I never claimed to be an authority, nor was I being dogmatic. I have been here for nearly 4 years, and that is what I have come to generalize from people who brought up the same subject. They didn't bring up lore, or anything like that, it was almost purely that axes have sharp edges, so they don't belong in blunt, and at the same time not even blades. Having an Axe skill seems realistically "better"

From a realistic standpoint, regardless of lore, axes are vastly different from maces. One is made for cutting, the other for bashing. Simply looking up videos on how they are used will tell you right away that they are nothing alike.

From a lore standpoint, if they say they are similar, then they are similar, but you cant disregard people's natural inclination to want to base things off reality before accepting "altered physics"

Your splitting maul would have more in common with a "blunt" than with a blade. A maul isn't really an axe, though; it's a splitting wedge fixed on a sledgehammer handle. It's driven into the end-grain of wood, and the wedge shape splits the wood. It doesn't "cut."

I grew up on a farm in the 1950s, and I developed a certain familiarity with the axe family. We used hatchets, felling axes, and lopping axes. I also learned how to use a broad-axe for shaping timbers.

A proper axe is not "blunt." It is sharp, and the blade is preferably polished to allow it to slice through the material it is cutting without sticking. When used properly, an axe is swung with a slight handle-first "dragging" motion, which allows it to slice through wood. It is not swung like a hammer.

I'd say an axe is neither a blunt nor a blade. It has very little in common with a hammer or a knife.

Or a pool cue.

The physics are certainly different because they allow magic. But the general idea that some materials are heavier than others and that more of the same material is heavier than less of the same material still seems to be valid. And gravity itself isn't really that important for this calculation because the ratio between the weight of a warhammer and the weight of the steel armor would stay the same, regardless of how weak or strong the gravity is.

You'll also note that it doesn't really say anywhere that the weight measure is pounds. It's just 100 weight, it doesn't say 100 of what. So I prefer to calll them ESWU, Elder Scrolls Weight Units. Comparing iron/steel armor weights I'd venture that 1 pound = about 2 ESWU.

And while there was a specific warhammer in Morrowind which was enchanted with Feather and effectively weightless, but I don't think they'd use magic to craft every single warhammer in existence.

The problem with your logic is this: the way one uses an axe and a mace is not vastly different. It's actually pretty similar. Yeah, there are differences in the two, but the fact that they're both hafted weapons makes an axe closer to a mace (in terms of skill used to wield) than it is to a sword. It's not "altered physics". It's reality.
Id est one is made for cutting, the other's made for bashing, but the center of gravity is in the head of the weapon. Not the haft. Thereby, swing both the same way.

Apparently some can't grasp the concept that axes don't properly fall into either the "blunt" or "blade" category.

This is one of the areas where Morrowind is more fully developed than Oblivion is. In Morrowind, melee weapons are broken down into Axes, Blunts, Long Blades, Short Blades, and Spears. There are three different weapon attacks -- thrust, chop, and slash -- and each weapon, depending upon its nature, is assigned different values of those three attacks. So it is possible for the game to include a weapon like a halberd, which is like a combination of a spear and a poleaxe.

Well, you can get irritated all you want by legitimate complaints, and here is why they are legitimate:
1) Some things you're saying about axes and hammers can be said about claymores too: no one stabs with them. It is a heavy, power fighting two handed sword. And while the technique for wielding axes may be similar to that wielding hammers, in the world rpg's are played they are different and deserve to be treated differently;
2) A lame argument, sorry. Just be cause it is convenient to train 1 skill and thus boost two different weapon types, does not mean it should be so. It makes for a pretty bad game-weapons design.
3) Blunt is clearly an inferior skill due to the bad design blunt and axe weapons got, as mentioned on 2).

100% with u.

Tell me, good sir: how is weight distributed throughout a claymore? Also, try the stepping backwards power strike with a claymore in-game, and you'll see a stab.
He's saying the technique for wielding axes and blunt-weapons is the same in-game.
I can make a Blunt-based combat character and beat Oblivion with him. The system works.

you can beat oblivion with a dagger, as the damage base was all screwed: deadric dagger 19 x daedric calymore 26. I wasn't saying blunt-based characters were ineffective, was addressing the apparent complaint that there are far more artifacts and stuff towards blades and thus siding axes with baldes would make blunts have even less reasons for being chosen.

I dont know how weight is distributed throughout a claymore, suffice to say that ppl did not wield it like a longsword or katana, but more like a large two-handed heavy weapon / broadsword (whatever you call it), using an up-down move.

As a matter of fact, claymores were used for stabbing as well as slashing. Here's a pic of a Scottish claymore: http://images.knifecenter.com/knifecenter/cas/images/2060gt.jpg Note the pointed tip. Swords made for slashing motions only (and there were many) did not have pointed tips on them. Scottish claymores typically weighed around 5 pounds and were well balanced due to the weighted pommel (the large bulge at the base of the handle).

Indeed, claymores (or longswords - what the game calls a longsword is actually an arming sword) came into their own in the late Medieval period and in that time, so had plate armor. Slashing was ineffective against an opponent wearing plate. Your only hope to injure your foe was with a thrust in one of the joints between plates, which were only protected by lighter mail. Or to use a blunt force weapon like a hammer or mace that would transfer its kinetic energy through the plate. This is why most swords in that time grew to have a generally triangular shape, tapering to a very sharp point. It was very common to use a tactic such as half-swording, where you choke up your grip by putting a second hand half way down the blade. This gives the user much more precision in a thrust, and is using it very much like a spear. You could also reverse the grip completely, and strike with the hilt of the weapon. Longswords themselves were very agile weapons, not clumsy clubs with an edge. Grappling was also very important, as putting your opponent down on the ground with a trip or throw was one of the best ways to create an opening in their defense, so that you could deliver that killing thrust. A whole series of attacks, guards and counters in armored longswording can be found http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html, and that is actually rather brief.

I'd just like to say it's nice to see someone else who knows what longswords actually were. :thumbsup:

the way I saw claymore pix they did look much heavier, so in this particular subject I see how wrong I was (though I still think in this game axes & blunts deserve ot be in their respective skills).

thx for the clarification!

I had to check your link (arma = weapon) after your description, which reminded me a lot of a Monty Python black-knight hillarious fighting scene, where the fighters were using the swords in any way BUT an apparent sword fighting. That was hillarious, and only now am I thinking... Was that scene actually based on real sword-fighting? Coz those guys were joking so much about anything that it looked like they were making fun of fighting back then - when actually they could be portraying an authentic swordfighting style.... Do you know about this?

Thx!

Believe me, the feeling is reciprocated. One of my pet peeves in video games (and movies) is seeing things like that so misrepresented, when a one minute search of google can give you the right answer. I also shy away from the term claymore in general, as it can mean two very different swords. The two handed longsword we know so well, or the one-handed sword with a basket hilt from later. One can easily get confused about which one is intended.



Honestly, it has been so long since I have seen MP&tHG that I cannot remember much about the fight scene. Mainly just "Come back here, I can still head-butt you to death!"

pls, check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690... At about 35 sec starts.... I remember I couldn't stop laughing, coz they were showing that the swords brought more a disadvantage and would be used as anyhting other than the way we imagine swords being used.

Becauses axes mash more than they slice.

This is the real answer to OP's question. Pure genius

Because something is sharp, it cant be blunt at the same time, right ?

Also, why some of you are bringing "Manual of Arms" in to discussion? That book was added to Oblivion for that specific reason, to justify merging axes with blunt, short blade with long blades, and removing all ranged weapons but bows.

Well, I guess that depends on how you use it. The flat of a sword is not sharp, but the blade is.
Given that the categories are Blade and Blunt; it'd fit much better into the blunt category than the blade one.
In my opinion anyway.

This entire conversation could have been avoided if they simply called the Blunt skill Hafted Weapons.

Oh, but they can't do that, people might get confused.

Sorta irrelavent now, but in the Book The Pig Children It mentions Pertans in height and angaids in weight.

Maybe thats the measurement system in Tamriel?

I'll chime in my two cents worth to say that I DO really miss the Morrowind weapon catagorization of weapons where we had Long Blade, Short Blade, Axe, Blunt, and Spear. I believe Bethesda's reasoning for going to the two weapon type scenario was so that they could give eash attribute only 3 skills. In Morrowind, 4 of the 7 main attributes had 4 skills, and 1 (Strength) had 5. I am hoping that they will increase the skills per attribute to 4 for Skyrim. I can think of 6 skills from Morrowind that they could bring back. Axe, Spear, Short Blade, Unarmored, Medium Armor, and Enchant. We would need 1 more to make it 4 skills across the board.