So I was looking at the archetype, and saw the increased sneak attack damage for al of these wonderful light-blade weapons. Then it occurred to me the rogue isn't proficient with most of them. Maybe it's been asked before, but....
Does the altered sneak attack ability allow proficiency with the weapons listed? My initial reaction would be no. Thus, the rogue would be required to use a rogue talent to pick up a martial/exotic weapon proficiency. Generally, I feel this is fair.
My one thought (and I've considered this before) is to have the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat cover a category of weapons, per the fighter weapon training ability. So, taking martial weapons - light blades would grant proficiency with all light blades in the martial category. The prd states mwp grants proficiency with a specific type of weapon, which I think is broad enough to justify this interpretation.
Exotic weapon proficiency would still only grant proficiency with a single exotic weapon, because it's an exotic weapon (duh).
Am I understanding this correctly? If so, any thoughts on my 'interpretation' of mwp? Thanks.
I can see where you're getting that interpretation and why. The first thing you need to do is divorce yourself from any bias you may have, because that will greatly influence how you "read" the feat's description.
As written, the feat only grants your proficiency with 1 weapon each time the feat is selected. Which it should. If you need 1 specific weapon for a build that falls outside the preview of your class, paying 1 feat for it isn't that much to ask.
If you want to be proficient with more than 1 martial weapon, well there always Multi-classing for that.
The reason why I lean towards what is written in the book is that it specifies 1 type of weapon, NOT 1 group of weapons. Had it said "Group" rather than "Type" I would be on board with your interpretation. But that's not what it says. Also if we go by the word "Type" then that wold mean you would gain proficiency with all Martial Weapons of that TYPE (Slashing, Bludgeon, and Piercing) which would be way over powered for 1 feat.
On a side note, if you're going to take the Knife Master, burn the Feat, make your weapon the Kukri, and also pick up the scout archtype. Have fun shredding anything that walks into your path :)
The Weapon Group proficiency is a variant rule. It's been around for awhile and is likely laid out for free on the Internet somewhere.
The full Martial Suite of proficiencies is a feature of the (full) martial classes, it's a balancing feature.
Taking a dip level into fighter or one of it's archetypes is hardly gonna hurt this build.
I think some of this comes up with how you define the word 'type.' On one hand, it can be used as you did, to describe damage type (blunt vs slash vs pierce).
It can also be used to describe a particular type of weapon - ie, whip vs sword vs bow.
And, I would argue, it can also be used to define a type of weapon - light blades vs close combat vs polearms.
The reason why I lean towards what is written in the book is that it specifies 1 type of weapon, NOT 1 group of weapons. Had it said "Group" rather than "Type" I would be on board with your interpretation. But that's not what it says. Also if we go by the word "Type" then that wold mean you would gain proficiency with all Martial Weapons of that TYPE (Slashing, Bludgeon, and Piercing) which would be way over powered for 1 feat.
This does not seem cut-&-dried to me. Rather, it comes across as your interpretation of the wording in the rules. I could suggest that you are exhibiting your own bias from the above Comments. I'm not sure why you assume I have a bias towards the answer when you don't know me or why I'm asking.
I don't know that I'm particularly biased in my interpretation. For what it's worth, I don't actually have a vested interest in the answer. It just seems to me that the wording is rather vague, especially with the way 'type' is used so frequently & indiscriminately.
Per the PRD:
Martial Weapon Proficiency (Combat)
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
vs...
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Combat)
Choose one type of exotic weapon, such as the spiked chain or whip. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat, and can utilize any special tricks or qualities that exotic weapon might allow.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.
Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon.
EWP clearly calls out specific weapons, while MWP does not. I'm not saying I'm absolutely right, just that the wording & context seem vague enough that my interpretation could be taken. Also, how much would it imbalance the game if instead of gaining a single martial weapon, the rogue picked MWP & gained all light-blade martial weapons?
It seems like you already know that's how Martial Weapon Proficiency doesn't work or otherwise you would be asking "any thoughts on my 'interpretation' of mwp?"
Not at all. I see multiple ways of interpreting this, and I think solid arguments can be made for each. Asking if my interpretation seems reasonable to others doesn't mean I know my interpretation is 'wrong.'
However, I do thank you guys for the feedback. So far, that 2 against my interpretation, & O in favor. :)