Can rogues use a kukri?

[Bastoche]

Each and every bonus exotic weapon feat of a class is explicitly written. Like the hand crossbow for rogues, for example. Since Kukri isn't explicitly stated in the rogue's weapon proficiency, I conclude they don't have that bonus feat.

 

[dkilgo]

Yes, I will say that the wall sorta hurt.

<--as he rubbs the knot rising on his forehead-->

But, I still contend that the damage type of the weaon is not going to limit a character type from using a certain weapon. Just because it is named slightly different.

And, the rogue's description does state daggers of ANY type. A kukri is still a dagger. Albeit a curved one with slashing damage, and not piercing damage.

How does that wall feel now?

And, Bastoche, we are trying to determine whether or not it should be. Are we not?

 

[Bastoche]

I say that the term "dagger" is misleading in the kukri's description. It's not a dagger. A dagger is a piercing weapon. A dirk is a "dagger". A punching dagger is a "dagger". A main-gauche is a "dagger". A stilletto is a "dagger". A kukri is a slashing weapon as long as a dagger, with a one-handed hilt like a dagger that is and curved.

It's an exotic weapon. The only classes who get proficiency with that weapon for free are those where it's explicitly written.

IMO, there's a mistake in the rogue description too: they state that they're proficient with "crossbow (hand and light)" but they simply say "with all daggers", instead of "dagger (dagger and punching dagger [and kukri if they got it for free])".

There's no flavor reason to allow rogues to be proficient in kukri (unlike the hand crossbow for the rogue or the nunchaks for the monks). Therefore they aren't proficient with it.

When there's too much interpretation involved (like spinning a book upside down to give free proficiencies to rogues), when something non-conventionnal is not explicitly written, it's probably because it wasn't intended that way.

/ would not allow rogues to gain a free weapon pro. with kukris. Now do what you will with that opinion.

 

[dkilgo]

So, just because it is not written in the all powerful books of lore you assume that it is not possible, and that the designers never intended it to be that way.

Well, I do believe that I am sorry to say, but stop reading so darn much. You really need to pull your head out of that book. You can not say that the designers never intended that. If that were the case then the FAQ would never have come about. The designers were not, and are not, perfect. They make mistakes! As all people do, and some times the only way to see those mistakes is to see what other people have to say about the subject. Hence the discussion thus far.

We can not say whether that was intended because we are not the designers. Only players with a vivid imagination, and a yearning for a better understanding of the capabilities of the game.

Maybe someone should pose the question to the rules council once more, and let them look it over. Obviously we could go on and on about his forever if we so choose.

I am sorry if it seems as though I was verbally attacking you, or bashing you. That was not my intention. I hope you accept my appology, and respond in kind.

 

[Bastoche]

???

I thought the rule book was the book that showed the rules. I could stop reading it, but then I might as well play another game.

My point is in each class description, if a weapon is an exotic weapon and the class has proficiency with it (since such a thing would be appart from the "general" rule saying that nobody is proficient in any weapon unless otherwise specified) it should be explicitly written. What I call "explicitly written" is a phrase that contains to actual weapon name. Like "hand crossbow" instead of "crossbow that could be held in one hand" or "shurikens" instead of "metal stars that hurt when thrown" or "kukri, dagger, and punching dagger" instead of "all daggers".

As a "rule lawyer" I would say that "proficient with all daggers" would apply to every weapon that is called "dagger". In other words, a weapon in the tables of the equipement chapter from the PHB (or any other source book) that contains the word "dagger". Like "punching dagger" for example. Since it's "kukri" and not "kukri dagger", I say a "kukri" is not a "dagger" even if it's called a "dagger" in the description. A greatsword is a dagger for a dragon. Why then aren't the rogue proficient with it ? It's just another sort of dagger isn't it ?

 

[dkilgo]

Okay, we are beginning to head down the road of the semantic, but maybe we were already on it to begin with.

First, I still think it is a dagger simply because it is called a dagger in the description. Albeit a "cruved" dagger, but a dagger just the same.

Secondly, I do think that a dragon would be proficeint with the great sword if, and only if, the dragon had a rogue level of two under his belt. But, that is not the point.

The point is that we are talking about a medium-sized creature wielding a kukri. Which is a dagger of sorts. Maybe not your typical stabbing dagger, but still a dagger. If we wanted to go down Hellhounds route the rogue would still be able to sneak attack someone in a vital area even with a slashing weapon. Only because you could hamstring them, cut thier throat, or injure them in the multitude of vital spots on the humanoid anatomy.

So, here I stand and say that a kukri is a DAGGER.

 

[AuraSeer]

Okay, we are beginning to head down the road of the semantic, but maybe we were already on it to begin with.

If by "semantics" you mean "rules," then yes, that's what we're talking about.

The rogue is given proficiency in daggers. The weapons chapter lists two such weapons: there is "Dagger", and "Dagger, punching." That's all you get.

First, I still think it is a dagger simply because it is called a dagger in the description. Albeit a "cruved" dagger, but a dagger just the same.

It's flavor text.
A javelin is described as a "light, flexibile spear," but a peasant proficient in the halfspear does not gain proficienty with the javelin.

The point is that we are talking about a medium-sized creature wielding a kukri. Which is a dagger of sorts.

Wrong again.
The point is that we're talking about a character wielding an exotic weapon. When a class gains exotic weapon proficiency for free, it is explicitly stated in the rules. The rogue is not explicitly given kukri proficiency, therefore he doesn't get it.

Maybe not your typical stabbing dagger, but still a dagger. If we wanted to go down Hellhounds route the rogue would still be able to sneak attack someone in a vital area even with a slashing weapon.

Sneak attacks are entirely irrelevant.

So, here I stand and say that a kukri is a DAGGER.

That's nice.
The house rules forum is that way. Go play over there if you won't bother to read the rules yourself.

 

[dkilgo]

You my friend are what all my friends like to call a rules lawyer. You have no other purpose in this life other than blindly reading the text before you. Peoples interpretations are what make a messsageboard like this interesting, and by saying that I do not read the rules you are implying that I am ignorant. Heck, if not stupid. That is not the case my sorely missguided friend.

I state, simply this, that the rules are not just black and white. There are gray areas simply explained by the existence of the FAQ. The "flavor text" your call it is still part of those rules. Perhaps you are right on the grounds that the peasant would not be proficeint with the javelin, but then again when was the last time you heard of a peasant slaying a beholder. Never!

The characters we create are heroes, and heroes are much different than your common peasant. So, the heroe will have abilities beyond the scope of the lowly peasant. Hence the ability to use weapons beyond the scope of the average person.

That is where the kukri lies, and that is why it is an exotic weapon. Not an impossible weapon to wield, and not overly difficult. Just exotic.

Even if the text you call "flavor" is such then I still call the kukri a dagger. And, I refuse to appologize for your inability to see that gray area of the rules. I truly hope one day you will adapt, and become a real person again. Until that day flog yourself for being so short sighted.

 

[Caliban]

You my friend are what all my friends like to call a rules lawyer.

And you are what we like to call a munchkin. Now that we are all throwing names around, do you feel better?

You have no other purpose in this life other than blindly reading the text before you.

You have no other purpose in this life other than to bend, twist, or ignore as much of the text as possible, so that you can get as many free benefits and extra powers for your character as possible.

If you don't like being characterized like that, don't start making unfounded accusations, because they can just as easily be used against you.

Peoples interpretations are what make a messsageboard like this interesting, and by saying that I do not read the rules you are implying that I am ignorant. Heck, if not stupid. That is not the case my sorely missguided friend.

And what exactly are you saying when you tell him that "his only purpose in life is blindly following the rules" ?

And learn to spell "misguided" before you start telling people that you are not ignorant. Please.

I state, simply this, that the rules are not just black and white.

Many of them are. Some of them are not. That's when people start giving opinions and looking for the author's intent, and asking the authors what was meant. Which has been done here.

There are gray areas simply explained by the existence of the FAQ. The "flavor text" your call it is still part of those rules.

Perhaps you are right on the grounds that the peasant would not be proficeint with the javelin, but then again when was the last time you heard of a peasant slaying a beholder. Never!

So you admit he's right, and then bring up a total non-sequitor as if it is relevent. What are you talking about?

The characters we create are heroes, and heroes are much different than your common peasant. So, the heroe will have abilities beyond the scope of the lowly peasant. Hence the ability to use weapons beyond the scope of the average person.

Yup, and that's where the class weapon proficiency list in the PHB comes into play. You will note that the rogue list is much more extensive than the list for the commoner. It lists which weapons the rogues are proficient with. Kukri is not on the list for Rogue. End of story.

That is where the kukri lies, and that is why it is an exotic weapon. Not an impossible weapon to wield, and not overly difficult. Just exotic.

Exactly. And unless your class list specifically mentions an exotic weapon, you don't start out with proficiency in it, unless you choose to spend a feat learning that proficiency.

No one is saying tha a Rogue can't use a kukri, we are just saying that they are not automatically proficient with it, and will need to spend a feat just like everyone else. Because it's exotic.

Even if the text you call "flavor" is such then I still call the kukri a dagger.

Call it a dagger all you want. Your rogue still isn't proficient in it without spending an exotic weapon proficiency feat. No freebies for you.

And, I refuse to appologize for your inability to see that gray area of the rules. I truly hope one day you will adapt, and become a real person again. Until that day flog yourself for being so short sighted.

And I refuse to apologize for calling you a munchkin, (mainly because that last statement of yours proves it).

 

[AuraSeer]

I state, simply this, that the rules are not just black and white. There are gray areas simply explained by the existence of the FAQ.

Yes, there are gray areas.
This is not one of them.
The rogue class does not grant kukri proficiency.

The "flavor text" your call it is still part of those rules.

Flavor text is not rules. It has no game effect. Its only reason for existence is to make a description more interesting.

The characters we create are heroes, and heroes are much different than your common peasant. So, the heroe will have abilities beyond the scope of the lowly peasant. Hence the ability to use weapons beyond the scope of the average person.

Yes, the rogue does gain ability to use more weapons than the average peasant. This does not mean he gains proficiency with every weapon.

That is where the kukri lies, and that is why it is an exotic weapon. Not an impossible weapon to wield, and not overly difficult. Just exotic.

Now you're just setting up strawmen. No one ever said the kukri was impossible to wield, or that it was any different than other exotic weapons.

A rogue, or anyone else, can wield a kukri with a -4 nonproficiency penalty on his attacks. A rogue, or anyone else, who takes the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat can wield a kukri normally, without that penalty.

Your error lies in assuming that rogues get that Exotic Weapon Proficiency for free.

Even if the text you call "flavor" is such then I still call the kukri a dagger. And, I refuse to appologize for your inability to see that gray area of the rules.

Who asked you to apologize? You are mistaken, and I was trying to be helpful by pointing out the rule.

I might appreciate an apology now, not for your error, but for your condescension and insults. I truly doubt I'll receive one, however, because you're obviously far too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

Since you're dead set on your own interpretation, in defiance of perfectly clear evidence, I'm done with this thread.