Is "Improved Unarmed" still Nonlethal?

[The Mighty Khan]

Unarmed Strikes are labeled as archaic and nonlethal. The feat "Improved Unarmed Strike" says:

Quote:

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

But the actual listed benefit of the feat doesn't mention lethality or nonlethality:

Quote:

Benefit: Your unarmed attack damage increases to 1d6 at 4th

level, 2d6 at 8th level, 3d6 at 12th level, 5d6 at 15th level, and
7d6 at 20th level. You threaten squares within your natural
reach with your unarmed strikes even when you do not have
a hand free for an unarmed strike. If you are immobilized,
entangled, or unable to use both legs (or whatever
appendages you have in place of legs, where appropriate),
you lose the ability to make unarmed strikes without your
hands. When making an unarmed strike without your hands,
you can’t use such attacks for combat maneuvers or similar
abilities—only to deal damage.

Normal: You don’t threaten any squares with unarmed attacks,
and you must have a hand free to make an unarmed attack.

[baggageboy]

Also of question, is the archaic descriptor dropped if you take this feat. As it currently is there is almost no benefit for taking this feat until you are at least level 4 as 1d4 -5 is... NOTHING. So unless you have a ton of strength you can't really use this until higher levels.

Also I would like to know if unarmed strike is intentionally not an operative weapon. In pathfinder this was "finesse-able." As is, there is really no way for a person to use unarmed strike effectively unless you're a vesk :(

Currently by RAW, my dreams of a karate kicking longarm wielding ninja are just that, dreams :(

[Butch A.]

I don't think Improved Unarmed Strike removes the archaic descriptor.

I can see arguments either way, but to my own mind, once people have space-age armor, MOST people shouldn't probably be punching and kicking them, but using Combat Maneuvers to trip, disarm, or grapple them. Given that they've made that easier to do, it SEEMS like that was their intent.

But given I can't figure out their intent with personal comms and batteries, don't trust my judgement!

On lethal or non-lethal, I have no clue.

[Wikrin]

Butch A. wrote:

I don't think Improved Unarmed Strike removes the archaic descriptor.

I can see arguments either way, but to my own mind, once people have space-age armor, MOST people shouldn't probably be punching and kicking them, but using Combat Maneuvers to trip, disarm, or grapple them. Given that they've made that easier to do, it SEEMS like that was their intent.

But given I can't figure out their intent with personal comms and batteries, don't trust my judgement!

On lethal or non-lethal, I have no clue.

Lethal and non-lethal is pretty simple. Was the attack that downed them non-lethal? Yes: They're unconscious, or No: They dead.

[Grimm13]

Wikrin wrote:

Lethal and non-lethal is pretty simple. Was the attack that downed them non-lethal? Yes: They're unconscious, or No: They dead.

It is not simple when you have a feat that states it makes your unarmed attacks lethal and no other supporting clarification.

It's been months now since this was first asked, how about we finally get an Official statement?

[swoosh]

Grimm Hrafn wrote:

Wikrin wrote:

Lethal and non-lethal is pretty simple. Was the attack that downed them non-lethal? Yes: They're unconscious, or No: They dead.

It is not simple when you have a feat that states it makes your unarmed attacks lethal and no other supporting clarification.

It's been months now since this was first asked, how about we finally get an Official statement?

I mean it literally says it makes them lethal right there in the quoted section of the book. That's as official as it gets.

[Shinigami02]

Yes it states it makes them lethal. In the flavor text. Before you even get to the Benefits section of the feat. And then the actual Benefits section makes no mention of Lethal damage. Hopefully you can see where the confusion is.