D&D (2024) 2025's Ancient Green Dragon Stat Block From The New Monster Manual

The new ancient green dragon from the 2025 Monster Manual was previewed at Gen Con.

​

 

[Chaosmancer]

no, I remember, I still think having distinct attacks rather than one generic Rend is better

And I'll happily lose "swat them with my tail" as a distinct attack to get a miasma reaction cloud and multiple spells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That would be cool, but I think it has probably just gone out of fashion. IIRC the time dragons and gem dragons do not have it either

That would be weird. I guess they could make it a Red Dragon exclusive, but Dragon Fear is beyond iconic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Also, while they aren't unique, this does do something else I really like.

A green dragon's claws? Poisonous. Their tail attack? Poisonous. Their wings? Poisonous.

By making Rend one attack, this dragon is literally always oozing poison from every scale of their body. Which is a fun visual.

 

[Clint_L]

everything is typical. It was a wasted word.

No, that is not what the word "typically" means in this context. In this context, it implies "not always." Which has not been the case with alignment as it was originally used in D&D. In this context, and particularly in American English, "typically" means "showing the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing."

That word "typically" does a lot of lifting in MotM. It means that, for example, a Red Abishai can have a different alignment than Lawful Evil, still going by RAW.

 

[Amphytrion]

No, that is not what the word "typically" means in this context. In this context, it implies "not always." Which has not been the case with alignment as it was originally used in D&D. In this context, and particularly in American English, "typically" means "showing the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing."

That word "typically" does a lot of lifting in MotM. It means that, for example, a Red Abishai can have a different alignment than Lawful Evil, still going by RAW.

I’m certain that there’ll be a section in the beginning of the book stating that the alignments are mere suggestions. It makes little sense to repeat that in every statblock.

The dragons were always an odd case, anyway, since their lore is color-coded.

Fiends (and all outsiders, really) are a specific outlier even now. They are expressions of evil, and other outsiders become them when they become evil. In this sense, being aligned defines them: Zariel was a celestial that became a devil when she fell into evil. Graz’zt may have been a devil that became a demon once he became chaotic, etc. To fiends, alignment is more ontological than it is to humanoids.

You’re welcome to make any changes, of course. In your game, a red abishai might be chaotic good. Whatever makes you happy.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

No, that is not what the word "typically" means in this context. In this context, it implies "not always." Which has not been the case with alignment as it was originally used in D&D. In this context, and particularly in American English, "typically" means "showing the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing."

That word "typically" does a lot of lifting in MotM. It means that, for example, a Red Abishai can have a different alignment than Lawful Evil, still going by RAW.

In the 2014 MM it was explained that all alignments are subject to change. The list ones are just “typical”

 

[Clint_L]

I’m certain that there’ll be a section in the beginning of the book stating that the alignments are mere suggestions. It makes little sense to repeat that in every statblock.

The dragons were always an odd case, anyway, since their lore is color-coded.

Fiends (and all outsiders, really) are a specific outlier even now. They are expressions of evil, and other outsiders become them when they become evil. In this sense, being aligned defines them: Zariel was a celestial that became a devil when she fell into evil. Graz’zt may have been a devil that became a demon once he became chaotic, etc. To fiends, alignment is more ontological than it is to humanoids.

You’re welcome to make any changes, of course. In your game, a red abishai might be chaotic good. Whatever makes you happy.

Fiends are not treated as outliers in MotM - their alignment is suggested but not required. Singular individuals excepted. So RAW a chaotic good red abishai is currently fine, no house rule required.

 

[Amphytrion]

Fiends are not treated as outliers in MotM - their alignment is suggested but not required. Singular individuals excepted. So RAW a chaotic good red abishai is currently fine, no house rule required.

It has always been RAW to change monster alignments, going back to the 2014 MM. You didn’t need MotM’s permission to do so, nor any house rule.

Nonetheless, MotM still had a very strict description of the Abishai: “In all cases, abishais are fanatically loyal to Tiamat, ready to lay down their lives if needed.” They are souls of fanatic servants chosen by Tiamat upon death, so that makes sense.

Either way, I expand on your example simply to illustrate why the use of typically becomes stranger the more we move towards the Outer Planes. It’s one thing to say a hobgoblin is lawful evil due to its culture, but an abishai wouldn’t exist if it weren’t lawful evil. This is a recurring theme in WotC IP, but one you can ignore at your table.

To avoid these distinctions, I think it’s fine to have the “typical” disclaimer at the forefront of the book, especially since more important information (e.g. armor) has also been excised.

 

[Sulicius]

Oh no, we ran out of talk about the dragon and we're back to alignment.

 

[Amphytrion]

Oh no, we ran out of talk about the dragon and we're back to alignment.

My bad; I did not intend to venture too far away from the statblock element.

Change of topic: art is great, as is the serpentine dragon design, but I find that inverted horn that it has on its chin bizarre. Does it serve any purpose? Is it a beard? I don’t recall it in the concept art.