I enjoy using both blunt and blade weapons.

I've been thinking of DW'ing maces.... :drool:

Are you saying they had fancy swordplay in actual combat? Think again! Only in Japan — where samurai met each other on the battlefield, announced their family's notable achievements to each other, and then fought in single combat — did they have anything approaching the fanciness you see in movies. In European battle there were two things you did with your sword: stab the guy in front of you, or cleave downwards to get as much power and weight behind the sword as you could. You might slash sideways, but a medieval battlefield was a crowded place, and any armor you were wearing limited your movement anyway.

Even with a two-handed sword, this remains true. Zweihanders were basically built around these two motions: you cleave downwards to break the pikes of a pike formation, and then you gripped the ricasso and used the sword like a short spear.

There's more to two-handed sword than what you know as Zweihanders. The classic longsword was used two-handed and was chiefly a dueling weapon. You are quite mistaken about single combat being something restricted to Japan. Quite the contrary, single combat was, for quite a while, even part of the European legal system, with judicial duels used to establish who was right. And even after the sword evolved into the rapier, classic longswords were still used as weapons in the training curriculum, the basis on which to build the training with other weapons.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/asdfasdfh.jpg/

Me like blades! Me like to cut!

Actually, the thrust is as easy to block as any other attack (and easier to evade because there's more room where you're not in the way of the thrust - you shouldn't block anyway when you can evade). And it won't penetrate armor that easily -it will usually have to find a gap. Plus there are swords optimized for cutting and swords optimized for thrusting, and swords which are suitable for both. The first usually have a center of gravity further out, allowing more "oomph" behind the cut and a broader blade, the latter tend to be leaner, more tapered and have a center of gravity closer to the hilt for better point control.




Who speaks of mindless slashing? Certainly not me. I speak of knowing how to use a sword. And by now I have even provided contemporary evidence that someone who was hired as a teacher of armed combat considers chopping off someone's hand something perfectly doable.

I took 14th century German long sword class for about 4 months, you could definitely chop off someone's hand with a proper blow.

I always think it odd when axes are called blunt weapons - I think of a club or a staff as a blunt weapon - now if they had quarterstaves in the game I'd be happy to use them for my mage - plenty of good stories about good quarterstaff users taking out swordsmen.

On the whole I prefer a blade - warhammers are too slow and weigh me down - I like to travel light.

I use blades mostly, though I like to use axes sometimes. I think the reason axes are categorised under 'blunt' would be because they aren't a blade. Blades are primarily for stabbing and slicing, whereas chopping is not really a strong point of swords (obviously there are exceptions such as the falcata, which also make excellent chopping swords) An axe however, is better for chopping which seems like more a blunt strike to me. Yes, an axe is technically sharp and can chop through flesh but i dont think that qualifies it as a blade on a stick. Blunt is all about using brute force to cause very high damage, and to do damage with an axe you have to swing it pretty hard, you cant just slit someones throat with it lightly.

I see your historical point but I'll raise an even more relevant fantasy one. (since this is what this argument is truly about)

D&D states skeletons are near immune to slashing and piercing attacks while bludgeoning is super effective.

Everyone knows D&D is the supreme authority on anything fantasy!

You've just been out geeked...

Never said it was impossible. I just doubt the ye olde Euro streets were paved with severed hands...

there wasn't a whole load of "stabbing" on oblivion with swords either, just a whole load of hacking and slashing...

I don't think the classification of "blunt" or "blade" will be relevant in Skyrim anyway as now the melee skills are two handed and one handed, with these being further divided based on perks, and I'm pretty sure axes get a seperate perk from maces. So the issue is irrelevent.

Now as to my preferences, my choice will depend on what kind of character I want to play, I'll go with whatever suits my character, but in fantasy RPGs, I go with swords more often than axes or maces, while games often tend to be biased in favor of swords to begin with and provide more powerful swords than for other weapon types, it's mostly because just like the feel of a sword better than an axe or mace. I think it's just that a sword feels like a more elegant, dignified weapon, and thus I like it better, of course, that kind of reasoning would not be very rational for fighting in real life, if I were involved in an actual fight to the death with Medieval weapons, hypothetically speaking, I wouldn't be worried about that sort of thing, I'd be much more worried about defeating my enemy and surviving the battle, and would use whatever approach makes the likelyhood of that highest. But you see, that's the advantage of video games, you can do what's fun for you regardless of how practical it would be in real life, if you make poor decisions and die, you'll just reload. So I'm often willing to put feel and aesthetics, or role-playing, before how practically viable something is, and usually choose what weapons my characters use based on what I want to play. Which may often be blades but I'm willing to change that to fit my character.

As to what kind of blunt weapon I favor, since I usually prefer one-handed weapons, I'd go with either a mace or a one-handed axe.

I think if you wanted to be technical, weapons should be categorized by their technique and how you would use them. However, this would muddied the "streamlined" waters quite a bit. Some daggers for instance, are used to pierce with forward jabs, this would also apply to some short swords like a gladius. It was used primarily as a jabbing weapon in the offshielded hand. Other types of daggers, short and long swords were 'agility' weapons, with long sweeping strokes that do their damage by swinging it at the enemy. Some long blades like a rapier were also jabbing weapons. Clubs, maces, and warhammers were clubbing weapons. They did their damage by strength and weight being smashed into someone. Big swords like Claymores were also generally under this category, since gracefully swinging them is out of the question and they were too thick to generally pierce armor anyway.

Weapons should ideally be grouped by how they are used. Jabbing, swinging, or pummelling. A person trained with a rapier would have a much easier time picking up a dagger and using it than a claymore. Most axes would be considered pummelling weapons as it requires a lot more strength to use. Smaller handaxes though, might fall into the same category as most swords depending on whether it is strength or control that defines how they are used.

I prefer a sword, blunt weapons are cool but when it comes to video games and such I prefer the traditional sword a shield hero.

If I have the element of surprise, I like to shoot my enemy with the bow first (poisoned with one of my lovely paralysis + damage health concoctions), then, if they survive, draw my sword and charge in.

Mh. I like blunt weapons, really!
Also I didn't know Axes where under blunt weapon, now I like that skill even more. It sound strange though B)

Actually, you'd be surprised how easy it is to fence with something like a claymore, and a rapier is not like a dagger. First, depending on the design of the rapier, you can also cut with it. Second, you have length, meaning you can parry at the same time as attacking - on the other hand, you'd be hard-pressed to stab someone into the shoulder from above with a rapier, which is perfectly possible with a dagger. As I pointed out earlier, longswords were used as initiation weapons for rapier fighting. Essentially, especially an early rapier is, speaking a bit simplified, a longsword balanced for thrust so well that it can be used regularly with one hand.

Oh, and if you want to actually pierce armor as opposed to stabbing into gaps, your best bet is a bec-de-corbin hammer - the proverbial can opener.

blunt weapons just seem barbaric for me XD

i LOVE blunt weapons, maces, flails, morning stars expecially in my opinion theyre way mroe brutal and painful than a sword, sword sure willmake some cuts and all, but a nice mace will brake bones, sticks and stones will break my bones ha, mace leaves more pernament damage, seriously if you hit someone who has a metal helmet with a heavy mace, his head will be crushed, and if using a sword or a dagger youll just scratch the surface, THATS AN OPINION!!
dont flame me :toughninja:

I'm a weapon collector (hoarder) but when I purchase one I almost always lean toward swords. On topic, I wouldn't mind welding nunchakus, or sais. As a martial artist I'd like to see more eastern weapons. oh well, maybe tes 6 akivir

I find it interesting that most people think Axes should be something other than blunt weapons, BUT when asked about what kind of blunt weapon they like the majority say Axes, which the majority just said shouldn't be a blunt weapon.

The whole poll is really contradicting.

However, I like swords. If I use a blunt weapon, it's a mace.

I don't dislike blunt weapons personally, I just like blade weapons more. It is pretty awesome to run around with a huge war hammer.

There's a lot of awesomeness behind swords, but I mostly don't like them as much anymore because they're way overused. I want to stay away from the mainstream without having to lose too much effectiveness, so I prefer a nice union between the sword and the mace: the axe. I do really like bladed maces too, though. Overall I like one-handed weapons better in general, but if I ever go two-handed I would much rather have a halberd and, if the halberd doesn't exist in the game, a greatsword. I think with the new dual-wielding, I'll go with either an axe and a mace or an axe and a sword. Or if I don't like either of those, an axe with a shield.

Unfortunately, a lot of games tend to make swords either overpowered or just make everything else have such bad drawbacks that the only logical choice would be a sword. For example, in Dragon Age: Origins, swords had the most power out of the three weapons, while maces did less damage but had better penetration and axes had a mix between the two, which I think is kind of off...Then there's Oblivion, which had all of the good weapons as one-handed bladed weapons. Heck, even the Mace of Doom counted as a bladed weapon (but it was only obtainable through a glitch so I'll give it that). I only just started playing Morrowind, but I think it's really annoying that axes always deal a minimum 1 damage, where everything else has a much higher minimum. A lot of Japanese RPGs don't even have characters that wield axes, or even the option to use one if you so wished. I think it's just that I'm getting tired of swords all the time.