By this I mean, should these be split up so that they are back to blade and blunt, or maybe even something different?

I think they should, because if you're good with a sword or dagger, that doesn't mean that you would be just as good with a mace or axe.

If they split these skills up, it would allow for more specialization with your character, which in turn would increase both roleplaying-ability, and replayability.

Also, the perks could basically stay the same, just split into each category instead of being one big category. So blade and blunt would both have damage and stamina bonuses, one and two handed bonuses, etc.

Thoughts?

No.

I see your reasoning, but changing it to blade and blunt just wouldn't feel right with me. Having it One Handed and Two Handed feels better and allows perks to be split easier. Perks are based on handedness and weapon type, but there is no two handed mace, and to be honest are alot less bladed weapons. I think this system is better. And perk specialisation:

If you are using one handed, but claiming that even though I'm good with a sword I shouldn't be as good with daggers or maces, well if you took sword based perks, you'll be better with swords which essentially functions the same as cutting the skill into blade and blunt.

In Oblivion, you had Blade and Blunt (each applying to both their 1H and 2H versions)
In Skyrim you have 1H and 2H (each applying to their blade and blunt versions)

Having played both, I really so no significant benefit to one or the other. It just doesn't really matter.

it makes more sense than blade and blunt. A blunt axe? WTF!

They should stay as they are, because while it is true you wouldn't be a master maceman if you'd only ever used swords your entire life, that makes more sense than suddenly being awesome with a claymore despite only using daggers.

Redundancy for the sake of lore, immersion, or *ahem* "realism" is silly. Homogenization can be a good thing. The problem I have is the fact that the type of weapons on their own and through perks really do not have much difference to begin with. I do not care that types of weapons share the same tree, I have an issue that the perks are not different or special enough, and especially of equal weight. Who cares about bleed damage in a game that revolves around burst and everything dies in a few hits? Damage over time really only matters in scenarios where things take A LOT of hits.

If anything, I would like them to treat both tiers of weapons and armor differently. I do not like the fact that Daedric is the best for everything, meaning you have to use those skins if you want the best gear. I would like more diversity, and as I see it you upgrade tiers of gear so quickly everything in between does not really matter nor feel special except from an RP standpoint.

I think 1H/2H works better than Blade/Blunt. Granted, being good with a sword should not mean you are good with a axe - but IMO this is more realistic than being good with a warhammer because you are good with a mace. And there are certain perks within both trees for blade/blunt, so there is already a certain amount of balance in the game regarding that.

Yes.

One-handed and two-handed work well with the perk system.

The thing is, a one handed mace and a one handed axe have more in common in terms of fighting style than a one handed axe and a two handed axe. If they were going to separate weapons in any logical fashion they'd have to have a separate tree for every weapon type, which is just hassle.

Totally disagree.

If you are good with a one handed sword, yes you will be pretty good with a one handed axe. There is a high level of transferablility. The one handed / two handed skills, with perks to specialize in each weapon type makes so much more sense then specific weapon skills. Like in Morrowind, I was a master with a long blade, but put a short blade in my hand, and I can't kill a rat, totally illogical.

Under your logic, if you challenged a master swordsman to a fight with one handed axes the playing field would be level as you would be both at the same axe wielding skill. But in reality you would have an axe splitting your forhead in 1.3 seconds.

Have you looked at the skill trees? The two handed skill tree has 3 perks for each weapon specialization. Yes, you can still get the 5 perks at the bottom of the tree which increase every weapon's damage, but they do have additional perks for specific weapon types in the tree, which further enhance just those weapons. For example, there's 3 perks for 2-handed swords which increase critical damage done with swords. For 2-handed hammers, there's 3 levels of armor bypass perk (for a total of up to 75% armor bypass).

So, there's definitely some weapon specialization already available in the game. As for creating "duplicate" trees for specific weapon types, what would be the point? Just to make it so you can achieve higher levels with your character and get more perk points?

"I think they should, because if you're good with a sword or dagger, that doesn't mean that you would be just as good with a mace or axe". While that's true in the most technical sense, it doesn't seem to be too big a stretch of imagination that when people received martial training with weapons, they would receive training in multiple types of weapons. It doesn't seem that hard to believe that someone who was training to do battle with big, heavy, 2-handed weapons, could learn to use tecnniques appropriate to different types of big, heavy 2-handed weapons. What all 2-handed weapons have in common is that they are big, and heavy, and require a great deal of strength, and have, not identical, but similar handling with respects to momentum and maneuverability.

Same for most 1-handed weapons (very small weapons like daggers might be a bit of an exception - their 'handling' would probably be considerably different than most swords and one-handed blunt weapons).

I prefer the 1H and 2H system better. actually one changes that worked out. half did, half didn't, and we won't know if bethesda cares about the half that didn't until next-gen.

Going from one handed sword to a two handed sword would be less of a change than going to an axe or mace.

Though these perks are just pissing me off. The game play isn't good enough to limit what your character can do.

That is fallacious reasoning. He never said anything which even implies your ridiculous assertion.

and no, a sword and an axe have completely different weight distribution and so completely different methods of power generation. What DOES carry over, is your personal balance and footwork and most importantly your confidence in combat. Somebody skilled with a mace would destroy somebody good with a sword in an axe fight.

When I first read the topic title, I feared that someone would be proposing the merging of the One-Handed and Two-Handed skills. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.


With that said, I couldn't disagree more. The difference in technique between using a claymore and using a dagger is a LOT more significant that the difference in technique between using a mace and using a longsword.

The only thing to consider here are prefferences. two/one handed and point-weighted/grip-weighted transferability are more or less the same. That said, I personally preffer the Oblivion division as I like swords both one and two handed.

Using two-handed and one-handed weapons actually stimulates two entirely different areas of the brain, if I'm remembering my training correctly.

I just wish the axe, mace, and sword specialization perks were more worthwhile. I see the 3 perks as a waste and put them into pickpocket for the 100lbs perk. The bleed from axes is insignificant, the crit from blades is a chance to occur so I skip it, maces... Like the other two you do so much damage I don't see the benefit especially since you don't really fight any decked heavy armor users.

The Warhammer version of the perks is incredibly useful. Being able to ignore 75% of an Ancient Dragon's armor on Master difficulty is amazing.

I am pretty sure axes are considered blunt striking tools with an edge. It uses weight and force to drive a edged side into an object splitting it. You aren't cutting with an axe you are splitting with it. So it being in a different class from both maces and swords is right, but in the end its basically a modified blunt weapon.

No.

But I want more perks in em tho, like for daggers.

Of course you're cutting with an axe, it has a blade.

The rationale is that their weight distribution is similar to maces and hammers, meaning their power generation is similar - that doesn't however change the fact it's a misnomer.

No, that's what the perk system is for. I don't think many people realise yet but the perks do offer a whole variety of roleplay options and make up for the loss of some skills.

It doesn't matter how you group them its really not going to make much sense.

Stabbing with a dagger is nothing like swinging a huge two-handed sword or even a one-handed sword or an axe.

I guess it makes slightly more sense to split by one-handed and two-handed simply because of the possibility of the use of shields and dual-wielding with one-handed weapons.