After a hiatus of far too long, I’m finally returning to the original series of articles that debuted on this blog – our spotlight on each and every monster in the Pathfinder Bestiary! Today, we begin to make our headway into the B’s. And opening that letter, we have the
BARGHEST
There’s a minor bit of the ubiquitous “it’s pronounced how?” problem with the barghest’s name, but not so much as to really be worth mentioning. I’ve always held that the “gh” is vocalized as a hard “g” sound; hence the monster is a “bar-guest.” A fitting name, given the monster’s ravenous nature.
The barghest is one of those monsters that’s been around for a while, through multiple editions, and its age is starting to show. For example, it’s described as being a possible fiendish relation to the various goblinoid races. Now, given its Lawful Evil nature, that made sense back in the day when most goblinoid races were Lawful Evil, and included things like kobolds and orcs (who were Lawful Evil back then).
Now, however, that doesn’t quite seem to hold up. There are only three goblinoid races in the Bestiary – the Chaotic Evil bugbears, the Neutral Evil goblins, and the Lawful Evil hobgoblins. So why is it that the Lawful Evil barghest can take the form of a goblin, rather than, say, a hobgoblin? For that matter, why is its other form that of a wolf? Goblins hate dogs, and I’d guess that hatred extends to wolves as well; wouldn’t a worg or goblin dog be a much better choice?
I’m all for “legacy” parts of the game – the things that are holdovers from earlier editions. I like how they represent a clear connection to the game’s history and traditions, things I think are important. However, when those don’t make sense unto themselves anymore, they go from being valuable mementos to being baggage, and baggage just weighs things down. The barghest’s nature should have gotten a makeover here – nothing too radical, but at least a few cosmetic changes to smooth over the aforementioned rough spots. Make it Neutral Evil and polymorph into a worg instead of a wolf, and you have a winner.
Of course, all of that’s really window dressing for the creature’s most central power: its ability to gain strength by devouring creatures. Wisely, Paizo limited this to non-evil creatures, otherwise these things would quickly start munching on the goblins it says they like to lord over.
Given the hands-off nature of monster advancement that Pathfinder has adopted, the barghest’s ability to grow stronger by eating creatures is handled fairly elegantly. In fact, it’s now so simple that it’s almost a different power altogether. Any non-evil humanoid that a barghest eat grants a “growth point” and when it gains 4 such points, it becomes a greater barghest. The only limit to this is that it can only gain 1 point per month.
Compare this to 3.5, where the barghest’s feeding power had no time limit, but worked on any humanoid that had a number of Hit Dice/levels equal to the barhgest’s HD. It required a total of nine such creatures to become a greater barghest – more than twice its Pathfinder counterpart – and being devoured like this made it seriously difficult for resurrection magic to bring you back.
What’s my point with all this? So glad you asked – this is the flip-side to updating monsters from earlier editions of the game. Some legacy aspects are kept when they should be removed, while others are removed when they should be kept. Adding the non-evil and once-per-month stipulations to the barghest’s feed power was a cool move on Paizo’s part, but lowering the number of people it needed to eat, making them viable targets for feeding even with low Hit Dice, and entirely removing the effect this had on trying to resurrect such a victim, were all things I’d like to have seen retained.
Like moving into a new house, moving to a new edition requires carefully checking what should be kept, what should be thrown out, and most importantly, why. Failing to do that can result in making a new game that feels so utterly divorced from its roots that it alienates longtime players, driving them away from your new creation instead of having them embrace it as early-adopters who help bring in new players.
Of course, I’m sure no company would ever do something like that.
Tags: barghest, Bestiary, Pathfinder
Intelligence Check 
August 13, 2010 at 1:29 PM |
Nice dig at WotC . . . it is so cool to see some take potshots at a company when it has no bearing on them at all. If you like Pathfinder great, tell us about it, if you don’t like WotC try to refrain from being an a$$.
In short either go back to not posting, so we don’t have to deal with such dirtmongering, or stop being a douche.
August 13, 2010 at 2:13 PM |
I knew when I wrote that last line I might incur some negativity for it, but I didn’t expect it to be quite that fast in coming, or that bitter.
First of all, you don’t “have to deal” with anything I write – if you don’t like it, then why are you reading my blog? I’ll write what I like here, and if you don’t care for it, you’re free to stop browsing it.
Secondly, you seemed to conveniently forget that I spent the majority of this post (and quite a few other posts to boot) making digs at Paizo. The bulk of what this post was about was my criticizing them for not updating certain parts of the barghest and updating other parts of it too much. Yet you’ve instead chosen to focus on a single throwaway line, hysterically calling it “dirtmongering”; maybe you should ask yourself why that is.
Thirdly, whatever your feelings on Fourth Edition, it a statement of fact that it alienated a large number of longtime D&D players because it changed so much. Yes, my last line was poking them for that, but it’s hardly beyond the pale to call them on their own stance.
Finally, making a response that’s dripping with vitriol and then telling someone else not to be a douche is the height of irony – how does it feel to know that you’ve become the proverbial pot that calls the kettle black?
In short, either go back to not posting on my blog so I don’t have to deal with your dirtmongering, or stop being a douche.
August 14, 2010 at 2:12 AM |
I think you’ll actually find it alienated far less longtime D&D players than you might think. From what i’ve seen, the whole 3.5 – 4e fight is a fairly standard case of a small but extremely vocal minority.
February 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM |
As a longtime D&D player (from when AD&D was the new kid on the block), I respectfully disagree. Although I am not vocal about it, I think 4E lost something of the “essence” of the original game. It just feels like a different game, in a way that 3E did not.
You assert the 3.5 vs 4E debate is “a standard case of a small but extremely vocal minority”. I think it’s more likely that many longtime players are–like me–content to stick with 3E/3.5 or Pathfinder and aren’t bothering to make a lot of noise about it. In other words, the population of D&D players is probably much larger than the vocal minority of either side.
And if I had to put money on it, I’d bet that “longtime D&D players” are probably not the ones shelling out most of the $$ on all the new 4E books. I’d bet that it’s a newer generation of players, with a moderate subset of “longtime players” willing to upgrade. But ultimately, that’s just my guess, which is as good or bad as yours.
(FWIW, I bought the three core books, because I was interested in seeing what was new. But that’s probably all I’ll buy. In contrast, I’ve bought all the Pathfinder books, plus some of the modules. It’s good stuff. And keep it up Alzrius! Next time I get a campaign going, I’m removing Alignment based on your well-considered proposals.)
February 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Thanks for the kind words! I haven’t had time to blog much lately, but I’m hoping to bring that to an end soon and update with some new articles. In the meantime, I’m glad that my removing-alignment articles are being used; they’re the blog posts I’m most proud of to date!
January 13, 2011 at 5:50 PM |
Hey there! I’ve been following your website for a while now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Lubbock Texas! Just wanted to tell you keep up the good work!
September 13, 2011 at 2:35 AM |
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to say that Ive truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon!
February 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM |
Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve take into accout your stuff prior to and you are just too wonderful. I actually like what you’ve obtained right here, really like what you’re stating and the best way by which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it sensible. I can not wait to learn much more from you. This is really a wonderful site.