Why hasn't WAR been switched to blunt?

I was discussing this with a friend and thought i'd inquire.

1. Switching WAR to blunt damage, make Storms Eye apply to blunt
2. Apply a slashing debuff to one of DRK and PLDs moves

This should increase damage when you have a DRK/PLD combo, stay the same when you have DRK/WAR or PLD/WAR. Ideally to help equalize the tank combo meta.

Now I feel like there is a reason to not that I had read here on the forums, but I cant find it via the search function. Anyone know or can point me in the right direction?

Because a good axe is sharp!

Because I'm using an axe, not a club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronons

I was discussing this with a friend and thought i'd inquire.

1. Switching WAR to blunt damage, make Storms Eye apply to blunt
2. Apply a slashing debuff to one of DRK and PLDs moves

This should increase damage when you have a DRK/PLD combo, stay the same when you have DRK/WAR or PLD/WAR. Ideally to help equalize the tank combo meta.

Now I feel like there is a reason to not that I had read here on the forums, but I cant find it via the search function. Anyone know or can point me in the right direction?

---

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if the original WAR concept had provision for blunt/sharp depending on weapon equipped. Since we're strictly vertical prog now, I guess no chance anymore.

Outside of the clear aesthetic issues with axe dealing blunt damage. Here is a list of balance changes that'd occur from changing warrior to blunt alone;

1. Warrior would not change within itself and would still be taken withing (almost) every party
2. Monk would receive a buff out of not needing to use dragon kick anymore as storms eye applies blunt and then proceeding to use bootshine for all Opo-opo forms, increasing potency of that form by 37.5 (as Dragon kick is used once every 2 Opo forms and bootshine gives 75 more potency as of the guaranteed crit)
3. Dark knight becomes more sought after, as the removal of dragon kick allows delirium to not be overwritten, giving Drk their ONLY utility use again.
4. Ninja gets a slight nerf (although less than the mnk buff) as they'd have to use dancing edge over aeolian edge.

Then giving Drk and Pld a slashing resist down;
1. Ninja nerf removed as they don't have to dancing again.
2. Pld and Drk gain an equal buff for solo and party comp purposes.

In total, the result of this change would be.
None in terms of tank comp, you would still run Pld or Drk and a War (as war still provides path and lots of OT dps). Maybe even making Drk taken even more over Pld
The change would come from the dps comp, likely dropping Drg for Mnk because of the new blunt resist down, even further making Mnk do more dps than Drg, and possibly even making them do more than Drg + the 10% piercing damage on Brd/Mch (from disembowel) + litany bonus. Which, even now, is very close between the two.

While I can appreciate a good quip as much as the next guy, axes have never really been "slashing" weapons. Their small cutting edges are more likely to stick in an unarmored opponent and really shine in their ability to perform blunt force trauma in armored ones. The only difference between a hammer and an ax is a bevel. That being said, in a game where we ride around on giant chickens fighting gods created by peoples wishes and magic..... The aesthetics are a moot point I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aletin

Snip.

---

Thank you for the insight on the mechanical changes that would occur as a result of a change. I am curious as to how much of a dps change we would see in MNK and would like to compare it to the current standard DRG comp. I also wonder if there is an advantage to be gained in giving the slashing debuff to either PLD or DRK alone, not both. Not that SE would ever actually implement this, just out of curiosities sake.

Of course is a axe a slashing weapon. Oo

Yeah beats me.Sound & animation makes more sense to make it blunt.
you dont do fancy stuffs like drk or pld YOU SMASH THEM ON THE FACE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronons

While I can appreciate a good quip as much as the next guy, axes have never really been "slashing" weapons. Their small cutting edges are more likely to stick in an unarmored opponent and really shine in their ability to perform blunt force trauma in armored ones. The only difference between a hammer and an ax is a bevel.

---

You don't ever see executioners take people's heads off with a hammer, or see people choose a hammer for chopping firewood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhais

You don't ever see executioners take people's heads off with a hammer, or see people choose a hammer for chopping firewood.

---

Yeah.... those things have a bevel..... like i said......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhais

You don't ever see executioners take people's heads off with a hammer, or see people choose a hammer for chopping firewood.

---

Fell slam instead cleave

This would be a weird change. As others have stated, axes have sharp edges and are not blunt weapons.

I'd much prefer it if PLDs got more shield-based offensive skills in 4.0 and use their shield to apply a blunt resistance debuff. That way both PLDs and MNKs would become more viable. WAR doesn't need more reasons to be taken to raids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronons

While I can appreciate a good quip as much as the next guy, axes have never really been "slashing" weapons. Their small cutting edges are more likely to stick in an unarmored opponent and really shine in their ability to perform blunt force trauma in armored ones. The only difference between a hammer and an ax is a bevel. That being said, in a game where we ride around on giant chickens fighting gods created by peoples wishes and magic..... The aesthetics are a moot point I think.

---

Axes or Ax is literally a sharp hammer with a cutting edge. You cut trees or people with them, not beat them.

They CAN smash but are designed to cleave or slice.

Just because you CAN smash an armored foe with an axe, does not take away it's main purpose of severing. Much like how a great sword can be used as a giant bludgeoning stick.

To have axes be blunt, makes literally no sense. Because it'd just be a hammer at that point.

PLD having a blunt resist down application from its shield makes more sense aesthetically and logically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FallenWings

Snip

---

While the aesthetics were not the intent of the question to begin with, since so many want to challenge me on it I suppose i'll bite.

The cutting head of an ax (the beveled portion) is NOT designed that way because an ax is a cutting weapon. It is designed that way because that is the most efficient design for a wedge. An ax heads purpose is to focus the force generated by the weight of the head when swung. The thinner the bevel is, the more concentrated the force is. Ever tried to skin an animal with an ax? or even slice some tomatoes? That is because its designed to be a chopping implement, not a cutting one.

Both an ax and a sword are mechanical levers. The difference is that the weight is distributed on opposite sides. The majority of the weight in an average sword is in the handle towards the pommel. That means when you strike a target the force in your swing will be equally applied back against the blade. Since the weight is at the handle its natural response is to compensate at that fulcrum point, allowing you to slash across a target - taking the blade from one corner to the other. Axes have the majority of their weight in the tip. They are designed to push through an intended target, initially for making chopping wood easier. If you strike a target axes are more than likely going to bury themselves into whatever you hit, not slash across it. Since all the weight is at the tip, you are at a severe disadvantage in controlling the forward momentum of the weapon as compared to a sword.

I will still contend that the majority of damage that axes generate are due to their ability to create blunt force trauma not cutting potential. Its more efficient to cut with speed, not weight. Which is why swords have always been preferred for cutting. Its not that axes CAN be used against armor, they became preferred over swords in some cased because of the blunt force trauma they create. The "main" purpose of an ax is to chop - not cut, sever, or slice. Furthermore, a hammer with a 5lb head and an ax with a 5lb head will generate an equal amount of force when swung. The only difference is the surface area that weight is distribute on. Perhaps an ax is not totally a blunt damage weapon, but it is certainly not a slashing one either.

A axe is still a slashing weapon, if you like it or not. You can't slice tomatoes or skin animals with most swords. Does that make swords to blunt weapons now too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ilan

snip

---

Your right. Despite the well thought reasoning above, your correct because you say so.

To answer your question, the only difference between swords/daggers/knives are scale. Those are used for slicing tomatoes and skinning animals. So I woundn't make the case they could do bunt damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CookieMonsta

Fell slam instead cleave

---

warrior confirmed for being pro basketball players

It's because it's Fel Cleave not Fel Toke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronons

While the aesthetics were not the intent of the question to begin with, since so many want to challenge me on it I suppose i'll bite.

The cutting head of an ax (the beveled portion) is NOT designed that way because an ax is a cutting weapon. It is designed that way because that is the most efficient design for a wedge. An ax heads purpose is to focus the force generated by the weight of the head when swung. The thinner the bevel is, the more concentrated the force is. Ever tried to skin an animal with an ax? or even slice some tomatoes? That is because its designed to be a chopping implement, not a cutting one.

Both an ax and a sword are mechanical levers. The difference is that the weight is distributed on opposite sides. The majority of the weight in an average sword is in the handle towards the pommel. That means when you strike a target the force in your swing will be equally applied back against the blade. Since the weight is at the handle its natural response is to compensate at that fulcrum point, allowing you to slash across a target - taking the blade from one corner to the other. Axes have the majority of their weight in the tip. They are designed to push through an intended target, initially for making chopping wood easier. If you strike a target axes are more than likely going to bury themselves into whatever you hit, not slash across it. Since all the weight is at the tip, you are at a severe disadvantage in controlling the forward momentum of the weapon as compared to a sword.

I will still contend that the majority of damage that axes generate are due to their ability to create blunt force trauma not cutting potential. Its more efficient to cut with speed, not weight. Which is why swords have always been preferred for cutting. Its not that axes CAN be used against armor, they became preferred over swords in some cased because of the blunt force trauma they create. The "main" purpose of an ax is to chop - not cut, sever, or slice. Furthermore, a hammer with a 5lb head and an ax with a 5lb head will generate an equal amount of force when swung. The only difference is the surface area that weight is distribute on. Perhaps an ax is not totally a blunt damage weapon, but it is certainly not a slashing one either.

---

You are correct in that axes are more about application of power in strikes hence the focus on use for chops. But ultimately, it still severs flesh or split things in two no matter which way you (hur) slice it. A hammer does not cut or slice.

To counterpoint, the argument is mostly prevalent in Felling axes, aka axes used for cutting trees which were designed with a thicker wedge for the stronger hammering effect.

War axes/battle axes conversely, are designed to be thinner blades that are better at severing flesh and avoid getting lodged between rib cages, so they have better uses as slashing weapons.

At the end of the day, swords and axes fall short of inflicting actual serious damage against plated armor that warhammers can do. I don't feel the need to make this change when it can easily be given to an actual warhammer wielding job in which people would more easily make the connection of: hammer -> Blunt damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tactical

warrior confirmed for being pro basketball players

---

I smell Darius incomming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FallenWings

Snip

---

Ty for the kind response.

My rebuttal is in response to your point about war/battle axes. While there are some examples in history of fast light axes being used for slashing ( small Persian horse axes for example) the majority shows that this is not the norm. Lets take the Vikings for instance, they are about the most prolific ax wielders one could conjure to mind. They used smaller hand axes in conjunction with shields and to a lesser extent large Dane axes in combat. The armor of the Vikings consisted mainly of hardened leather, mail, and in some cases lamellar. All three of the armors are surprisingly effective against slashing attacks - they wouldnt have wasted their time using them if they werent. The Viking sword is a straight rigid blade, ideal for piercing weak points in armor, and was often used this way attacking at the joints with thrusts. An ax on the other hand is a horrible thrusting weapon, so why then was it still so commonly used? Because of its ability to perform blunt force trauma. If I were to wear full chain mail, stretch out my arm, and have you attack it will both a Viking Sword and a Viking hand ax - The strike from the sword would sting quite a bit, no doubt leaving a serious bruise, however the blow from the ax is very likely to break my arm altogether. That damage was inflicted with no cutting, slicing, or severing.

Against an unarmored opponent an ax of any design war/felling is more likely to get stuck in a target than slash across it. A sword with a 30' blade is much less likely to stick than an ax with a 8' cutting surface.

The question in the OP is about what kind of mechanical changes switching to blunt might provide, I never meant to incite a discussion about what kind of damage weapons inflict irl. That being said, it is not as cut and dry (pun intended) as surface logic would suggest. Yes an ax can be used to slash, there are even some examples designed specifically for that. However, as I have said from the very first statement on this, that was never the main purpose of the ax. I am not suggesting that it is illogical for it to be in the slashing category of damage, only that it is also not illogical to put it in the blunt one.

teams are Pld War Mnk or Drk War Nin , the monk and the Drk bring the int debuff and is a good reason not to pair them imo so giving PLD blunt debuff would further compliment the Pld monk coehesion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronons

A sword with a 30' blade is much less likely to stick than an ax with a 8' cutting surface.

---

I see this mistake a lot. I think you meant 30" blade and 8" cutting surface. Not feet :)

maybe because SE has been thinking next tank class will wield hammer weapon?

i joke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gumas

maybe because SE has been thinking next tank class will wield hammer weapon?

i joke

---

I mean

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/...20130818202108

maybe

edit: kinda what I would want most for a tank next. considering that the Legion members have been used for some classes already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vergil_Crosse

I see this mistake a lot. I think you meant 30" blade and 8" cutting surface. Not feet :)

---

Lol yes thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronons

Ty for the kind response.While there are some examples in history of fast light axes being used for slashing ( small Persian horse axes for example).

---

That more or less depends on your definition of slashing. I'd say that a vast majority (ie all) of actions axes were designed for involve cutting in some way. Axes serve two purposes, cutting (for example woodmen's axes) and wedging. Both purposes involve separating two parts through an edge and force. Now "slashing" may be referring to the act of not swinging an edge but in drawing it across the target (as with a curved blade). Given the dynamics of how DRK movements are, I can say in FFXIV "slashing" is probably "swinging an edge" which plainly includes WAR axes.

The better question is not why hasn't war been switched to blunt but rather why would they. Logically and aesthetically it would require a complete redesign of many in-game items, graphics rework, animation rework, quest rework, etc. All of which takes dev time away from much more important things. It would be far easier for MNK to just provide their own blunt damage debuff, since they are the only physical class with that damage type.

I can agree to the argument of the ax bevel and head weight being used for digging in working in the real world. But that's entirely an issue with the wielder. Humans do not have the arm strength to cut through an entire tree or an armored opponent in one swing. FFXIV Warrior swinging animations do not stop halfway, or hit the target and then back out. The attack continues all the way through the target, implying that it is slashing through them. Slashing damage makes perfect sense for the game.

That would be clutch, I love the paladin and monk and for some reason everyone has to follow the meta made by 4% of the community

Personally I think it could be interesting if warrior provided but did not benefit from slashing debuff, as in their attacks through sheer force weakened the enemy's defenses wrt attacks from slashing weapons. this could occur through basically "weakening the armor" of the opponent or whatnot. I apologize if this idea has already been put forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronons

Lol yes thank you.

---

In your defense, a 30' blade or 8' cutting surface would make you the most terrifying warrior of all time though. So, there's that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vergil_Crosse

In your defense, a 30' blade or 8' cutting surface would make you the most terrifying warrior of all time though. So, there's that!

---

Fell cleave now blocks out the sun