It was said only the first malediction strike having any affect was by design, but I don't see where that makes a whole lot of sense. Having played a two hander in the past, I can't seem to understand why things would work this way. In a world where you can have a warrior, in the same fight, theoretically boneshatter then impale you for massive str/dex loss, bleeding, and a timer on both thats pretty sick overall, I don't see why two handed dedicates should be restricted like this.

Taking into account the almost non existant ability to lag as one, would allowing the VERY short lived templars defense maledictions stack really be such a horrible thing?

Then there's the realism aspect. Does it make sense, from a realism point of view, that just because I smash someone in the face with my sword, that when I whack his hands with my sword, it doesn't cause him to get weaker?

Just my opinion ont he subject, and I wouldn't mind some imm feedback on the reasoning for the non-stackability.

only the first malediction does anything?

that just explained so much #### I could never figure out with my twohander.. can you guys put really MAJOR #### like this in a helpfile?

I had to try to figure things out when the helpfile was nothing but a list of the maneuvers

For the same reason boneshatter doesn't stack. Kotegaeshi doesn't stack. Impale doesn't stack. Immolation doesn't stack. Etc.

You'll then argue they are all different, and I'll argue they are all templars defense strikes. By design.

nt

...but are you saying that it's more "by (bad) design" than actually intended, i.e. basically a coding issue, as in it might change some day, if someone finds the time to recode the skill? Similar to iceneedles which stack multiple affects.

>...but are you saying that it's more "by (bad) design" than
>actually intended, i.e. basically a coding issue, as in it
>might change some day, if someone finds the time to recode the
>skill? Similar to iceneedles which stack multiple affects.

No it is exactly how the skill was designed. Part of the coolness is that you can do so many different things with it. Part of the limitations is that you can only affect someone with one templars defense attack.

If every one of the various maledictions was allowed to stack with the others, they would be drastically reduced in effectiveness (much like the bleeding was reduced when we split out the dagger spec bleeding).

Why this is by design is beyond me.

Make teh wrath 2 round and pallys will be teh balanced

If you want to piss and moan about wrath, then look at the fact that if a paladin is using templars defense strikes, he's not wrathing, and only one or two of the moves have 1 round lag, most have 2-3. So that in and of itself ought to tickle you pink.

Paladins have huge staying power. That would enable them to stack far more maladictions than any warrior class, with the possible exception of dagger specs. Even one maladiction is good if well selected. I don't think they need anything more. (And that's having played a virtueless hero 2-hander paladin.)

It wouldn't be realistic to have a three foot gnome kick dirt into the eyes of a thirteen foot giant either, nor is it realistic that with a bit of dirt in your eyes you are completely unable to see anything for up to a full hour. The list of things that aren't realistic is far longer than I care to write out. You have to undergo a suspension of disbelief and just ignore some of these anamolies that aren't realistic on occasion.