How many times do we need to prove something until you start taking our word for it? If you go on the wiki the weapon legendary type is blank meaning it works for every weapon/
I can remember exactly one time you've provided proof for something after you've been asked for it, and you sure didn't give it up easy.
There are far more times in which you haven't provided proof after asking for it.
Also, i really don't think the wiki is any more reliable that a random person, let alone proof.
And the wiki says that two shot is for ranged weapons. The wiki also says that "ranged weapons" doesn't include heavy weapons such as the fat man, even though the game has the big boy: a two-shot fatman.
It also says that "Explosive" is for melee and unarmed weapons;
So i really don't think it can be cited as 'proof'.
Being unrealistic to the point where it cannot be plausible enough to believe in any kind of alternate timeline or universe is a flaw.
I already explained that even though magic is not realistic that doesn't mean there can't be plausible explanations for it other than "oh, it's magic."
By this logic, Bethesda should remove perks.
I really don't think they should sacrifice a gameplay mechanic just so the game is more plausible.
Also, why do you keep talking about Dungeons & Dragons and magic?
This doesn't really have anything to do with either of those.
Considering how this is Fallout not Borderlands or skyrim it doesn't make sense to have these kind of legendaries.
If you think a video game being unrealistic is that bad, why do you seem to think it'd be any better if it was in Borderlands or Skyrim?
Poll