| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Do unarmed strikes made with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat do lethal damage? The feat clearly says "you have trained to make your unarmed attacks lethal..." However, the benefit text doesn't seem to actually change the rule.
Also, does it really matter? After all, nonlethal damage works exactly the same way as lethal damage in Starfinder, except that it doesn't kill. 95% of the time, using a nonlethal weapon won't make any difference.
EDIT: Constructs, undead and similar creatures are immune to nonlethal damage, and thus are immune to most martial artists. Is it really the intent that a 20th-level highly trained martial artist is completely helpless against a lowly zombie? (I for one think not.)
|
I've run several Starfinder Society scenarios so far where using nonlethal damage in place of lethal damage affects your "image".
So like, tonight for example, the party faced off against two former Starfinders. If the party used nonlethal damage, the person observing the fight has a different reaction than if you used lethal force.
But also the other reasons you listed are enough of a mechanical reason to be choosy with your tactics.
I have always interpreted it as you can do lethal damage.
Furthermore I allow someone with this feat the option to do lethal or non-lethal damage.
|
I think they may have forgotten to put in a lethality clause in Improved Unarmed Strike. But if you look at gear boosts like Unarmed Mauler you can rip someone's foot off nonlethally? Or cause bleed with a nonlethal attack and the suspiciously named Raw Lethality.
|
Everytime you post a thread it makes me want to scream in frustration. I mean that in the best way possible. Your rule knowledge keeps amusing me.
That being said this is a weird little oversight. Mechanically the intent is quite obvious here but it doesn't actually grant that benefit.
I think this was a case of not putting in something to save space on page count and cutting actual rules instead of fluff.
Reading the "flavor" text as not being rules has lead to more incorrect interpretations than reading the flavor as rules. I'm trying to think of a single case where the flavor text was misleading as far as rules go.
The flavor/rules divide that rules lawyers seem to read in there doesn't exist. Now it's POSSIBLE to read the word lethal there as being "more dangerous" but you can also read it as doing exactly what it says.
Are there any creatures in Starfinder that are immune or resistant to nonlethal damage? If not, then the distinction between lethal and nonlethal damage only affects what happens when you reduce an opponent to zero hit points. That is more than balanced by the scaling damage granted by the feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the "flavor" text as not being rules has lead to more incorrect interpretations than reading the flavor as rules. I'm trying to think of a single case where the flavor text was misleading as far as rules go.
1. Adaptive Fighting: You can adjust your fighting style to match specific conditions during combat.
Surprisingly, this doesn't have anything to do with Conditions or alter a Soldier's fighting style.
2. Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency: You know how to use advanced melee weapons.
Unexpectedly, this doesn't help with knowledge checks about using advanced melee weapons.
3. Agile Casting: You can move, cast a spell, and move again before foes react.
Shockingly, this doesn't deny enemies their reactions (such as provoked AOOs) or let you trump the initiative order.
Those are the first three feats in the Core Rulebook.
Whoever wrote and edited the Pistol Whip Operative exploit thought improved unarmed strikes are both lethal and archaic, because PW functions as that feat “but the attack is not archaic, deals lethal damage, and has the operative weapon special property.” Until they errata that or the feat itself I think we have our answer.
Whoever wrote and edited the Pistol Whip Operative exploit thought improved unarmed strikes are both lethal and archaic, because PW functions as that feat “but the attack is not archaic, deals lethal damage, and has the operative weapon special property.” Until they errata that or the feat itself I think we have our answer.
I think you mean "both nonlethal and archaic" as it is listing the ways that it is different from Improved Unarmed Strike.
Currently the only ways I can think of to make your unarmed strikes lethal are: be a race with Natural Weapons, buy a Ring of Fangs, or have Pistol Whip. Tactical Shields will also eventually fill this role once the Character Operations Manual comes out.
I don't think we need to attribute more abilities to IUS than are actually written. It does an awful lot already.
Whoever wrote and edited the Pistol Whip Operative exploit thought improved unarmed strikes are both lethal and archaic, because PW functions as that feat “but the attack is not archaic, deals lethal damage, and has the operative weapon special property.” Until they errata that or the feat itself I think we have our answer.I think you mean "both nonlethal and archaic" as it is listing the ways that it is different from Improved Unarmed Strike.
Right.
I'm hesitant to use implications of a feat that got banned from organized play as the basis for rules decisions.
Well it pretty obviously got banned for being so much better than the feat with its three in one (not archaic, lethal, operative quality). That suggests that the feat is indeed not as strong as some hoped or the advantage of Pistol Whip wouldn't be as egregious and it would be less likely to be banned.