There are 3 million enchantment enchanted expert blacksmiths called the Seppo, who focus on weapons being created by the God of Weapons. They freely trade large amounts of weapons to the other races. Even if one Seppo makes one weapon a day, you still have enough for literally every being in creation after a single tick.
For the record, I still don't know how long a tick actually is. But anyway.
A. Not all of the people in a race will be one single profession, some will be more or less skilled, blahblah Planets of Hats aren't a thing in this game(at least I hope not; that would annihilate my suspension of disbelief pretty well).
B. Weaponcrafting takes a lot longer than a day
C. Enchanting takes a lot longer than a day, presumably
D. The dead God of Weapons is not making the weapons himself. While they will certainly be high-quality, they are not necessarily all magic. Which brings me to my next one.
E. Not all of the weapons they make will be magic. Or at least it's very, very, very likely that not all of them will be. For many reasons, some of which may not apply depending on factors I don't know, and some reasons I might not be mentally including because of factors I don't know.
F. Weapons break, wear out, get lost or stolen, get looted, get broken down into component parts for X reasons, get turned into plowshares, etc. etc. etc...
As well, there is no guarantee the weapons will be stronger than the armor, in cases of high magic potential.
There is when the God of Weapons says there is.
Oh, you're right(unless there was a God of Armor, which would be hilarious if there had been; would they have been best friends or mortal foes?)!
Too bad he's, you know, dead.
"The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy."
"Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack."
Same guy. As an almost-invincible god, we really need to win more than we need to be invincible.
If I were the one doing the fighting, that would be true.
However, my less-than-invincible followers are the ones doing the fighting.
Of course, we could just look at your example; you followed that philosophy, right? All out attack?
We aren't automatically invincible Stirk. But if we work a bit at it to get there, we can wait as long as we like for our enemy to make a mistake.
No it isn't You pretty much admitted that it is done just caus' it is cool. And this is obviously the Shardplate you mentioned earlier. You are just not calling that in an attempt to skirt the expy rule. Don't treat me like an idiot, I do have eyes and an internet connection.
First off, it's not a rule. Second off, he said 'or tone down'. Thirdly, Shardplate(unless I'm horribly misremembering) doesn't act as full magic power armor like this stuff does. Fourthly, there's a reason beyond it
looking cool. Yes, I think it looks cool and thus the appearance of Shardplate would make a good reference point for the GM, but that's not quite the same. Fifthly, it doesn't have the whole bound to a single person(I think it basically teleports on, right?), breaking in glowing cracks thing Shardplate has going. Sixthly, I knew I wanted some good magic armor. I also knew how combat worked(somewhat, I'm probably wrong on a lot of shit since I'm at that barest level of knowledge) back then. Cheapest way to get high quality armor is an armor without a single chink. I've seen it done in other games as well, without being based on Shardplate.
So no, I'm not doing it to avert the expy rule, nor do I want to treat you like an idiot. You know, I think you
are trying to be antagonistic. You're good at that.
No it doesn't. It is a meaningless and juvenile word. If you wanted a word for "Generic Teenage Insult", it would be that. There is no strength behind it, no meaning. It is just an insult without purpose. By the way your using it, you might as well be slinging around the word "meanie!"
In other words, "for lack of better word", you are acting like a real meanie 
.
If you have a different definition for the word 'dick' when applying it to a person, then please tell me. But by the definition I go off of(which is just the one my family and friends mostly use it as), it describes someone who is being rude, insensitive, prejudiced, juvenile, or simply unempathetic(by which I mean not caring about how others feel) without realising it(in other words, a 'meanie', but do you honestly want me saying that instead?). I'm a dick at times too, and appreciate being called out on it so I can try and be a better person. But in this case? In the way I use it? It has a purpose, it has a meaning. It is an insult, that's true; it's meant to be. It's meant to sting the accused into taking a look at their actions and rethinking them. I did, indeed, fuck up with Andres and call him a dick, rather than saying that I thought he was acting like one. I apologize to you, Andres, for that; that was me acting like a dick, and I shouldn't have. He, however, seems to have taken the comment in stride, particularly since I realized he wasn't misinterpreting me on purpose(which I only said because it is distressingly common). Whereas you seem to attach a great deal of meaning(in that you are so vehemently against it's use) to a "Generic Teenage Insult"(which I would debate dick taking the grand title of, but that's besides the point). I would ask why, so that I might better understand how you would like me to use the word.
You're great at strawman arguments, you know that? Really, you are. You know what a strawman argument is, right? In any case, Andres already made that argument, I refuted it.
No, master internet debater. Please, tell me what this "Strawman" argument is. I have never heard such archaic terms before. Please teach me your ways, most intelligent and reasonable person on the internet! For it is only you who can lead us poor, ignorant posters away from our own stupidity and into your genius!
[/quote]
See, this is why I called you a dick earlier. I was honestly wondering whether you did, mostly because I had said much the same thing before about you making strawman arguments, yet you continue to make them(I'll admit, there was an element of being annoyed with you, and that was poor of me). I try to avoid them when I can, personally; sometimes I fuck up. But instead of acknowledging either a fuck-up(which I can understand; Andres did it too, obviously, whether by fuck-up or on purpose) or a logical error in the argument(which doesn't make it wrong automatically but it does make the specific line of logic wrong), you decide to try and pump just as much acid, via sarcasm, as you can (without completely annihilating your keyboard's pH balance, at least), through the internet in an effort to burn me. Now do you understand why I call people dicks a little better?
Poll
7 (41.2%)
Author
Topic: Ye Gods 1 OOC [21/∞] Talk here (Read 414907 times)