Its always struck me as very odd that Paladins and DKs cannot use daggers, and ICly, there's no reason for them not to, especially considering all the practical uses they can have. Would it be much trouble to change it, or perhaps there is a reason I am unaware of for this being the current state of affairs?
Pallies can't use daggers traditionally because they are considered underhanded, sneaky weapons, used for the treacherous and the insincere. They refuse to be associated with such practices, thus refuse to wield daggers.
Death Knights carry the strength of undeath - where not the power of their physical body matters, but rather the sheer willpower of their soul moves their lifeless shells, and as such, it makes them capable of feats of unnatural strength. Such power is applied most efficiently using medium-sized or large weapons, and small weapons would be not only inefficient, but would result in an overall diminishing of the Death Knight's potency. Plus, they have very little space to emblazon runes.
That's why I think these two classes can't use daggers. At least, Lore-arguments for the way the mechanics stand. Realistically, anyone can pick up a kitchen knife. But hey, take it or leave it. /shrug.
I would say there's no actual reason as to why paladins and death knights cannot use daggers, really. For your opinion, Flammos, I bring up the Scarlets. They are paladins and priests, as well as other classes, that're mostly fighters. But don't forget about torturing stuff! They go to all means, use all kind of special weapons or tolls --most being small-- for torturing the undead or the alive.
As for death knights (and this opinion of mine goes for all classes, actually) you just cannot deny the fact that daggers, especially throwing ones, are not efficient when encountering enemies. They can trip, they can penetrate small areas with ease, and most importantly, they are fast. I, after having fought a death knight that ICly had daggers, was left rather impressed. My character was full of armor, yet the other death knight still made it inside the armor and into the flesh with well thrown daggers or stabs.
Furthermore, daggers can be used to remove some kinds of armor!
My opinion is that any class should be able to use daggers, more or less. It all depends on the character progression and training, really.
Just do it ICly, Dae.
EDIT: Whaddup, Sol, mah buddeh!
I'd appreciate this myself. My death knight Sigismund (speaking of, hey Kira!) was a bandit in life and remains a very crafty, underhanded fighter, much more reliant on ambush and trickery than your typical saronite-clad juggernaut. Still, though, the last time the types of weapons classes could wield were modified, I seem to remember priests packing claymores.
When Sig needs a short, sharp blade, I make do and use things like
Exodar Shortsword and
Iron-Grip Shortsword to represent long knives and machetes. /shrug
Sol Wrote:Still, though, the last time the types of weapons classes could wield were modified, I seem to remember priests packing claymores.
This
If we allow daggers for DKs then there is next to no reason not to allow every other class to wield absolutely any weapon. Not only is it not feasible for mages and such to wield large weaponry but it also interferes badly with game mechanics. It's better to leave it as it is as a method of prevention.
Even though I've brought my opinion before, I'm gonna have to agree with Bunty. Allowing classes to in-game use weapons they're not supposed to would create chaos. We'd all rather not, really.
But then again, what stops anyone from ICly having daggers (or any other weapon) ?
It's not feasible. A Paladin whom dons plate armor wouldn't run around with a steak knife trying to shank people, it's unreasonable, the same way a priest wouldn't likely have the physical prowess to use a claymore or a very large hammer because funnily enough those things are pretty heavy.
Maybe the Paladin is out for a casual night walk. Why would he hinder himself to carrying a sword or a hammer when he can tuck away a knife and be just as safe?
There's been plenty of monk characters that actually do have the physical strength to wield large weapons if their back story provides. Let's say a lumberjack decides to join the Church of Stormwind after the Third War. He'd be strong enough to wield one, why shouldn't he?
At anything, at least open up more sensible weapon restrictions to some of the classes. I don't see why a Warlock can't use a mace, but can use a staff. It's just for further depth in role-play. Sure, some might go odd balls and have their frail priestess wield a giant hammer... But, there's plenty of armor that's massive, over-detailed and glowie that are used IG and ICly. Should this be any different?
As for game mechanics, I don't think a priest having a Two-Handed Sword will make a huge difference. They should be casting spells and healing the party, anyways.
I think the only one that's really strange is that death knights can't wield shields. I heard they made a shield that has a stat for shadow damage as well which no class can utilize so it was short-sighted in the way it was made.
But I guess I'm not too bothered if a DK can't wield one. I'm pretty sure Blizz did it for some balancing/OOC reason.
What I wanted to say above is that, for the original matter at hand --paladins and dks using daggers-- is that, as McKnub said, not all paladins wear heavy armor (or even armor). I remember having, at one time, a paladin that wore at all times leather and cloth for agility, and used a single short-sword for speed. Plus Light spells.
Very similar to this example of mine would be another paladin, tricky and 'evil', using the Light as his spells (alike Scarlets), but daggers so he could be quicker.
I think the obvious use of a Paladin with a dagger is non-combat wear. It's common for someone to wear some normal clothes and a dagger.... contrary to popular standards you can't really walk around in plate all day as it's kind of... impossible.
On the other hand, there were societies where it was likely not seen as strange at all to have a sword at your hip. A dagger doesn't necessarily lend itself well to being seen as more casual just because it's smaller.
I'm aware, I was simply playing devil's advocate.
In the end the point is purely that it's completely plausible for a paladin or a Death Knight to hold a dagger. Just because they don't have a huge use for them in combat doesn't mean they will never have one. Perhaps used for herbs, food, general wilderness... the possibilities are endless.
I think it's more of just easier to carry around. Less weight. Less hassle.
Can't we just say that they're carrying a dagger hidden somewhere and use it when they need to, instead of actually needing to have it equipped? >.>