier. The end.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Two maces clashing against each other in wide swings isn't something the hero and villain can monologue over.
                Then don't make them. The setup is supposed to happen before the fight anyway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >hero + villain monologue
                If it has two people its a dialogue
                >They can't fight with maces, because they just can't, okay???
                Why not?
                >It isn't about realism, its about storytelling and theming
                Are you unable to tell a story with a mace as a weapon?
                >The answer is the sword is flashier
                The irony is there are so many boring retards telling the same tired stories that anyone who dared to subvert the genre by making their hero wield a "less flashy" weapon would end up more memorable.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Swords are the hero's weapon because of the Romans. The idealized Roman weapon was the gladius, and the Romans were unique for favoring the sword over other more intuitive weapons like the spear.

    When the Franks assumed the mantle of Rome in the very funny Carolingian Era, they took with them the assumptions and panoply of Rome. The sword was the ultimate symbol of that bygone era of peace and security because it was the weapon of Rome. The association of Rome with the Church probably also contributed, the cruciform shape of many swords is probably not a coincidence.

    I've never understood the "swords are decorative" take when it's so clearly in counterpose to all actual evidence. Have you ever in your life read a Roman account in which the sword was not their primary weapon?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Swords are the hero's weapon because they require skill/training.
      Axes and maces are "villainous" because strength gets you a long way in using them effectively.

      Heroic tales are about overcoming a great foe. If the hero is physically stronger than his opponent, it takes away from the sense of accomplishment.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        See this is why evil, old, decaying Sorcerers make for better antagonists than most big knight guys do; the plucky Hero being outmatched by a foe capable of dark magic rather than pure strength and brutality gives the Hero a free pass to use a “Villainous” weapon like a Whip, Mace, Axe etc. That’s how Castlevania has essentially gotten away with having the main character be a huge, buff blonde guy beating monsters to death with a whip without racism outrage in The West.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think an axe can go either way. They're not main character weapons, but they have an air of honesty and simplicity that a mace or a spear don't. It helps that they can have a practical application outside of killing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It can work, David Gemmell's Drenai series mostly starred gigachad Druss and his cursed axe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the romans also had deaths ranked in most to least honorable/spiritually honorable. Dying by a blade that wasn't a dagger or beheading (only barbarians did beheadings, its too uncivilized and a tragedy when good Romans are subjected to it [early to middle republic Rome was notorious for declaring war on neighbors literally because of how those under nations executed Romans]) was seen as glorious and righteous. A "clean, painless, and civilized death worthy of a Roman."

      Spears were usually how most people died in combat regardless of it was a barbarian or another civilized enemy like the Greeks and were considered nothing good, nothing bad.

      Then there were the dishonorable deaths which mainly were: beheadings, hangings, beatings/stonings, being literally stabbed in the front or the back by daggers (spoiler: being stabbed in the back was seen as more dishonorable for the man doing the stabbing, which is why a lot of Romans did retarded things like stabbing people in the stomach. If you stabbed someone in the stomach it was "fairer" and you could reclaim the honor of doing the deed if was done facing them.)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i forgot to mention that death via bludgeoning was seen as a barbarian thing to do, didn't stop mobs of people in the late era of the republic from beating senators in the street who supported or opposed Ceasar, but if you ever read the history of Rome and your confused as to why so many Romans sperg out about Romans being beheaded or bludgeoned to death. Its because they see it as a weird spiritual attack on lives of the people of Rome, itself.

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A sword being a sign of power and nobility dates back to the early medieval period (I'm talking like, 6-8th century) when iron was uncommon enough that most men didn't even have helmets. Just being able to make or have a sword at all was quite rare. That said, there is an aesthetic quality which makes it seem more noble than most weapons, especially melee weapons. Proper use of a sword obviously requires both strength and finesse (of course most weapons do but the design doesn't make that obvious), and it can neither be concealed nor effectively thrown, meaning that the weapon is pretty much dedicated to killing people in a direct physical engagement. Its methods of killings, while in reality no less brutal than any other, LOOK less barbaric. A slash, a stab, even a dismemberment just seems more, I don't know, momentous? than getting your lungs torn opened by your own shattered ribs or getting your head caved in. The hero runs the dark lord through with a blade to the heart, he does not knock the dark lord down and smash his face with a mace.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Speaking purely from a eurocentric point of view anyway, but fuck other points of view

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I am interested. Would love to hear about the differences in this in places like japan and china and the middle east. Please, go on.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I have read zero books about preindustrial weapons or warfare other than in europe, sorry. Obviously there's some shit that everyone knows regarding Japanese swords wielding, such as non-samurai being forbidden from having weapons, and especially swords, at various times, but those were relatively recent events compared to the formation of their artistic culture. Another poster mentioned maces and hammers and the like being considered "brutish" weapons, I think that might actaully apply more to Japan than Europe, after all, in many ancient tales, the heroes and gods wield wield swords and spears, while clubs and hammers are wielded mostly by demons and ogres. Obviously this is in part due to the perceived lack of skill required to wield a club, especially a large two handed one like a Kanabō, but may also have something to do with, again, swords being hard to make. A wooden club, even one with spikes on it, would naturally long predate the written word entirely, it's like an artifact of primeval times, the violence of nature casted in a blunt physical form, compared to a beautiful sword, representing a work of mastery that only a human at the peak of his craft could produce. Something that's always interested me about pre-industrial japanese weaponry is that they had a much larger emphasis on two-handed weaponry than many other cultures, even when their armor was mostly just leather and wood fiber blocks. I suppose that it's probably because their fighting had a much greater emphasis on horseback fighting much earlier on, and a shield would be impractical. Lack of shield use combined with relatively soft armor probably also contributed to the lack of popularity of dedicated poleaxes or the development of more modern maces, in favor of instead using pole weapons like the naginata which were intended to increase reach more than increase torque.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, and China? Not a fucking clue sorry

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maces don't have elegance to their form. They're for blugeoning people to death. It's why you're more likely to see villains using them, emphasizing their brutality.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >but I've never seen a main character wield one.
    Behold, the biggest dick main character wielding one to fight off an evil incest rapist

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That’s it. I’m doing my witch king build next DnD game I’m in because of this post.

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    wtf is a main character exactly? i see only pc's and npc's...

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Odo, bishop of Bayeux had one. Mace == Cleric weapon.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *