I just noticed that when you compare the potential damage of armed and unarmed attacks, the difference is negligible. A fist does 1d6 and a broadsword does 1d6+1. Whether you look at this from a realistic or cinematic point of view, this doesn't work for me. When you consider two equal combatants, and one is armed, and the other is unarmed, you would expect the unarmed combatant to be at a huge disadvantage.

Look at it this way. Let's say the average Elthos character has three hitpoints. A successful punch from another Elthos character does 1d6. This means that there is a 50/50 chance to knock out another average character. There is a 1 in 6 chance of killing him. The Broadsword is fine. A broadsword does 1d6+1. I expect, in the real world, and cinema, for a broadsword to easily down, and potentially kill another normal person with one blow.

However, I would expect a normal punch, from a normal person, to be far less devastating; probably 1d6-3, with a minimum of 1.

I've had this discussion with other play testers as well. I left Punch and Kick as they are, with the caveat that I may change them later... well, looks like now is the time to consider it again. Good thoughts. I tend to agree. Our discussion earlier was not quite on this point, but on whether or not punch and kick should do different amounts of damage. At first I had them differentiated. Anyway, yup... Punch and Kick should both be less than sword, and maybe even dagger.

How about this:
Punch: 1d6-3 (min 1)
Kick: 1d6-2 (min 1)

I updated the site, btw. Reflects new Fist & Foot.

Also note: I have a Kung Fu Skill for Monk Class which is called "Iron Fists" and gives fists a 1d6+1 damage, a +1 AL, and allows the Character to add Chi (MP) to add to Bonus Damage or AL at a ratio of 2MP for each +1.