I never really cared for a Warrior type character, but the Axe Skill found in Morrowind was good cause it allowed for an extra thing to level up. An Axe isn't quite a blade, and it's not quite a blunt weapon either. I don't see why Oblivion seemed to combine the two. An axe is sharp, yet heavy like a blunt object.

Should the 'Axe Skill' return?

Independent weapon skills are gone.
We know that there are axe perks separate from blade and blunt perks, though.

No.

Nah. Having both blunt weapons and axes in the same skill in Oblivion made sense since they're wielded very similarly. But we're pretty sure we're just going to have a "one-handed weapon" and "two-handed weapon" skill now, so to focus on axes, blunt weapons, or blades you'll have to choose the perks that support them.

I'm pretty sure skyrim goes by 1 handed, and 2 handed skills apose to axe, blunt, blad, etc

so no

This, and to hopefully prevent complaints let me say that will let you specialize far more than a single skill ever could.

its not gonna perks are going to dictate what combat you are good at, which I kinda like

One/two-handed weapon skills are actually far more logical than blunt/blade were. I too miss Morrowind's skills, but we're all hoping that the perks system in Skyrim will allow you to specialize in whatever weapon you please to an even greater degree than before. So long as not all the perks are tacky bleed-damage and armor-ignoring gimmick crap. <_<

Oh, okay, I haven't read hardly anything on Skyrim yet, so I didn't know. :mellow:

I think all the cut weapon skills should return. I know they feel that having each one is redundant but it really isn't. reducing all weapons skills to just a few wrapped all together actually unbalances the game. before this way you were actually limited to what skills you actually used, they say that they are cutting classes so that skill strength is determined by what you use but that is contrary to what is actually happening, the new way means I can use any two handed weapon lets say a claymore; and level up the two handed skill, then start using the bow. I would be just as proficient with the bow as I would be a claymore, that doesn't make sense. whats the point in even having weapon skills at all when if your proficient with one you are automaticly proficeint with halve of all the weapons.

I would suggest reading all of the latest info on GameInformer's Skyrim hub http://www.gameinformer.com/p/esv.aspx.


Huh? I'm positive that Marksman is still going to be it's own skill, so no, unless you trained that skill you would not be just as proficient. And you'll only be proficient in the weapons whose perks you choose. So if you level the two-handed weapon skill to 20, but have only chosen warhammer perks, you won't be as proficient with claymores as you would be with warhammers. You won't be horrid with them, but you'll be nowhere near as powerful.

a bow isn't a 2 handed weapon, there is still an archery/ marksman skill
two handed would govern war axes, claymores, and hammers

Yes. I would prefer not to have a blunt axe.

so I could exclusivly use swords but pick perks for axes... yeah, that reaaaaaally makes alot of sense. (no actually its moronic) so seriously, would you really prefer it if they scrapped the whole skill system and turned tes into a rail shooter. where it doesn't matter what weapon you use, why not just load the game and the whole game is played for you.

Ah, thank you kind sir, I'll have to do that.

Maces ignoring armor is not crap. They were very effective at basically using your armor against you and breaking your bones that way.

Nope it'll be very realistic the way they are doing it. A swordsman who mastered his trade would probably be able to pick up an axe and wield it quite well. The difference comes in when mastering a particular trade(sword/axe/blunt) A master axeman will be better at maneuvering an axe than a swordsman will be and vice versa. That's what perks do in Skyrim; specialization is still possible and still advisable. I like the way they are doing it.

Not [censored] it's moronic, that's why you choose sword perks to specialize in them, just like you would choose the Blades skill to specialize in them.

no, not realy (not trying flame), but just pointing out that this is not correct. using a sword and an axe is completely different. if you mean that they both have similair grips then you would be slightly correct. but the balance of the weapons and even their wieght affect the power and speed an artisan of either weapon could fight with them. a sword can quickly pierce an enemie while bringing an axe back from a swing takes along time (which is why many were double edged to reduce the necessity to draw the heavy weapon back each time.)

two skilled swordsman train together for twenty years, one switches to axe, he dies. thats a fact.

I'm not liking what I'm reading, if it's correct, so what everyone is saying is that, by using a specific weapon, you don't get better in using it just get better in "one handed" or "two handed" and you people are defending that by saying that's why you pick perks. Think about this, you only get to pick a perk when you level up, you can only level up a limited amount of times. You reach the level cap, and want to start using a new weapon, you can't really get better in it. But anyway, what I thought they were doing was, keeping the skills, but not making you pick which ones you specialize in, in the beginning, and then having what weapons/spells you use level you up faster, but you could still get better in other skills. We shouldn't have to rely on the perks to get better in a skill, or use a new one. I'm not to happy about perks even being in Skyrim, perks belong in fallout, leave them there, don't try to incorporate them into every game you make.

Yes, but give a man sword training for a year, and another guy nothing. Then give them both an axe, the guy with the sword experience will win.

thats kinda like punching a baby, of course the ignorant guy would lose. thats not comprable with the argument that using a sword is the same as using an axe and that the two are interchangeable so there is no reason to keep them separate. a master with a sword and another master with an axe probably would be equally skilled, but only because the guy with the axe in his long experience will have found ways to compensate for lack of speed vs a sword, but give the axe master a sword and he would die in an instant.

And that's exactly what weapon specific perks will do.

Give the axe master a sword and he's competent, but he's nowhere near the sword master. Well designed.

After playing a Nord in both games, I prefer it. I know there's going to be 1-handed/2-handed weapons (which is a horrible system, IMO), but if they were to bring blunt back I want them to give it a better name

What are you doing, hitting them with their sides?

but an axe master getting a sword perk is completely unrealistic. how can some one never having picked up a sword suddenly have spontaneos knowledge of sword play.

I am not saying I am against perks, I am merely arguing that perks are not a justification for cutting weapon skills. also not saying that this is game breaking, just voicing my belief that TES does not need to be simplified. these changes to the skill system were unnecessary and they could have used the time to improve or add something else.