Talk:Rabbit (3.5e Monster)

Ratings

	Aarnott favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Totally awesome. The magic rabbit is a great improved familiar (though perhaps a bit strong at level 5). Really great article.

Actually, you need to up the CR for the magic rabbit. Getting 2nd level spells means that they can use Scorching Ray, Glitterdust, or Blindness/Deafness. --Aarnott (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember, a single creature of CR X is supposed to be a challenge for a group of 4 level X PCs which takes 1/4 of their resources for the day. I agree with Aarnie--one-shotting a PC doesn't really fit that model. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I had debate over that. The reason I went with1 is I figured... at 5 hp, it's still a glass cannon, and while it does have a 2nd lvl spell it is only a single shot, at low DC. While Save or Loses like glitterdust exist, they also exist at 1st level (Color Spray). So I figured the low hp, low DC, and middling AC were enough to drop it down to CR 1. I could see a level 1 fighter having a 50% chance of beating this thing in one on one combat. A much more insideous method; Invisibility + 3x Summon Monster I. What do you think? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What about a second-level fighter? Scorching ray and you're out. And how does it combine with other monsters? If it's part of an encounter, glitterdust would make a huge difference. --Ghostwheel (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lagomorph

Rabbits, even magical ones, are not rodents. They're lagomorphs, a much cooler word. You're now remembering that one spell/status in FF6 called Lagomorph that had a rabbit show up. --Ganteka Future (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lagomorphs are direct siblings of rodents. The distinction in common vernacular isn't really useful. --Aarnott (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm... gonna be a stickler on this one. I was kinda weirded out by that response, Aarnott, to be honest. I understand that it's easier (calling rabbits as rodents) so I get the "just call 'em rodents, whatever" argument, it's just inaccurate. I think it's a disservice to readers. There's also not a word to describe these small-furbearing critters that's both succinct, common and general enough while being truthful (to preserve the sentence's structure in providing a generalization in the description of the creature in the article). To me, calling rabbits as rodents is like calling goats as deer, for lack of a better comparison, being a large and broad group like deer with a smaller one like goats. While I'm not going to press the issue because it isn't a big deal, I still think it should be changed. --Ganteka Future (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)