Barghest attack dismabiguation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Barghest attack dismabiguation [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Thurbane
12-13-05, 10:00 PM OK, this has probably been answered before, but here goes.

In the 3.5 MM, under the entry for Barghest it says "Barghests can claw and bite, no matter what their form, and usually disdain weapons". Seems straightforward, yes?

Then, later in the same entry "In goblin form, a barghest cannot use its natural weapons but can wield weapons and wear armor. In wolf form a barghest loses it's claw attacks but retains it's bite attack".

Does this not directly contradict the initial statement?

My house ruling was that in goblin form it uses weapons (or spell-like abilities), in wolf form it uses bite only, and in true form it can use bite and claws. Does this sound right?
Thurbane
12-14-05, 03:35 PM ...23 views, no answers? :eek:
cwslyclgh
12-14-05, 03:45 PM Does this not directly contradict the initial statement?Looks to yes.

My house ruling was that in goblin form it uses weapons (or spell-like abilities), in wolf form it uses bite only, and in true form it can use bite and claws. Does this sound right?that is how I play it... the reason that you have not goten responses is probably because you seem to have it under control.
Thurbane
12-14-05, 05:42 PM Ah, OK, many thanks. :)

The problem was that I had it using claw/claw/bite in goblin form before I noticed the contradiction - made me look a bit silly in front of the players to say "Err, well actually, he wasn't attacking you in goblin form, he reverted to natural form 2 rounds ago"...

I should have read more carefully first, I suppose. :weep:
savant_warlord13
12-14-05, 05:52 PM check the errata for an official ruling
cwslyclgh
12-14-05, 06:31 PM check the errata for an official ruling

I can save him some time... there is nothing about the barhgest in the errata. (at least not in the 3.5 MM errata).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thurbane 12-13-05, 10:00 PM	OK, this has probably been answered before, but here goes. In the 3.5 MM, under the entry for Barghest it says "Barghests can claw and bite, no matter what their form, and usually disdain weapons". Seems straightforward, yes? Then, later in the same entry "In goblin form, a barghest cannot use its natural weapons but can wield weapons and wear armor. In wolf form a barghest loses it's claw attacks but retains it's bite attack". Does this not directly contradict the initial statement? My house ruling was that in goblin form it uses weapons (or spell-like abilities), in wolf form it uses bite only, and in true form it can use bite and claws. Does this sound right?
Thurbane 12-14-05, 03:35 PM	...23 views, no answers? :eek:
cwslyclgh 12-14-05, 03:45 PM	Does this not directly contradict the initial statement?Looks to yes. My house ruling was that in goblin form it uses weapons (or spell-like abilities), in wolf form it uses bite only, and in true form it can use bite and claws. Does this sound right?that is how I play it... the reason that you have not goten responses is probably because you seem to have it under control.
Thurbane 12-14-05, 05:42 PM	Ah, OK, many thanks. :) The problem was that I had it using claw/claw/bite in goblin form before I noticed the contradiction - made me look a bit silly in front of the players to say "Err, well actually, he wasn't attacking you in goblin form, he reverted to natural form 2 rounds ago"... I should have read more carefully first, I suppose. :weep:
savant_warlord13 12-14-05, 05:52 PM	check the errata for an official ruling
cwslyclgh 12-14-05, 06:31 PM	check the errata for an official ruling I can save him some time... there is nothing about the barhgest in the errata. (at least not in the 3.5 MM errata).