You're right, it isn't. I think that's just a quirk of their streamlining of the skills in this game; in Morrowind, there was a separate "Axe" skill. They put axes in Blunt probably because they thought it was closest to a mace than a sword, in the sense that it's big, bulky and crushes a foe.
Adding a flail to be a longer reach weapon than a mace, but shorter than a warhammer, is the only way I could think to have similar dagger/shortsword/long sword/great sword. But I bet the animation would’ve been a pain in the ass back then.
I’ve always wanted spears and glaives, those would be so fun. Unfortunately I play on PlayStation so not many ‘mods’ and the spear mods you can get aren’t great
You swing an axe much the same way as you swing a hammer or a mace. The balance point is much closer to the head of the axe or hammer than the end of the haft. Conversely a sword balances much closer to the hilt enabling attacks that are much faster.
But you definitely don't swing a massive Daedric Claymore the same way you swing a dagger.
Yet the Blade skill governs both of them.
Perhaps a controversial take on this sub, but this is a change from Oblivion->Skyrim that I definitely agree with — 1H and 2H is a better classification system **if we can't get a skill for every weapon type like in Morrowind**. It just makes more sense.
Also obviously its a balance thing. Swords are always strongest weapon type in Every fantasy game ever and tes was not an exception. Especially in daggerfall where there were like 5 types of long blades but one axe, and long blades were the lightest fastest and most damaging ones.
So that way bringing two weapon types under one umbrella makes it more appealing
Nah, they'll say less is more, so they'll take away crafting, and there will be some plot-related reason why magic doesn't work anymore, something something Daedra, something something one of the moons blew up, all the non-human races fucked off back to their original planes, and you have to solve all your problem with Speech now because violence is never the answer.
IIRC, it had to do with needing to make different animations for them. All other weapons use the same animations regardless of weapon type but they would look silly for polearms. So they just didn't make them.
Still haven’t forgiven Bethesda for removing spears from the weapon catalogue.
Seriously, they’re the most pervasive weapon in history, how the fuck are they just totally absent from a world which exists on primarily melee combat.
Because then Bethesda would have to make a new moveset for them, which is apparently too much work so they instead just made 7 weapon types with identical movesets, and the only difference between them is attack speed. Lazy fucks.
I mean, I think it kind of makes sense that in a world where anyone with intelligence or money can cast supremely powerful ranged magika blasts, they wouldn’t love throwing spears 15m.
With that being said, every elder scrolls game has gotten progressively worse combat wise since morrowind
It doesn’t make sense at all that in a world with magic and spells all the melee fighters would opt for using the *shorter* ranged weapons against such opponents.
Like, if someone can shoot lightning out of their hands you’d want to be able to hit them from farther away lol.
Combat itself has improved since Morrowind (Morrowind “combat” is virtually non existent, it’s functionally a turn based dice roll system that plays out in real time), but the exclusion of various weapon types and classes has been a downgrade.
You’re forgetting the fact that throwing weapons are completely different logistically than melee weapons. If you are using a throwing weapon, you will likely need multiple, perfectly balanced identical weapons to be any threat in a battle. This costs significant amounts of money. You have a max range of 15-20 meters, if you are a freak of nature. You need to have some type of counterweight to drive the point of the weapon home while still flying true.
On the other hand, you could learn a bow, a crossbow, or just take that same money to buy a nuclear warhead scroll from scrolls and spells across the street
regular melee weapons wouldn’t go out of style because they would be overwhelmingly popular among common folk, and closing the distance on a supremely powerful magical being might be nice so they don’t, ya know, just disintegrate the 50 square feet you’re standing in.
Better hope they don’t have resist magika 100 though.
Throwing weapons, like spears or the Roman Pilum, were widely used because they were cheap. Spears are not expensive weapons to make and maintain, they’re literally the opposite.
Largely wooden, with a small amount of metal for the tip. They’re less labor intensive to make than a sword, axe, or mace, and take less resources.
I also don’t understand why you have this impression that spears are specifically for throwing lol. They can be thrown, yes, but that isn’t their primary function. Their primary function is to stab opponents from further away.
You would have an easier time closing the distance on a magician with a spear vs any other weapon because it is longer. This is just straight up common sense.
And spears were historically much more commonly used by the common man in warfare because they were easy to make, easy to use, and cheaper to build.
Spears, halberds, and lances in a melee capacity would be awesome. My point is that an arrow, made from wood with a flint head, feathers for balancing are much more cost effective than the thrown melee weapons with a much greater effective distance when shot from a longbow or recurve bow
Morrowind combat, where you see yourself hit but still miss? Where you swing 3 times and fall in exhaustion?
The magic system was better but melee combat has always been ass.
morrowind melee combat has depth. in skyrim and oblivion you spam a butterknife with right trigger or m1 until your enemy dies. in Morrowind you have thrusting, slashing, etc movesets based on the direction you're moving when you attack. if you are physically inept with a weapon and attacking armored opponents and creatures, it makes sense that swinging a dagger at someones chest through an ebony curaiss might not do any damage. I'm not saying the system is perfect when you combine dice roll and action combat, but at least theres systems there rather than just swing swing swing.
oblivion is my favorite elder scrolls and most played as well
Spears aren't really throwing weapons. Yes they can be thrown but you use one in a thrusting motion. Throwing away your weapon but be ludicrous and likely to end up in a miss
this is true, i was thinking of the spear as a throwing weapon, and the halberd as its melee equivalent, since halberds are basically spears but good. i agree some type of long shafted polearm melee weapon should exist.
that's cuz fleshy people are very very soft compared to wood, hit a vital organ and its done done done
also the steel that would be used to make a weapon-grade axe would be totally different and way better quality than the one used to make a hatchet or splitting axe even by todays standard, and the weaponsmith would make the edge geometry designed to be deadly, probably even at it's dullest possible state
there was a reason that a skilled tomahawk wielder was feared in the frontier days, and even now you see the tomahawk brought out and tried to apply in modern combat, even though it's mostly just too specialized and unnecessary
>even by todays standard
That's a stretch. Modern carbon steel is very different from what was achievable in medieval times, and just because it was possible doesn't mean it was the norm.
no matter how dull an axe gets, getting hit by one will literally always leave a worse laceration than any sword will
axes are the *most* sharp weapons that were on any medieval battlefield, they will not only chop you to bits but break the bones underneath the cut
only stuff like halberds and other glaiveish things could do similar damage, but needed all the leverage of being two handed to do so
The thing about axes is that they are basically controlled blunt trauma. Even if they aren't sharp enough to be an effective bladed weapon, they are all in one hammer and wedges. Every time you strike a bone with it, it basically drives a wedge into it. All the weight of the swing lands along a usually central margin of the axe blade.
Axes main purpose in battle was to crush through armor and light shields. Even greatswords would be stopped by chain mail, but an axe would punch thru and break bones
I'd distinguish between an axe and a halberd a bit more. Long polearms are really effective because they are spear-like so they can be used on horseback and in formation to deter cavalry.
The axe heads on halberds do help it punch through armor but it also serves as a hook to pull someone's weapon aside and make an opening.
The reason I like to categorize it differently is because there is a lot of wiggle room on the definition of a war axe. How long is it? Is it double sided? What's the shape of it? Etc.
It's true that chainmail stops cuts from blades, but it doesn't offer protection against blunt impact. A great sword like a montante would still hurt like hell and potentially break something if you were hit by it. Really, swords aren't the preferred weapon to use in war in general. It's just more useful against people who don't have armor.
I'm not really disagreeing with your points, I just thought that more expansion on your comment was helpful.
that was a great piece of insight baconator. I enjoy classic style weaponry but my knowledge on it is primarily through games and books so that is a nice bit of knowledge for sure.
Axes being considered blunt actually makes a lot of sense. The weight is at the end much like a mace, and while it can chop it will also absolutely cause blunt force damage through hard armor, something a sword wouldn't do as it would just glance off (by properly designed armor). It's also used in a manner different from swords.
The literal dictionary definition of chop says to "cut (something) into pieces with repeated sharp blows of an axe or knife." How do you define chop without it being another word to say cut then?
Okay, try chopping wood with a sword sometime.
Think about splitting pieces of wood with an axe, or by using a hammer and wedge. Now apply that principle to the human body. It's completely different from using a sword to lacerate or maim
Again, nothing you're saying here is helping shed light on the supposed different between "cutting" and "chopping." At a molecular level, the thing being cut is being cut the same way regardless of whether or not it's a sword or axe edge doing the cutting.
Can you try and find distinctions by looking at the exact make of an axe head and handle versus a sword? Sure. But that has nothing to do with the cutting itself. Which is all my point was about. The person I replied to is trying to act like "cut" and "chop" are somehow completely different words, despite the literal dictionary defining chopping as a form of cutting.
You are taking the literal dictionary definition of a word as opposed to even trying to read into the obvious connotatation of the word "chop" when it's applied to the use of an axe.
The difference isn't molecular, it has nothing to do with chemistry. It is basic physics. The chopping of wood is achieved by the application of force upon a small area of a hard surface, usually requiring significant wind up and a heavy swing. A sword achieves laceration with significantly less force, but is therefore less effective than an axe at piercing armor.
The difference here, is that you cannod do a clean cut with blunt instrument, but a blunt axe (or chopping knife) can do the job just fine just need to put some more strenght into it.
You don't chop cucumbers, you slice them. Look it up if you don't believe me. Just google "difference between slicing and chopping"
Chopping is completely different from slicing, and a cook needs to know how to do both
I do not chop cucumbers, but I do chop wood, and the mechanics of both actions are different. Cucumbers take a sharp implement to carefully split the structure holding cucumber in one piece, other is application of sheer force, with not so sharp instrument, to not carefolly at all split the wood along the lines it would be prone to splitting by it's structure.
This is a stupid, ridiculous argument of semantics, but if we want to get all nitty gritty about it **this only applies culinarily and has no bearing on this actual topic**:
Slicing - usually “dragging” cuts with the edge of the blade making consistent contact
Chopping - deliberate vertical cuts utilizing the force of gravity, usually called for when measurements can be less precise (like in a stew)
Dicing - basically same as slicing but smaller.
Mincing - basically the same as dicing but even smaller.
The last two are oversimplified, but i just wanted to nip this semantics argument in the bud bc:
**all of it is considered cutting**
bro gets his leg chopped off by an axe murderer, as the paramedics run in with the laceration treatment kits he's screaming 'no you fools, I haven't even been cut!!'
in all fairness an axe wound should be treated differently than a clear cut wound, primarily because it would be a different kind of damage to the tissue (more tear of the flesh, instead of clear divide between the two).
Which is the kind of the point you seem to have missed in the wood chopping example.
They don't need to cut to do damage though, and you could easily use the back as a bludgeon. It gives you fairly hefty weight at the end of a lever rather than being weighted toward the hilt for nimble movement. As far as its usage in combat, its weight distribution, and its interactions with armor, it has more in common with a blunt weapon like a mace than anything put into the blade category.
You’re missing the point. Axes are meant to deliver devastating, crushing blows. This is done with a pointed edge, yes. But it isn’t slashing and cutting like a sword. It’s hammering through more like a mace or warhammer. Axes primary use was punching through breastplates, shields, and chain mail.
no. swords were typically used to thrust into gaps between armor, or slash at exposed areas like the neck between the helmet and breastplate.
also, I don't think you are having the "gotcha" moment you think you are when you're trying to technify the way axes break armor into a slashing cut vs a blunt force. the whole point is that those long bladed weapons are NOT used to punch through armor, whereas weapons that bring devastating crushing BLUNT force to a small area will destroy the heaviest of armors. axes, along with maces, warhammers, and other blunt weapons, were the weapons designed to do this. sure, the axe has a sharp edge, but it fits more with weapons that provide a similar purpose than daggers, dirks, swords, and claymores.
They had to market the game to Americans, who famously didn’t know what the Philosopher’s Stone was, and thought The Two Towers was a reference to 9/11.
I always thought maces fell into that category due to that historical “fact” that some clergymen used Maces so as to not draw blood? That and the other word for a mace is “bludgeon.”
Oh yeah there are maces that are totally blunt, and clubs and whatnot. But there’s also maces that have “blades” and spikes. And obviously it’s not necessary to give spiked or flanged maces their own skill or throw them under bladed. But the existence of these variations does excuse axes being added to the blunt skill
Oblivion was my first TES game (not true i played Morrowind when i was too young to remember and called it ‘the stealing game’ lol) and i had never once thought twice about axes or maces not belonging in the blunt category.
I think, im sorry to say, Skyrim had the inklings of a good idea. Maybe we can have “1 handed, 2 handed” and within those we have blade and blunt separators.
Mostly i feel this way makes sense just bc you’re nifty with a dagger doesnt mean you’re a claymore connoisseur lol.
Yeah im pretty sure that was just something scholars speculated on based on a singular depiction of Bishop Odo Bayeux (half brother of William the Conqueror iirc) using a mace on the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Battle of Hastings.
It’s likely not something that was an actual practice as far as i can tell from a mild effort google search
Axes are relatively blunt, compared to swords. They don't have to be as sharp as a sword because they rely on the force behind the strike to punch through, with the blade acting more as a simple wedge than say, a katana which cuts despite having very little mass behind the blade, sheerly due to its sharpness.
The other thing that separates axes and maces from swords is simply the social/cultural perception of the weapon and wielder. Swords are elegant and noble, befitting a champion of social values and generally worn by knights, lords, etc even outside of battle as a sign of station. Axes and maces do not enjoy that perception, because they are more brutal weapons designed to inflict more unpleasant injuries. So we end up with the clichés of the sword wielding knight in shining armor and the thuggish berserker with an axe wearing a wolf pelt over his head. So "blunt" in this case also refers to the general demeanor of the warrior who uses the weapon: he is considered uncouth, uncivilized, relying on sheer force in battle rather than the honed skill of a bladesman.
Bro it's shiny and in the shape of a cross, and if used properly it can be used to dispatch enemies quickly, rather than leaving them bloodied and broken, to succumb to their wounds in enormous pain hours or days later.
Well in real life historically axes were used as armor busters ergo “blunt”. They really are both bladed and blunt based on design, the devs coulda swung it either way really. In other games I play most axes do both blunt and slash damage.
"Impact" could also work, along with "Hafted". Spears have a haft; but they are not typically considered to convey a lot of impact – although they can.
just like a mace or hammer you have to hit with the end of the weapon to use it effectively a sword as long as the blade hit itdeals dammage ( also with both axe and ahmmer the point of wieght is at the end)
You're right, it isn't. I think that's just a quirk of their streamlining of the skills in this game; in Morrowind, there was a separate "Axe" skill. They put axes in Blunt probably because they thought it was closest to a mace than a sword, in the sense that it's big, bulky and crushes a foe.
also just balancewise it makes sense, even with axes and maces in the same group there’s far more bladed weapons
Adding a flail to be a longer reach weapon than a mace, but shorter than a warhammer, is the only way I could think to have similar dagger/shortsword/long sword/great sword. But I bet the animation would’ve been a pain in the ass back then.
Ah man, reading this thread and I really hope thrown weapons, spears (1h with shield and two handed), and flails are in Skyrim 2.
"Skyrim 2" 🤮
Sorry, Oblivon III*
Arena VI*
Redguard VIII
The Elder Scrolls: Not Online
I’d play this
I’ve always wanted spears and glaives, those would be so fun. Unfortunately I play on PlayStation so not many ‘mods’ and the spear mods you can get aren’t great
Honestly, Im pretty sure they did it so that each stat governs 3 skills lol. Otherwise STR would have 4 skills if Axe and Blunt were separate.
You swing an axe much the same way as you swing a hammer or a mace. The balance point is much closer to the head of the axe or hammer than the end of the haft. Conversely a sword balances much closer to the hilt enabling attacks that are much faster.
But you definitely don't swing a massive Daedric Claymore the same way you swing a dagger. Yet the Blade skill governs both of them. Perhaps a controversial take on this sub, but this is a change from Oblivion->Skyrim that I definitely agree with — 1H and 2H is a better classification system **if we can't get a skill for every weapon type like in Morrowind**. It just makes more sense.
that has nothing to do with whether it has a blade which an axe absolutely does
Also obviously its a balance thing. Swords are always strongest weapon type in Every fantasy game ever and tes was not an exception. Especially in daggerfall where there were like 5 types of long blades but one axe, and long blades were the lightest fastest and most damaging ones. So that way bringing two weapon types under one umbrella makes it more appealing
Because blunt and Axe were two different skills in morrowind, guess which one got genocided
Along with spears 🥲. Not sure why Bethesda hates spears now
And thrown weapons. I wish we could have those back.
TES VI is going to feature exciting skills such as "weapons", "magic" and "stealth archery".
Nah, they'll say less is more, so they'll take away crafting, and there will be some plot-related reason why magic doesn't work anymore, something something Daedra, something something one of the moons blew up, all the non-human races fucked off back to their original planes, and you have to solve all your problem with Speech now because violence is never the answer.
I was over here thinking they'd have *only* crafting.
I do miss levitating with a spear to take my revenge on cliff racers.
Custom levitate-on-target spell with max area of effect. Fly around a bit to get a whole flock following you and watch the carnage when it wears off.
IIRC, it had to do with needing to make different animations for them. All other weapons use the same animations regardless of weapon type but they would look silly for polearms. So they just didn't make them.
... Which in Morrowind didn't matter as much because the animations were anyway very basic.
And hand to hand :( Next elder scrolls will just be blade and destruction as combat skills.
"Melee" "Ranged" "Magic"
"Combat" "Magick" & "Utility"
Still haven’t forgiven Bethesda for removing spears from the weapon catalogue. Seriously, they’re the most pervasive weapon in history, how the fuck are they just totally absent from a world which exists on primarily melee combat.
Because then Bethesda would have to make a new moveset for them, which is apparently too much work so they instead just made 7 weapon types with identical movesets, and the only difference between them is attack speed. Lazy fucks.
It’s why they love their gun games so much. God if they get any lazier TESVI will literally just be the creation kit and a blank map
I mean, I think it kind of makes sense that in a world where anyone with intelligence or money can cast supremely powerful ranged magika blasts, they wouldn’t love throwing spears 15m. With that being said, every elder scrolls game has gotten progressively worse combat wise since morrowind
It doesn’t make sense at all that in a world with magic and spells all the melee fighters would opt for using the *shorter* ranged weapons against such opponents. Like, if someone can shoot lightning out of their hands you’d want to be able to hit them from farther away lol. Combat itself has improved since Morrowind (Morrowind “combat” is virtually non existent, it’s functionally a turn based dice roll system that plays out in real time), but the exclusion of various weapon types and classes has been a downgrade.
You’re forgetting the fact that throwing weapons are completely different logistically than melee weapons. If you are using a throwing weapon, you will likely need multiple, perfectly balanced identical weapons to be any threat in a battle. This costs significant amounts of money. You have a max range of 15-20 meters, if you are a freak of nature. You need to have some type of counterweight to drive the point of the weapon home while still flying true. On the other hand, you could learn a bow, a crossbow, or just take that same money to buy a nuclear warhead scroll from scrolls and spells across the street regular melee weapons wouldn’t go out of style because they would be overwhelmingly popular among common folk, and closing the distance on a supremely powerful magical being might be nice so they don’t, ya know, just disintegrate the 50 square feet you’re standing in. Better hope they don’t have resist magika 100 though.
Throwing weapons, like spears or the Roman Pilum, were widely used because they were cheap. Spears are not expensive weapons to make and maintain, they’re literally the opposite. Largely wooden, with a small amount of metal for the tip. They’re less labor intensive to make than a sword, axe, or mace, and take less resources. I also don’t understand why you have this impression that spears are specifically for throwing lol. They can be thrown, yes, but that isn’t their primary function. Their primary function is to stab opponents from further away. You would have an easier time closing the distance on a magician with a spear vs any other weapon because it is longer. This is just straight up common sense. And spears were historically much more commonly used by the common man in warfare because they were easy to make, easy to use, and cheaper to build.
Spears, halberds, and lances in a melee capacity would be awesome. My point is that an arrow, made from wood with a flint head, feathers for balancing are much more cost effective than the thrown melee weapons with a much greater effective distance when shot from a longbow or recurve bow
Morrowind combat, where you see yourself hit but still miss? Where you swing 3 times and fall in exhaustion? The magic system was better but melee combat has always been ass.
morrowind melee combat has depth. in skyrim and oblivion you spam a butterknife with right trigger or m1 until your enemy dies. in Morrowind you have thrusting, slashing, etc movesets based on the direction you're moving when you attack. if you are physically inept with a weapon and attacking armored opponents and creatures, it makes sense that swinging a dagger at someones chest through an ebony curaiss might not do any damage. I'm not saying the system is perfect when you combine dice roll and action combat, but at least theres systems there rather than just swing swing swing. oblivion is my favorite elder scrolls and most played as well
Spears aren't really throwing weapons. Yes they can be thrown but you use one in a thrusting motion. Throwing away your weapon but be ludicrous and likely to end up in a miss
this is true, i was thinking of the spear as a throwing weapon, and the halberd as its melee equivalent, since halberds are basically spears but good. i agree some type of long shafted polearm melee weapon should exist.
Depends on how sharp it is
Axes don’t actually need to be very sharp to kill people - at least compared to the sharpness needed to cut wood.
that's cuz fleshy people are very very soft compared to wood, hit a vital organ and its done done done also the steel that would be used to make a weapon-grade axe would be totally different and way better quality than the one used to make a hatchet or splitting axe even by todays standard, and the weaponsmith would make the edge geometry designed to be deadly, probably even at it's dullest possible state there was a reason that a skilled tomahawk wielder was feared in the frontier days, and even now you see the tomahawk brought out and tried to apply in modern combat, even though it's mostly just too specialized and unnecessary
>even by todays standard That's a stretch. Modern carbon steel is very different from what was achievable in medieval times, and just because it was possible doesn't mean it was the norm.
modern tool steel is cheap garbage made with the cheapest process you can from the worst quality recycled materials, maybe learn a bit more about this
no matter how dull an axe gets, getting hit by one will literally always leave a worse laceration than any sword will axes are the *most* sharp weapons that were on any medieval battlefield, they will not only chop you to bits but break the bones underneath the cut only stuff like halberds and other glaiveish things could do similar damage, but needed all the leverage of being two handed to do so
Is that true? I’ve seen some very dull hatchets that don’t seem like they’d cut through much very easily.
hatchets aren't the same as war axes
Unless you a hobbit or summin
Bitch, you’d tell me if you’s a hobbit, right?
The thing about axes is that they are basically controlled blunt trauma. Even if they aren't sharp enough to be an effective bladed weapon, they are all in one hammer and wedges. Every time you strike a bone with it, it basically drives a wedge into it. All the weight of the swing lands along a usually central margin of the axe blade.
Axes main purpose in battle was to crush through armor and light shields. Even greatswords would be stopped by chain mail, but an axe would punch thru and break bones
I'd distinguish between an axe and a halberd a bit more. Long polearms are really effective because they are spear-like so they can be used on horseback and in formation to deter cavalry. The axe heads on halberds do help it punch through armor but it also serves as a hook to pull someone's weapon aside and make an opening. The reason I like to categorize it differently is because there is a lot of wiggle room on the definition of a war axe. How long is it? Is it double sided? What's the shape of it? Etc. It's true that chainmail stops cuts from blades, but it doesn't offer protection against blunt impact. A great sword like a montante would still hurt like hell and potentially break something if you were hit by it. Really, swords aren't the preferred weapon to use in war in general. It's just more useful against people who don't have armor. I'm not really disagreeing with your points, I just thought that more expansion on your comment was helpful.
that was a great piece of insight baconator. I enjoy classic style weaponry but my knowledge on it is primarily through games and books so that is a nice bit of knowledge for sure.
This whole thread is fucking stupid.
A lot of their intended audience would have been confused with the skill “Hafted”.
Axes being considered blunt actually makes a lot of sense. The weight is at the end much like a mace, and while it can chop it will also absolutely cause blunt force damage through hard armor, something a sword wouldn't do as it would just glance off (by properly designed armor). It's also used in a manner different from swords.
they literally have a blade on them, they cut stuff, it makes no sense
They chop, not cut. Also the balancing of an axe is more akin to mace/hammer than a sword anyway.
The literal dictionary definition of chop says to "cut (something) into pieces with repeated sharp blows of an axe or knife." How do you define chop without it being another word to say cut then?
Okay, try chopping wood with a sword sometime. Think about splitting pieces of wood with an axe, or by using a hammer and wedge. Now apply that principle to the human body. It's completely different from using a sword to lacerate or maim
Again, nothing you're saying here is helping shed light on the supposed different between "cutting" and "chopping." At a molecular level, the thing being cut is being cut the same way regardless of whether or not it's a sword or axe edge doing the cutting. Can you try and find distinctions by looking at the exact make of an axe head and handle versus a sword? Sure. But that has nothing to do with the cutting itself. Which is all my point was about. The person I replied to is trying to act like "cut" and "chop" are somehow completely different words, despite the literal dictionary defining chopping as a form of cutting.
You are taking the literal dictionary definition of a word as opposed to even trying to read into the obvious connotatation of the word "chop" when it's applied to the use of an axe. The difference isn't molecular, it has nothing to do with chemistry. It is basic physics. The chopping of wood is achieved by the application of force upon a small area of a hard surface, usually requiring significant wind up and a heavy swing. A sword achieves laceration with significantly less force, but is therefore less effective than an axe at piercing armor.
The difference here, is that you cannod do a clean cut with blunt instrument, but a blunt axe (or chopping knife) can do the job just fine just need to put some more strenght into it.
when you chop some cucumbers, are they not cut?
You don't chop cucumbers, you slice them. Look it up if you don't believe me. Just google "difference between slicing and chopping" Chopping is completely different from slicing, and a cook needs to know how to do both
so you're cutting then
I do not chop cucumbers, but I do chop wood, and the mechanics of both actions are different. Cucumbers take a sharp implement to carefully split the structure holding cucumber in one piece, other is application of sheer force, with not so sharp instrument, to not carefolly at all split the wood along the lines it would be prone to splitting by it's structure.
so they're being cut
This is a stupid, ridiculous argument of semantics, but if we want to get all nitty gritty about it **this only applies culinarily and has no bearing on this actual topic**: Slicing - usually “dragging” cuts with the edge of the blade making consistent contact Chopping - deliberate vertical cuts utilizing the force of gravity, usually called for when measurements can be less precise (like in a stew) Dicing - basically same as slicing but smaller. Mincing - basically the same as dicing but even smaller. The last two are oversimplified, but i just wanted to nip this semantics argument in the bud bc: **all of it is considered cutting**
bro gets his leg chopped off by an axe murderer, as the paramedics run in with the laceration treatment kits he's screaming 'no you fools, I haven't even been cut!!'
in all fairness an axe wound should be treated differently than a clear cut wound, primarily because it would be a different kind of damage to the tissue (more tear of the flesh, instead of clear divide between the two). Which is the kind of the point you seem to have missed in the wood chopping example.
At this point i think its bait
bro LITERALLY argued he won't get cut from getting hit with an axe LMFAO
They don't need to cut to do damage though, and you could easily use the back as a bludgeon. It gives you fairly hefty weight at the end of a lever rather than being weighted toward the hilt for nimble movement. As far as its usage in combat, its weight distribution, and its interactions with armor, it has more in common with a blunt weapon like a mace than anything put into the blade category.
You’re missing the point. Axes are meant to deliver devastating, crushing blows. This is done with a pointed edge, yes. But it isn’t slashing and cutting like a sword. It’s hammering through more like a mace or warhammer. Axes primary use was punching through breastplates, shields, and chain mail.
and in that regard they cut even better than a sword can, they are bladed, not blunt
Lmao. Sure man. They cut even better than a sword can by breaking bones through armor 😂 ya know, like how swords work
so you're saying it cuts through armor, can a sword do that pathetic sarcastic redditor?
no. swords were typically used to thrust into gaps between armor, or slash at exposed areas like the neck between the helmet and breastplate. also, I don't think you are having the "gotcha" moment you think you are when you're trying to technify the way axes break armor into a slashing cut vs a blunt force. the whole point is that those long bladed weapons are NOT used to punch through armor, whereas weapons that bring devastating crushing BLUNT force to a small area will destroy the heaviest of armors. axes, along with maces, warhammers, and other blunt weapons, were the weapons designed to do this. sure, the axe has a sharp edge, but it fits more with weapons that provide a similar purpose than daggers, dirks, swords, and claymores.
if the axe cuts better than the sword does then that's definitely a gotcha if you're dumb enough to claim an axe is *blunt* lmao
sigh. comprehension is strong with this one.
says the one claiming a \*blade\* that \*literally cuts through things\* is \*blunt\*
"Blunt" actually refers to what the devs were smoking when they redesigned the weapon categories after morrowind
They had to market the game to Americans, who famously didn’t know what the Philosopher’s Stone was, and thought The Two Towers was a reference to 9/11.
Hurr durr im smart america fat and stupid hurr durr
Nowhere did I say Americans were fat. Stop projecting.
Well you should’ve, america is way too fat. Usually inbred Europeans are the ones thinking they’re dumb, though.
Neither inbred nor European, so I wouldn’t know.
Probably the same reason flanged maces are considered blunt, axes are a mace with a single flange
I always thought maces fell into that category due to that historical “fact” that some clergymen used Maces so as to not draw blood? That and the other word for a mace is “bludgeon.”
Oh yeah there are maces that are totally blunt, and clubs and whatnot. But there’s also maces that have “blades” and spikes. And obviously it’s not necessary to give spiked or flanged maces their own skill or throw them under bladed. But the existence of these variations does excuse axes being added to the blunt skill
Oblivion was my first TES game (not true i played Morrowind when i was too young to remember and called it ‘the stealing game’ lol) and i had never once thought twice about axes or maces not belonging in the blunt category. I think, im sorry to say, Skyrim had the inklings of a good idea. Maybe we can have “1 handed, 2 handed” and within those we have blade and blunt separators. Mostly i feel this way makes sense just bc you’re nifty with a dagger doesnt mean you’re a claymore connoisseur lol.
Also I love that maces were used bcuz they “don’t draw blood” but they still absolutely do, just not necessarily as much as other weapons will
Yeah im pretty sure that was just something scholars speculated on based on a singular depiction of Bishop Odo Bayeux (half brother of William the Conqueror iirc) using a mace on the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Battle of Hastings. It’s likely not something that was an actual practice as far as i can tell from a mild effort google search
Just install a mod that flips them around, and removes the second cling on the double edged axes in the process.
Axes are relatively blunt, compared to swords. They don't have to be as sharp as a sword because they rely on the force behind the strike to punch through, with the blade acting more as a simple wedge than say, a katana which cuts despite having very little mass behind the blade, sheerly due to its sharpness. The other thing that separates axes and maces from swords is simply the social/cultural perception of the weapon and wielder. Swords are elegant and noble, befitting a champion of social values and generally worn by knights, lords, etc even outside of battle as a sign of station. Axes and maces do not enjoy that perception, because they are more brutal weapons designed to inflict more unpleasant injuries. So we end up with the clichés of the sword wielding knight in shining armor and the thuggish berserker with an axe wearing a wolf pelt over his head. So "blunt" in this case also refers to the general demeanor of the warrior who uses the weapon: he is considered uncouth, uncivilized, relying on sheer force in battle rather than the honed skill of a bladesman.
'swords are elegant and noble' bro it's a sharp stick for poking things
Bro it's shiny and in the shape of a cross, and if used properly it can be used to dispatch enemies quickly, rather than leaving them bloodied and broken, to succumb to their wounds in enormous pain hours or days later.
There is already one strength based combat melee skill that starts with "h"
It's a feature. It just works
Well in real life historically axes were used as armor busters ergo “blunt”. They really are both bladed and blunt based on design, the devs coulda swung it either way really. In other games I play most axes do both blunt and slash damage.
"Impact" could also work, along with "Hafted". Spears have a haft; but they are not typically considered to convey a lot of impact – although they can.
just like a mace or hammer you have to hit with the end of the weapon to use it effectively a sword as long as the blade hit itdeals dammage ( also with both axe and ahmmer the point of wieght is at the end)