Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cleon" data-source="post: 4988672" data-attributes="member: 57383">That's all right demiurge, I'm not going to twist your arm and make you use those stats.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I think it's pretty good for something I threw together in a few minutes, it certainly looks more accurate than the Dragon 280 version.I was aiming to stat up an unusually large and vigorous hare, i.e. a 9-12 pound Arctic Hare, since I thought that would make the most suitable hare-shape for a Small-sized supernatural familiar like a Tabur. For a more ordinary sized hare (~5 lbs) I'd drop the Con and Str by 2.Since 9-12 lbs is halfway between Small and Tiny, I gave it a strength partway between. As for the halfling comparison, an average halfling weighs 30 pounds, so it's only a couple of times heavier than a large hare, and said hare should be proportionally stronger. The Constitution 15 was just to match a dog - a hare can usually outrun a dog, both by speed and stamina, so probably has a comparable Constitution. The SRD Dog is Small-sized and Con 15, and advancing between Tiny and Small does not give a Con change, ergo a hare should have a Con in that area.As for the speed, a real life hare is as fast as a good horse (at least 30 mph, possibly up to 40-45 mph), and a fast horse in the SRD has 60 ft speed and the Run feat. I was strongly tempted to give hares a 50 ft. speed, the same as a Wolf, since a particularly fast dog (like a greyhound, which probably has speed of 50 or even 60 ft, with Run instead of Track as a bonus feat) has a good to excellent chance of catching a hare. Oh what the heck, I'll do it.I do think I overrated the bite attack in my first draft, I'll cut it to 1d3 damage. I'm also tempted to add a couple of slam or unarmed strike attacks, so we can have "boxing hares".So, putting that together I'd get a "Hares, mark 2" of:Hare: CR 1/6; Tiny Animal; HD ½d8+1; hp 3; Init +4 (Dex); Spd 50 ft.; AC 16 (+2 size, +4 Dex); Atk bite –1 melee (1d3-3) or 2 unarmed strikes –1 melee (1d2-3 nonlethal); SQ scent; Face 2 1/2 ft. by 2 1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.; SV Fort +3, Ref +6, Will +1; Str 5, Dex 18, Con 13, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7. Skills: Hide +12, Jump +9, Listen +8, Spot +4, Feats: Alertness, Run (B). Hare, Big:  CR 1/4; Tiny Animal; HD ½d8+2; hp 4; Init +4 (Dex); Spd 50 ft.; AC 16 (+2 size, +4 Dex); Atk bite +0 melee (1d3-2) or 2 unarmed strikes +0 melee (1d2-2 nonlethal); SQ scent; Face 2 1/2 ft. by 2 1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.; SV Fort +4, Ref +6, Will +1; Str 7, Dex 18, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7. Skills: Hide +12, Jump +10, Listen +8, Spot +4, Feats: Alertness, Run (B). +4 racial bonus to Listen checks. That looks pretty nice to me.Besides, my feeling is that a lot of the problem comes from the 3E game system not handling particularly big or little creatures very well, but that's an argument for another day...</blockquote>

Verification