Can rogues use a kukri?

[Crothian]

Okay, I'm looking past the rudeness and hitting the topic.

Facts: Rogues are proficent in all daggers. Kukri is not a Dagger.

How do we know this? Skip, one of the writers of the PHB says so. Also, this has been discussed many times. With so many knowledgibily people also saying it isn't does mean something. Also, EWP are always specifically mentioned if one is proficent in them. That is why hand crossbow is specifically listed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While Gamestoppers isn't exactly known for getting everything right, at least it is on the official WotC site...

PC (Lidda): Crud. I've still got that magic kukri I found a while back. It's not identified yet, but it's better than nothing! Okay, guess I don't have much of a choice here; two attacks with the kukri!

DM: Remember, you'll suffer a -4 penalty to your attack roll since you don't have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use it properly.

Lidda is the iconic Rogue.

The Prosecution rests.

-Hyp.

 

[bret]

Just curious, how many people would deny the rogue the use of a stiletto? I don't know of any WotC books that define the weapon, but assume that someone did? How about a Gurkha?

The stiletto is obviously different than a regular dagger. It is still a type of dagger. It does not have the term Dagger in the name. This is just one example, there are other weapons with different names that are basically a specific type of dagger.

When something says dagger (any type), I assume that is what is meant. Reading it this way, it wouldn't require a revision of the class weapon proficiency rules to include a new weapon called the stiletto.

I was not aware of the FAQ entry. Given this contradicts the normal reading of the text, I suspect this will be an area of the game that is often inconsistent between various GMs. The best bet here is to ask a GM if it is important for your character and then don't argue.

As for gamestoppers, anyone want to do a search of the message board for all the errors that the column normally has? I remember that it was a long list on the one that covered grappling.


Personally, I still think it is silly that they didn't give Rogues the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat instead of spending all those column inches listing individual weapons. So what if it included a spear, maybe rogues often find themselves having to impersonate mercenary guards a lot of the time. It certainly would have been a lot more clear and simple than the current rules.

 

[Crothian]

Other threads like this one:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24761&highlight=kukri

 

[Zhure]

If a Rogue is proficient with Kukri's, then Druids are proficient with kama (because they are sickles) and Monks can flurry with sickles (because kama are sickles). Right?

And Wizards, Sorcerers best melee weapon would be kukri, since they're daggers... so would any small Druid use a kukri. Heck, anyone using a one-handed weapon or any small character would use a kukri.

No, it doesn't make sense from a rules' standpoint, as explained by many above. And it doesn't make sense from a common sense standpoint, otherwise darn near everyone would wield a kukri, or at the least carry one as a backup weapon.

Greg

 

[Shirt Guy John]

Just throwing inmy opinion here, but I would say that the rogue does not have Kukri proficiency. Like so many have said before me, it's not in the rogue's list, and the only time it's mentioned as a dagger is in flavor text. I would have thought that the term "all daggers" could be used without fear of misinturpretation. I think that the designers would have listed in in the rogue proficiencies for one thing, and I don't think that it fits into the standard dagger-type (because of it's damage type being different).

Please, I am humble and mild-mannered, don't go insulting me (or others... it makes you look dumb...).

 

[bret]

If a Rogue is proficient with Kukri's, then Druids are proficient with kama (because they are sickles) and Monks can flurry with sickles (because kama are sickles). Right?

Wrong.

If the rules for Druid weapon proficiency said 'sickle (any type)' or the Monk weapon proficiency said 'kama (any type)', I might be willing to accept this line of reasoning.

As it is, I would argue that Wizards can not use a Punching Dagger. It is a different weapon than a normal dagger.

 

[Zhure]

Wrong.

If the rules for Druid weapon proficiency said 'sickle (any type)' or the Monk weapon proficiency said 'kama (any type)', I might be willing to accept this line of reasoning.

As it is, I would argue that Wizards can not use a Punching Dagger. It is a different weapon than a normal dagger.

And for that very reason the kukri isn't on the Rogue's list and it isn't listed with the other "daggers" because it's an exotic weapon. A "dagger (any type)" is a "punching dagger" or a "dagger", not a kukri or a stump dagger. Kukris and stump daggers require an EWP.

Contrarily, a halfling kama is still a kama because it's explaind as usuable by small monks in the descriptive text, rather than the flavor text.

Greg

 

[dkilgo]

First off, I want to aopologize for my rudeness, and for me taking things a bit personal. Heck, all we are doing is taking some time out of our lives to discuss rules pertaining to a game.

That said, I would like to say that I believe that everybody has made a valid point on both sides of the subject, and has proven niether side of the discussion to be right.

We have all discussed things such as the "flavor" text, attempted to show many examples of how a kukri would, or would not, work, and stated that Skip has said NO in the past. Absolutely to no avail, it would seem.

Hence, my final thought on the situation. I am going to leave the descision up to my GM, and continue playing per his/her ruling. Of course, in tournament play I will abide by the rules council's latest ruling whether I agree with it or not.

And, once again I apologize for my inability to bow out of the situation earlier.

Thank you for hearing what I had to say.

<--I slowly take a step back, and leave the room-->

 

[Bastoche]

Just curious, how many people would deny the rogue the use of a stiletto? I don't know of any WotC books that define the weapon, but assume that someone did? How about a Gurkha?

The stiletto is obviously different than a regular dagger. It is still a type of dagger. It does not have the term Dagger in the name. This is just one example, there are other weapons with different names that are basically a specific type of dagger.

When something says dagger (any type), I assume that is what is meant. Reading it this way, it wouldn't require a revision of the class weapon proficiency rules to include a new weapon called the stiletto.

I was not aware of the FAQ entry. Given this contradicts the normal reading of the text, I suspect this will be an area of the game that is often inconsistent between various GMs. The best bet here is to ask a GM if it is important for your character and then don't argue.

As for gamestoppers, anyone want to do a search of the message board for all the errors that the column normally has? I remember that it was a long list on the one that covered grappling.


Personally, I still think it is silly that they didn't give Rogues the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat instead of spending all those column inches listing individual weapons. So what if it included a spear, maybe rogues often find themselves having to impersonate mercenary guards a lot of the time. It certainly would have been a lot more clear and simple than the current rules.

I haven't seen any book showing the stats of a stilleto. / would treat it like a dagger. In that case, the rogues would be proficient with it (obviously). A thing possible could be to have it doing less damage per strike but with a greater threat range for critical. If it has the same average damage as a regular dagger, I would let the rogue get away with it. If not, I would require an EWP feat.

IMO, there is NO valid point in favaor of giving the rogues the EWP.

Rules are universal. Perfect rules aren't subject to intepretation. Unfortunatly, human beings aren't perfect and they sometime make mistake. Like writing "dagger (any type)" instead of "dagger (punching dagger and dagger)". Each and every EWP are explicitily written for each and every weapon of each and every class except for that kukri loophole. Therefore, it HAS to be a mistake. The ideal PHB do not have any gray area. After reading a strictly black and white book, you may house rule the rules as you please. But I can assure you (since Skip confirmed this) that the author's intention were to not give the kukri proficiency to rogues.

Since Kukri are better than daggers (else it wouldn't be a EWP) in my opinion, rogues should not get the proficiency for free. All logic and common sense points in that direction. IMO, only a munchkinism symdrome would suggest otherwise.