In general axes cause more chaotic trauma. Swords largely slice and stab. Not so much smashing, and that would really damage both the edge and the blade.

And I think I have seen a full skill list suggested in that form. There are quite a few interesting combinations, in fact.

It's my understanding that Fallout3's perks really didn't relate to skills (or whatever it had) much at all. We know that Skyrim's perks are strongly related to skills. I don't think we can make a judgement call that they will be worthless without finding out more about them (IIRC, only two perks have been named, and there's likely to be well over 50).


Pick a race/gender that has high natural intelligence, pick a birthsign that boosts your intelligence, and pick a class that has intelligence as a major. Then as you play, never use intelligence-based skills and always pick intelligence on level up. I guarantee you'll get a high intelligence before long.


It's not just ticking a checkbox to get good at it. Your base skill with a particular weapon (eg, 1-Handed for a short sword) will still determine how good you are with those weapons. If you have a low 1-Handed skill and pick short-sword-related perks, you'll be worse off using that short sword than someone who has a higher 1H skill with those perks.


A bit of hyperbole there, I think. If it was so easy to fix, don't you think they would've instead of going ahead and not only designing, but also implementing, testing, and balancing, a completely new method of handling character customization?


The problem isn't just in usefulness, it's also in levelling them. How do you level acrobatics? By jumping and falling. How many people would actively jump and fall enough as a natural part of playing their character? It takes a lot to level the skill because if it levelled faster, then "bunny hoppers" would level too fast. Weapons, and target and touch spells, have to hit a living critter, armor needs to be hit, your shield needs to be hit, sneaking needs you to be moving while hidden from an NPC that would otherwise find you, and so on and so forth to level relavent skills. Leveling up those things requires something to happen, whether it be getting hit by an enemy, attacking someone, hiding from someone, etc. Acrobatics? Just jump. Jump here, jump there, jump everywhere. Jump jump jump.

Plus, skills where a granular 100-level system just doesn't make sense. What's the actual benefit of have an 'x+1' level in Speechcraft over just 'x'? If it was combined with Mercantile, it could help you squeeze slightly better deals out of some merchants, but for actual persuassion, it meant next to nothing. Only after several levelings in it would you notice any real change (and even then, it just meant a higher possible disposition).

Reasons like that make good sense to me as to why some skills would be better done as perks in a relavent skill. That, in addition to what I said earlier about layering (how using a particular weapon also helps in your basic understanding of using other similar weapons).

That's true...the meathod of swinging an axe is different to that of a sword, as is the damage they cause. But I could see a few things someone picked while using an axe being passed on as they learned how to use a sword. Using the weight of the weapon to your advantage for example. Like I said though, I've never gotten lucky enough to be able to hold and swing a blade, so I don't really know anything first hand.

There is probably a bit of carryover, but as Romeo said it carries more through strength than it does through skill.
I could be wrong though.


As for the difference, hold a baseball bat at its very end and swing it around. That is about the control you might have over an axe, and a bit more control over a mace (because you don't have to worry about a strike face). Now hold the bat in the middle, that is closer to a sword.

[] Axe would strike with the top 8 inches (15 cm) a mace might have a bit more, a sword would include the rest.

In fallout new vegas there is no sub machinegun skill.. its guns...

Yet because of perks and because of TRUE roleplaying.. people make smg characters.

They make revolver characters snipers machine gunners shotguners pistoleros...

There is only melee or unamred.. yet people make characters around all sorts of fighthing styles...

Only energy weapons skill yet people make characters around lasers or plasma or energy pistols or rapid fire energy weaponry or shotgun like energy weapons or.....

With 1 handed weapons skill and enough perks you can make any one handed weapon char you want.. you can roleplay any weapon style... dagger and axe... mace and staff... shield and shield.... alot more ways to play open up.

For over a decade there has been only destruction magic.. yet people played ice mages and fire mages and storm mages.... maybe now the perks will echo that.

I guess I'm a bad person for saying this (don't see how everyone's reaching that conclusion...), but I entirely agree with the OP. The fewer skills will result in less uniqueness and generally less immersion. In Morrowind, you actually had to go with an idea of what you wanted to be, so you could play your role in-depth and fully. Many skills and classes give a sense of specific purpose to playing that lets you feel like a part of what you're playing in.

Eliminating skills and classes, everyone will, with enough hacking and slashing under their belts, end up roughly the same generic super-protagonist. The perk system is not at all enough to make up for the loss, either.

The game still looks amazing and there's no chance in heck that I wouldn't like it, but it seems like the series is gradually losing the immersive charm that made it what it was.

I could live with that, that would make sense. Actually, I really like the idea of sub-skills.

As to the Axe versus Sword argument, no, they handle completely differently from what I see. An Axe has almost all it's weight located at it's head. As such, you start with arms wide, and as momentum builds, you slide your upper hand away from the head towards your other hand at the base to build speed. From what I've seen from swords, your hands are almost universally locked down at the hilt, due to the inherit balance of a sword. I also assume this makes a sword a quicker weapon to wield than my ugly axe. And yes, I've had wood attack me. Never turn your back on kindling, those little twigs are relentless... =P


An example of a Perk in Fallout 3 would be something like 'Scientist: +1 to Intelligence'.

I know you can do it by focusing on a player with a high starting intelligence, I mentioned and explained away that. If you start life bordering on genuis level intellect, the small bit of intelligence you devellop naturally in life, even if you don't choose a profession that constantly focuses you to think, you will still learn a little here and there.

And again, my issue comes from the generalization that all one-handed weapons are the same, and all two-handed weapons are the same. As I said, I've swung my fair share of axes. Give me a two inch piece of wood and one swing with an axe, and I'll leave you with two one-inch pieces, no problem. Give me that same piece of would and a claymore? I'll give you a comedy show. And possibly self-induced lacerations.

Isn't how you learn everything in real life? I don't know about you, but I didn't get good at runnig by hearing about it on TV, or by ticking off "Athletics" while levelling up - I went out and damn well ran.

And you're right, the skills sometimes didn't feel all too different between 64 and 65. But guess what? That same problem is going to apply, only instead of swords not seeming too different, EVERY one-handed weapon wont feel different. The solution to that wasn't axing the whole concept, but rather fleshing it out more. You listed off difficulties in solving that. Well, I have two issues with that: They're game devellopers, and they spend years on each game, figure it out! Secondly, it's not all too hard. As I said, I spent all of about ten seconds thinking of a solution to the Acrobatics issue, and that on it's own would solve that issue.


You needn't worry, everyone in these last couple pages seems completely rational and seem to enjoy the discussion. Don't be afraid to voice your opinion, they wont berate you for it.

Changing blunt and blade into one-handed weapons and two-handed weapons does not force you to use the same 1-handed weapon and the same 2-handed weapon. You are still free to choose whether or not you use swords or axes etc, and the perks you choose will make your weapon choice more specialized. Like someone explained very well earlier - There was no SMG skill in fallout, but people still made SMG characters. Yet there were perks that boosted you SMG damage.

Just because they get rid of small elements in the game dose not mean they're going to kill the entire sereis. Take a chill pill dude.

To be completely honest with you, if Skyrim turns out to be very similar to Fallout 3, it will be the last Elder Scrolls I buy. Sure, there were perks to boost explosive proficiency, your ability to wield SMGs and how effective you were with pistols. But given the option between those, and the skills from previous games, it's no contest: The skills were better in every concievable way.

I know there will be perks to use certain weapons more effectively - I've already had this discussion multiple times. My argument is that it isn't as good as the skills they're replacing.

Where to start...

• People said the same thing when I voiced concerns over certain changes - most notably with skill-reductions - in Oblivion. Sure enough, the game rolled around, and lo' and behold, I hated the changes.
  
• These are the forums for the game. You know, the area where people meet to discuss their opinions on the game?
  
• I don't consider the fact we're at almost half the skills we had in Morrowind to be a 'small element'. One of the biggest things to do in Elder Scrolls is improve your character - primarily through skills. It's hardly a small element.
  
• Lastly, as I've already stated numerous times, I fail to see why the needed to be rid of those skills in the first place. I'm not arguing against perks, I think perks will end up being fantastic. I just don't feel their implementation necessitated the sacrifice of even more skills.

Perks which increase the amount of customization you can achieve sort of kill your argument my sweet child.

Please read the few posts above your own statement, because there's no way in Oblivion I'm re-typing my arguments out in their entirity.

But I'll paraphrase: No. They don't.

Whine, whine, whine, skills, whine, dumbed down, whine, whine, mainstream, whine, whine, action.

Sometimes it is deafening.

I think a lot of people here are assuming that these gameplay features are still there somehow, or are totally ignoring what makes a game to begin with. We don't know that anything previously covered under the mercantile skill still exists. We also know that games let you do things, the less things you have to do... well that's just it. Howard is trying to sell that giving you less to do in the game is somehow better, and people are desperately trying to convince themselves anyway they can that this is good.

Perks such as +1 to INT do nothing greater than leveling up would, or things like Intense training which just add more points to skills which we seem to be lack their off, Perks don't/shouldn't replace an entire attribute/skill system, what Im going to pick a perk that says Spears and then all of a sudden I can wield spears better? or if at all? as stated you don't level perks, you pick them and your done, other perks that level 2 times after you pick them just add points to stills, thats just....no.

Why can't perks be augements to the existing skill system? having perks soley defining a character is.......silly and at this rate ON PAPER and with what info we have currently, chars will be even more cloned that in Oblivion, my char wont be any different save asthetically from your character, and maybe a gender difference.
I don't have issues with perks but they should be used to entirely define a character in TES, other games sport this ACTIVE *perk* system its nothing new, Kotor1-2, Dragon age, NWN, but those are TURNBASED games, the traits an abilities are essential because they turn the tide of battles, where as TES has been realtime combat, anything can go horribly wrong at any moment.

sigh....I hope we get additional information to abate this.

This scenario is almost identical to the No Spell Making thread. The fact is, the new system of perks will likely change everything you know about the TES RPG system. By adding perks, you open up an entirely new path of customization that can be even more in depth and realistic than the old way.

If I die tomorrow... Which I wont.... But if I do.... And I find out that Skyrim is how this thread topic is saying it will be I will personally dig myself out of my grave and slap a 3 yesr old child.... But I won't need to because it's Mother [censored] Bethesda!!! Every forum after Oblivion came out... "oh I don't like that they totally screwed up the AI" fallout "what is this rpg gone turn based?" every sketchy rumor turned into a [censored] fest. But the absolute matter of the fact is Bethesda has not yet failed at producing a game that 92.5% of it's fanbase loved! And if 7.5% wants to quit because the game doesn't wash it's clothes and make it's bed in the morning I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm tired of a thread that only criticizes rumors and speculation it's really not cool!

And in one gloriously stupid statement, you have brought the collective intelligence of your side down. I think you owe them an apology - at least they form coherent points that address ours. You simply act like an infant.

If you've nothing to contribute, be quiet.

Well, it isn't solely perks, they still have skills, it's just three skills that have been erased/merged. Beyond that though, yes, I agree with you, I don't much favour the idea of relying upon perks to define weapon aptitude (Before anybody gives a reply, I am aware of the one-hand and two-hand skills). I too wish there were a more symbiotic relationship between what we have now, and perks on top of that.

Sadly, don't expect information to alleviate your suspiscions, it has already been confirmed that they're 18 skills (Daggerfall had 36, Morrowind had 27, Oblivion had 21) and while I'm not aware of the source, it seems to be accepted that there's 150 perks (Perhaps someone could help here?).

Personally, I didn't enjoy Oblivion as much as I did Morrowind, and while Fallout 3 was enjoyable for what it was, if that's how the Elder Scroll's turns out, well, it'll sadly be the last time I buy.

Just the opposite, actually.

In Morrowind and Oblivion, anyone could train all their skills up to 100, and be the best wizard, best warrior, and best thief, all in one. In Skyrim, the leveling system encourages you to specializae because you level much slower if you try to train low skills, which in turn encourages character uniqueness. But even if you did max out your skills to 100, the perks you selected while leveling up will still keep your character unique (someone who focused on axe and dagger perks will be different than someone who focused on sneak- and/or archery-related perks, for example). Once you reach level 50, your levelling slows dramatically, and its assumed you can no longer pick more perks (but even if you can, it would take ages to get them all if the estimates of 100 to 150 perks or more are accurate), meaning even two maxed out characters can be different in Skyrim, unlike Oblivion and Morrowind.


But from a gameplay perspective, it's no different. You didn't do any intelligence-based skill levelling with your character, yet because all you had to do was "check" the intelligence attribute at level up, you can become smart. At least with Skyrim's perks, one can hope that you'd need to level 1-Handed to pick axe perks.


It's not the same, and that's what the perks represent. The 1-Handed and 2-Handed skills represent basic understanding of 1-Handed and 2-Handed weaponry, and the perks represent understanding of specific weaponry. Is this the most realistic approach? Of course not. But, at least to me, it seems better than having them all completely separate.


Just like you didn't get strong by ticking off "Strength",or fast by ticking off "Speed".


The swords and stuff weren't the problem. Those likely only changed because Bethesda felt that 1H/2H was a better split than Blade/Blunt.. and I would agree. If you use a short sword, it makes some sense that you wouldn't be completely worthless with a mace (not great, but not worthless), while going from a dagger to a claymore doesn't make so much sense.

But other skills, like speechcraft, were much worse off with the granularity offered by a 100-level scale. That's why it's likely merged with something else.


It's not axed. As far as we know, the "missing" skills have been merged into others (eg, Mysticism was merged into the other magic schools) and fleshed out with perks, not simply dropped.

KCat, save your effort and go do something fun or useful. You are talking to the wall.

At least people can point to that post and say "this is why it's not the end of the world." You're right it probably is like talking to a wall, but at least it was said in such a clear post.

Stop being so frantic and stop critisising Bethesda's work. They have done a great job in their previous games and I'm certain they will do this in Skyrim too.

And they are nor removing the skills, they are placing them in a more suitable place. Maybe there won't be skills at all, but a completely different system. Remember they don't do this to piss us off. They do this because they care and they want to improve the game as much as possible. They are not dumb, they are BETHESDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FWIW, Todd just backed up in the podcast that a maxed character will still be differentiated by the perks they selected levelling up. And there's 280 perks. At 1 perk per level, good luck getting even 1/3rd of them in a single character.

Of course you can do that in every game, that was never my point. My point is that an RPG is a game that deliberately wants you to roleplay and adapts based on your decisions and actions. Not every game does that, so you clearly didn't understand my point at all.

I agree with the first four words, that's it. Never stop criticising, ever. That's what drives people to improve. If I make a mod and people tell me "This mod svcks, this is why..." then I will be driven to improve it. If the only thing people do is fawn over it and declare it a masterpiece, I will not be encouraged to improve my own abilities as a mod maker, that hurts me and it hurts the people who like my mods (Hello to both of you. )

Bethesda are not gods, they are people. They make mistakes and they make bad decisions just like everyone else. They've made many design decisions that I don't agree with in the past, I'm sure they will this time as well. So does every other game company. For example, I play WoW and I have spent 5 years doing so. Do you think I agree with everything Blizzard does to that game? Of course not, I obviously like the game or I would've have spent 5 damn years on it, but that doesn't mean I don't think Blizzard has made some dumb decisions in the past. Same goes for Bethesda.