I was going to make a sarcastic comment. Then I noticed this had become an essay war.

Anyhow, back to the sarcastic comment:

I think this string of 'lol, killed x' threads begs for satire. Shuyin and I will be happy to oblige.

You guys really shouldn't get so defensive. I didn't take any jabs at you, I just used your names as examples of warriors that claim to be the best without arties, but use them. Which you have both admitted to. Where's the problem? I understand your arguments and I do see your points. You use your arties for group combat and to be competitive against other artied warriors. I understand that. However, I can also cite an instance when Destirus jumped me solo with an artied weapon(It was artied because my forcefield flared more than once on his hit). Maybe that was a fluke? I don't know, I don't really care. You payed for them..by all means use them. I don't think any less of you (and I doubt you even care what I think). However, I am still of the opinion that top end artied warriors unbalance combat, and if you think you are good enough to not use them...then don't. Otherwise, don't claim to be. There are simply instances when artied warriors kill people with no skill involved. The arties win for them. You can deny this all you want, but it happens. Period. I have an issue with that.

The best health, the best armour, the best damage, and wounds. That's not balance. There's a reason I don't enjoy fighting anymore. I'd find a fun and entertaining fight, only to get 3 shotted by a heavily artied warrior, then flamed on forums for sucking because of game mechanics I can't help. That's my opinion. You're going to have to learn to live with my opinions are just stop reading them.

And, like Celina says, it's only an issue of outlying warriors. It's not one factor alone that does it, but the combination of factors that come together in a way that makes top-end warriors nastier than top-end anything else, 'cept pre-nerf Cantors. The average warrior doesn't do all that well against a well trained opponent (although the average warrior will do just fine against someone with low/no resilience). Also, contrary to what some warriors will tell you, base damage is not skill. Base damage is a formula.

Desitrus and his logs...

Like Geb said, he does fine without his arti weapons, and back when Alger played he did very well without artifacts. That was a while ago but I would guess he'd be doing fine even after all the changes (if he still played).

Always been a Celestine, but kinda hard to stick to a particular race.

Oh wait, Top-tier fighters...

What warrior said base damage is skill? I would like you to quote one saying that, because most warriors I know state that damage killing takes no skill (If what you are implying is that some warriors feel that high damage takes skill to pull off).

In my experience, either a monk is capable of ending what he is targeting or will never be able to effectively deal with his foe only using ppk. For example, Revan and I went roughly a couple minutes straight with no results. I couldn't get in a finishing blow, neither could he. If you can survive and avoid the wounds, it is possible to outlast it.

That said, I don't like the current way monk combat is set up. PPK is still much to strong for a starting skill, especially when compared to most other starters. The modifiers in kata are too effective for the level you get them at ((Stun? Blackout?)) and with the modifier system, nothing stops your offense to use these moves, especially considering ppk goes through rebounding and parry.

Now, I'm not on the monk commitee, but I'd like to put these common sense suggestions forward.

1. Move stun to specializes and remove it from kata in the form of various stun attacks. Allow it only on weapon attacks (Tahtetso already have one), which makes it have to deal with rebounding and parry. Much fairer for all involved.

2. Diversify attack options. Currently, a monk is basically forced to either attack legs or head to be truely effective. Many other locations, while having a few afflictions, lack the power that striking these other areas have. I'd like to see afflictions useful on all parts of the opponents body that fit within the concept of each monk guild. Also, I'd like to see more moves strike various areas for different effects. For example, currently our second tier kick requires head. I'd like for it to be able to strike different areas for different afflictions, rather than a random chance for a few.

3. Rushing isn't required for a monk, and since we use little power, it isn't prohibative. Thus, it is used more than it should be. Same with hyperactive, but it has argueably more requirements and concerns to watch out for. Give these skills to a different guild, so we can justify improvements elsewhere in the skill set. Personally, I think the monk archtype as a whole will benefit from more tactical fighting than endless spam, and I'd like the options to do so.

4. Personally, I like the Kata system, in that it is a built in automation for what anyone with a system will end up doing on their own anyways. We can complain about auto attacking, but when you get right down to it warriors already script those up. Monks will to, nothing will be different, and I had thought it was very foward thinking of Lusternia to add this system, since the main benefit was for newbies and those who didn't code. Higher tier of combat, if we aren't auto attacking it is aliased to hell and back. Just being honest.

Monks are being overhauled so... yeah. Hold on to your butts, etc.

This is Inquisition, it doesn't take 12p. It takes a full magic dance bar, but it kills everyone in the same room as you. I couldn't find an appropriate lolcat.