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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="enrious" data-source="post: 5905306" data-attributes="member: 2126">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. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification