Personally, I'd toss lions and tigers in the Large category without batting an eye.
Why?
Size in D&D is comprised of more than just height/length/weight - it's also a matter of combat prowess/projection.
Yeah, so what if a typical lion is "only" 450lbs? Who cares of a tiger is "only" 7' if you count the tail?
That's 450lbs. of muscle, claws, teeth, and attitude slamming into you.
That's a 6' (guessing) monster of muscle, claws, and teeth not just thinking of turning you into dinner, but trying to remember if he made reservations for the good table by the river - the one with the nice view.
Then there's the other consideration - D&D grids (if we're talking 3.5+) - you don't have nice 1x2 squares representing a critter like a horse - you have a honkin' 2x2 creature, of which only part of it represents the actual physical creature. [as a side note, bear in mind that with a Large creature, you're essentially saying that they are capable of attacking two opponents (say by a standard attack and by an AoO) 30' apart from one another]
The other part of it represents where it *could* be (without facing, a creature threatens all four sides), thus you have to imagine that the creature is moving about in the space afforded its size.
Lastly, I think people are getting too hung up on a chart that clearly says it lists "typical" specimens.
All that said, I think there are valid reasons not to make them Large and I certainly wouldn't object if my DM declared the Medium. Flip a coin and go on with the game.
Why?
Size in D&D is comprised of more than just height/length/weight - it's also a matter of combat prowess/projection.
Yeah, so what if a typical lion is "only" 450lbs? Who cares of a tiger is "only" 7' if you count the tail?
That's 450lbs. of muscle, claws, teeth, and attitude slamming into you.
That's a 6' (guessing) monster of muscle, claws, and teeth not just thinking of turning you into dinner, but trying to remember if he made reservations for the good table by the river - the one with the nice view.
Then there's the other consideration - D&D grids (if we're talking 3.5+) - you don't have nice 1x2 squares representing a critter like a horse - you have a honkin' 2x2 creature, of which only part of it represents the actual physical creature. [as a side note, bear in mind that with a Large creature, you're essentially saying that they are capable of attacking two opponents (say by a standard attack and by an AoO) 30' apart from one another]
The other part of it represents where it *could* be (without facing, a creature threatens all four sides), thus you have to imagine that the creature is moving about in the space afforded its size.
Lastly, I think people are getting too hung up on a chart that clearly says it lists "typical" specimens.
All that said, I think there are valid reasons not to make them Large and I certainly wouldn't object if my DM declared the Medium. Flip a coin and go on with the game.
