Improved Unarmed Strike incongruity

[Ravingdork]

Improved Unarmed Strike states the following:

You have trained to make your unarmed attacks lethal and strike with kicks, head-butts, and similar attacks.

However, the benefit makes no mention of the damage ever being made lethal. Is this an error of omission?

[Albatoonoe]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was a purposeful omission, as non-lethal damage is no longer in the game.

[Ravingdork]

No longer in the game? The term "nonlethal damage" appears dozens of times in the Core Rulebook.

[David knott 242]

More importantly, that feat also fails to eliminate the "archaic" quality from unarmed strikes.

[rook1138]

David knott 242 wrote:

More importantly, that feat also fails to eliminate the "archaic" quality from unarmed strikes.

yeah, we noticed both of these too.

Vesk seem to really be the only viable unarmed strike option, since THEY have both of those (its non-archaic AND lethal).

They missed an opportunity with the battlegloves, doing whatever they currently do, AND removing the archaic from unarmed and making them lethal if your unarmed strike with your hands are better (wouldn't gain the equipment benefit when hands aren't free, obviously).

[Albatoonoe]

Ravingdork wrote:

No longer in the game? The term "nonlethal damage" appears dozens of times in the Core Rulebook.

I misspoke. It doesn't really take the same form as it did before. It doesn't really differentiate damage unless it is on the knock out blow. In that way, a weapon being non-lethal isn't as much of a detriment.

[haremlord]

dot

[Furansisuco]

no, is no a incongruity. i understood why.

[JetSetRadio]

RESURRECTION!