If I were to guess, I would say the Siberian Tiger is why tigers get more damage then lions. They are supposed to be bigger than lions, and thus do more damage. For a Bengal Tiger, I would just use the lion stats.
Tiger vs Lion article on Wikipedia is a fun read.
The Lion has pack tactics, and thus has weaker stats to account for that they're designed to fight in, and benefit fighting in, a group.
bawylie wrote:
You think that's bad?
Bear stats, man.
It's not just D&D, for some reason in every RPG, bears are horrifyingly dangerous.
JoeEskimo wrote:
tigers in captivity have the same skill set as lions in captivity, and tigers in captivity win those fights due to size.
in the wild, tigers get slaughtered by wild lions when they cross paths (extremely rare to unheard of due to geographic distance), with thick manes and combat experience the tigers lack. Lions are smaller than tigers because lions are usually starving to death. The largest lions are heavier than the large tigers. Actually there was a whole subspecies of lion that was hunted to extinction because it was so big it made a good trophy. I was just answering this kind of question on another forum about a week ago.
in captivity tigers > lions
in the wild lions > tigers
if you have a witch or a jungle king with pet lions or tigers, the tigers have better stats. If your characters are in the wild, the lions have better stats. Swap accordingly for accuracy - and give lions +1 AC for "mane use" as a shield modifier.
ankiyavon wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Because it is very difficult to consider environment, amount of prey, and other factors, if you want realistic animals.
Yeah, animal stats really disappint me in D&D and rpg's in general. The strength of a typical gorilla, heck even chimpanzee would tear a human to shreds.
arnwolf666 wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
The order is well established throughout history, going all the way back to 1939. It goes, Lion, then Tigers, then Bears, then George Takei OHHH MY. 
ankiyavon wrote:
Does no one realize that the tiger and lion have the same CR in 5E? The tiger deals slightly more damage, the lion has pack tactics.
bawylie wrote:
Cat people are awful.
Bears for the win.
I would like to see the Ultimate Fighting champion go up against a bear.
good thing they don't have cougar stats, the bite wouldn't be super high but they'd do about a d12 claw attack. The cougar has the strongest paw swipe/claw attack of any large feline as their hunting method is to go for a single swipe to snap the neck of their prey.
When comparing the lethality of a tiger and lion you have to look at more than just the damage rating of the attack. You have to also look at other abilities (pack tactics making a lion more dangerous in a group), their hit modifier, and their ability scores. Higher damage + lower accuracy can balance out against lower damage + higher accuracy. Don't have my books handy but also what is their hp stats for each the lion and tiger?
Tiger
AC 12
HP 37 (5d10+10)
STR 17
DEX 15
CON 14
INT 3
WIS 12
CHA 8
Lion
AC 12
HP 26 (4d10+4)
STR 17
DEX 15
CON 13
INT 3
WIS 12
CHA 8
Throwing in Panther
AC 12
HP 13 (3d8)
STR 14
DEX 15
CON 10
INT 3
WIS 14
CHA 7
Panther is Medium
Grazel wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
JoeEskimo wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
I just want some drop-bear stats. That's a really dangerous bear.
I heard somewhere that an elastic band is enough to stop a croc opening its jaws. Of course, if it does get them open then good luck stopping them from closing...
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
AdrastusDarke wrote:
That makes me remember the program from Discovery Chanel "Animal Face-Off"
And in the third episode the Asiatic Lion won the Bengali Tiger.
The game designers ought to have watched it to create animal stats.
dave2008 wrote:
JoeEskimo wrote:
If you are going to note that one...
You want a REAL WTF moment.
Hyenas vs. Wolves in the Monster Manual. At least the Tiger vs. Lion one can remotely be explained, hyena vs. wolf stats are just outright stupidly ridiculous.
Obviously the people writing the stats didn't really know jack about the animals they were writing about, have probably never actually been to a zoo or looked up information about these animals. They just made stat blocks for various levels of challenge and then slapped names on them somewhat haphazardly.
ok, it took a while to find this again because everything kicks to huffington post which makes a strong case for the captive vs. captive conclusion, but here ya go
I have bolded the important parts.
Who will win a fight between a tiger and a lion?
49 Answers
Rory Young
Rory Young, Professional Safari Guide, Ranger and Tracker.
Asiatic lions (smaller than African lions) and tigers both occur in India. Although their ranges no longer overlap, they did once and therefore this was a very real scenario a long time ago.
I am going to specifically answer this in terms of one male tiger going up against one male lion.
Although female lions hunt as prides, male lions spend most of their lives alone. They are forced out of the pride when they reach around two years.
If they manage to take over a pride of their own they will usually only manage to keep it for a couple of years. During the time they have a pride they will spend most of their time fighting off potential usurpers.
When they do not have a pride they frequently fight with other solitary males that they bump into and of course pride males in their attempts to take control of a pride.
So, a male lion spends his life fighting. In fact they spend so much time fighting and not eating properly and stressed out that they only live to about ten years old while females usually live to about fifteen.
The reason a male lion has a mane is for defense in fighting. They fight like wrestlers, facing off, gripping each other and trying to overpower each other. I have watched them fighting many times and have come across two dead males over the years. Both had been bitten through the spine. From what I have read, this is pretty much the norm.
So, the mane is a pretty effective defense in a cat-fight. To get round it requires some serious dominance in the fight as it means out wrestling the opponent to the point of being able to bite them through the spine. Tigers do not have this defense. They do not have it because they rarely fight.
Photo: Examples of extraordinary battles in nature
Tigers are solitary animals and although heavier than lions, they are shorter than lions at the shoulder. The weight difference is about 15% which is significant but not enough I believe to mean an overwhelming advantage for tiger, especially since they have a height disadvantage.
In terms of behaviour, male tigers usually solve their disputes via display and intimidation, preferring to avoid each other. One of them will usually roll onto its back and expose its belly in submission. Now in terms of fighting, this lack of experience when going up against a pro IS an overwhelming disadvantage.
This is like putting a heavy inexperienced amateur fighter in ring with a taller, leaner professional with a mean history of fights under his belt.
A no-brainer. A wild lion would win hands down because the wild lion has a lifetime experience of fighting other male lions. Size really isn't everything..
However, a tiger in a zoo will more likely kill a lion because if the tiger doesn't back down the inexperienced captive-bred lion is quite outclassed.. Still, although a lion is more likely to die in a fight it is also very likely that male tigers would submit if it got serious and the tiger realised it was dealing with a maniac who was willing to die to win..
Lions didn't get the title "King of the Jungle" for nothing.
EDIT: Please see David Aronson's answer: http://www.quora.com/Fighting/If-a-tiger-fought-a-lion-which-animal-would-win/answer/David-Aronson-2
This is the only case on record of a wild tiger meeting and fighting a wild lion. The lion won.
Mmmmm you should remember a second reason about becahse the animal monster stats is important. The druid's wildshape and the ranger's companion. If there is a module about skirmishes and other about mass battles, maybe we can monster allies (to sell more miniatures).
Another matter about the stats is the animal senses. An animal in the zone may be a pain in the neck for steath characters. A horse or even a cat could detect the intruder. You could be an invisible ninja, but if the dog can smell, then you find you.
Tigers are also pound for pound stronger than lions. One on one it would be a tough fight, they also are very different types of predators, lions are pack hunters and tigers are ambush predators. The one that gets short changed the most are grizzly bears - it would take out any of them 9 times out 10 at least, they are very, very hard to bring down.
shintashi wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
I would really like to see animals with highter dex and strength.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Damn
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Hercules+liger&rlz=1C1GIWA_enNZ577NZ577&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CBsQsARqFQoTCJSzucfmqccCFQYXpgodfmcJaw
Hercules the Liger
MechaPilot wrote:
ShinQuickMan wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Do they have low charisma because of the self licking thing?
I hate this anti-lion pro-tiger agenda that Wizards is pushing. Again and again you see it in all their products, the tiger gets ahead by pushing the lion down.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
I like the wildlife being there, but come on. . . insisting on lifelike statistical representations or comparisons of every real world animal isn't exactly the main thrust of the game's design goals. If you think lions should be tougher than tigers, just swap their stats and tell your druids you're doing so. Or you can choose to infer that tigers are typically stronger than lions in D&D settings because of reasons.
I think I've heard that this debate actually has its roots on political pride between the West and East cultures.
Which side preferring which animal? Guess, it's quite easy. (sarcasm)
Seriously, anything that has to do with Orientalism and/or Occidentalism is bound to end ugly...
Nesian42Ryukaiel wrote: