Talk:Pipe Fox (5e Creature)

I was going through one of the Pathfinder Bestiarys and found this adorable creature that looked like it would fit right into one of the campaigns I'm doing, so I decided to make it 5e (though I really didn't need to do much). This made me wonder, is there any formatting I should be adding to this? And am I even allowed to do this? I put it up anyway (against my better judgement) but if it turns out I'm wrong feel free to change / delete this creature. Thanks.--Balthazar (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2016 (MST)

I don't think this is a CR 1 creature; hit points and damage is too low. Also, "constant" spells should probably be described in a feature (like the constant detect magic of the 5e SRD:Chuul) or be changed to "At will". SirSprinkles (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2016 (MST)

Thanks, got the CR fixed and I made the spell "at will". --Balthazar (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2016 (MST)

This creature's strength is way too high for a tiny creature. It's strength allows this tiny creature to carry roughly 98lbs. It probably only weighs like, 2-3lbs, at the size of a small snake. itself. A strength of 1, allowing it to carry 7-8lbs. seems much more realistic. --Anonymous (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2018 (CST)

This creature ought to be a fey as the primary type, not a beast. It's Intelligence stat is the highest a PC can get before applying racial modifiers or Ability Score Improvement, much too intelligent for a normal beast and probably even for a magical beast. It can speak languages and can cast Comprehend Languages at will. If you want to have it be affected by spells that can affect Beasts, add the trait Little Bit Beastly which says it can be treated like a beast for the purposes of spells and class features. --Tepheris (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2020 (MST)

Challenge Rating

I felt like double-checking this.

1/2 Defense CR (14 hp & 17 AC); +2 effective AC from superior invisibility

1/4 Offensive CR (1 dmg & +7 hit)

That averages out to a CR of 1/2, according to the Dungeon Master's Guide. I don't know who the anonymous editor was, but they fixed it appropriately. - Guy (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)