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.

​

 

[Shardstone]

D&D 5E - Fixing Challenge Rating first post here, which he calls fixing cr

 

[dave2008]

D&D 5E - Fixing Challenge Rating first post here, which he calls fixing cr

Yep, like I thought, he is talking about encounter/combat building, not calculating CR. The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says:

"5e drafts heavily off of 3e's core mechanics, so it made sense to recruit its encounter building tool."

I think we all agree 5e encounter building is some degree of whack (except for a very narrow band of play groups) and needs to be revised substantially. How CR is used is part of the necessary revision.

However, the CR calculating tools have always been fairly good and fairly consistent if used properly.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

Getting back to the new stat block convo: I have converted a handful of creatures to the new 2024 stat block and ran them today. Here are my thoughts:

1. It will take a bit to get used to the ability score block. Having all the modifiers in a group visually makes it difficult to quickly find the value you're looking for. I am certain a bit of this is not being used to the new style.
2. I modified the new block to have all defense information right below the abilities because this is where your eyes goes to make saves. This structure was incredibly helpful in reminding me of save-related features (like legendary resistances and damage resistances).
3. The more terse action descriptions are nice (despite this specific creature being more robust).
4. Legendary Actions: So... here's where I think the new stat block designed slowed things down. Again, this was for a creature that I created for my game (see below). Since the legendary actions are not extra reactions, annd because reactions have triggers, I found myself having to continually reread reactions to see if I could use a given reaction based on a trigger.

If they keep this structure for legendary actions (which is not in doubt), then I think it might be better to group them by trigger type and reduce the number of reaction options.

For reference, the creature I am specifically referencing is the one below.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

Maybe (other than intelligently reducing the number of reaction options) a design like this? It's still a bit cluttered, but I can at least find things faster.

 

[Dr_Sly]

The artwork for the dragons in D&D 2024 books is amazing! I dig the new gold dragon design.

 

[InkTide]

The artwork for the dragons in D&D 2024 books is amazing! I dig the new gold dragon design.

I didn't like the new gold at first, but it's grown on me a lot. Everything else looks alright (new brass is eh, too similar to the new bronze but not as good, but I never liked the face shields in either design) to superb (I absolutely adore the new bronze and green dragon designs, and the new silver keeps everything that made the 2014 one my favorite visually)... besides the new white dragon. I really don't like that one.

It's always been basically a giant, plucked, extra-frozen chicken, but when they "bulked up" the neck with "scale feathers" (cool idea, I like it) it looks like they ballooned the skull size with it (not cool idea, I don't like it). That's... not how birds or fluffy animals or skulls work. The face is way too wide, not just for the neck, but also the body that has to hold it up. What's extra frustrating is I've seen some early concept art for the redesign that's much closer to their old look, and much better (with extra fluff/frill/scale thickness to the neck and head frill, giving a more "insulated" vibe), and it seems they took that and dialed it to parody-level excess. It looks like somebody took off a dragon turtle's head and glued it to a dragon a quarter the size. There's even some concept art that gives the bronze a similar bobblehead treatment and I'm extremely glad they didn't go with that (or its ridiculous stubby legs) in the end.

The new copper is eh, but it's an improvement on the old one for sure, which had very little distinguishing character IMO. The new blue is good, the new black is eh (I miss the sleekness of the old one), the new red is good.

But man oh man do I hate the new white dragon design. It genuinely drags down my feelings about everything else in the set, because I know using the new designs is generally going to carry the expectation of a package deal. And I hate that bobbleheaded frozen bird turtle abomination that much.

On a more positive note, and this is my personal preference of course (as with everything else I've said), the 2024 green dragon wyrmling in the art book is one of the cutest D&D creatures I have ever seen. Like a winged snake-gecko. A snecko, if you will. If you haven't seen it, you should.

In fact...
Behold, the winged snecko!

P.S.: I don't know if this is intended or not but the PDF for the 2024 dragon artbook is currently an exposed URL. I searched for the artbook to see where I could find the new designs, and the first result was a PDF served up for free by the kindly folks at (checks notes)... media.dndbeyond.com. Huh. Wasn't it for sale as part of a bundle or something?

 

[dave2008]

Wasn't it for sale as part of a bundle or something?

You got the PDF if you purchased the 2024 core books bundle (digital or physical). I think they also might have offered it as part of their 12-days of Christmas give away, but I am less sure about that one.

Regarding the dragon designs, I am generally happy with them. For the chromatics I actually like them all and think the improve over the 3e versions. I would rank them like:
1. - Red dragon. This was the beast 3e design and it they kept most of it, but made it more reptilian which I appreciate. I also like the shorter stronger neck. It should have larger claws and teeth IMO.
2. - White dragon. The stocky design (shorty next, body, and presumably tail) fits a frigid climate and a vast improvement over the 3e skeletal roid-rage design IMO. I do wish the head fin was more prominent.
3. - Green and black dragons. I love that radical departure of the green and leaning into its enchanter theme. I do think the body should be longer proportionally, but it is really close. Black dragon is very similar to the 3e version, but all the slight changes improved the design IMO. Not 100% the horns are an improvement.
4. - Blue Dragon. I actually like this design a lot and it is a vast improvement over the 3e design IMO. However, getting rid of the icon ears was a big negative for me.

 

[InkTide]

2. - White dragon. The stocky design (shorty next, body, and presumably tail) fits a frigid climate and a vast improvement over the 3e skeletal roid-rage design IMO. I do wish the head fin was more prominent.

The stocky design is less of a problem for me (it's one of the reasons I like the old and new silver dragons so much - that and the frill mohawk, I love the frill mohawk), though I feel it somewhat overlaps with the domain of the silver design (i.e. super stocky cold breath dragon). The primary issue I have with it is the head.

This goofus was the early concept one closer to the old - I actually like the sunken eyes, as it gives a sort of "ice vulture" vibe to the white dragon, which is very much in keeping with their lore. The frill is finally given some emphasis, the body is bulkier (whether through muscle or hollow scale insulation - I wasn't kidding when I said I thought that was a cool idea). Yes, the snout is probably too thin, especially at the tip, but converging to some kind of beak-like tip was one of my favorite parts of the white dragon. It looks too skinny in the old art, probably (though this is speculation) because it is basically a bird without feathers; when you look at a bird, generally way less of the bird's volume that you think you're seeing is actual bird and not just feathers. Especially in the neck area, birds have much longer and thinner necks than you'd expect most of the time.

Contrast this goofus:

Not only is the beak totally overridden by the way the weird split-chin, lip-tooth underbite covers it up, the frill is too far forward (it being further back helped break those converging lines and emphasized the snout taper, while also providing a counterbalance to the dewlap; now the whole upper head in profile is a homogeneous mass, made worse by the "mane"), too vertically short, and not even really a frill anymore - it's wide and shield-like, more like nose/forehead ridges. Even the old dewlap throat that I liked has been hidden by distracting, impractical downward-facing spine scales.

There are two big reasons these structures in animals are rarely downward-facing: one, they're display structures, meant to be seen, and two... how does this poor thing lie down without stabbing itself in the throat? Even if it can fold the scales down, they're still inflexible scales unlike the fur manes they're meant to be referencing, so any backwards movement of the head still shoves them forward into the dragon's throat if it's lying down. The front upper section also appears to flare out in front of the eyes, blocking forward vision in what is supposed to be an incredible hunter dragon... which might be part of why they had to widen the face so much in art where it's facing forward.

All the bird theming is basically gone, except for a now-out-of-place beak-like curve at the tip of the the upper jaw. The face doesn't even taper like an ice-dwelling mammal snout (even polar bears aren't this flat-faced). All the effort to push face bulk forward has flattened it into a weird snapping turtle shape that doesn't jive with the ice theme at all IMO (and I've even seen an image where the white dragon's face looks flatter than a snapping turtle, though that one's not in the art book AFAICT).

This redesign gives a lot of the adult dragons underbites or huge chins for some reason (it's not quite an underbite, but the super-pointed chin of the new bronze adult dragon is probably the only thing I slightly dislike about it - could easily be a dimorphism thing, though), but this one is by far the most egregious. Actual turtles, including snapping turtles, have overbites. No living thing I'm aware of has a weird split-chin, lip-toothed underbite.

Sorry, I just cannot stand what they've done to its face, especially its jaw. I'm also very passionate about creature design in general and dragon design in particular... as one can probably tell.

 

[dave2008]

The stocky design is less of a problem for me (it's one of the reasons I like the old and new silver dragons so much - that and the frill mohawk, I love the frill mohawk), though I feel it somewhat overlaps with the domain of the silver design (i.e. super stocky cold breath dragon). The primary issue I have with it is the head.
View attachment 390469
This goofus was the early concept one closer to the old - I actually like the sunken eyes, as it gives a sort of "ice vulture" vibe to the white dragon, which is very much in keeping with their lore. The frill is finally given some emphasis, the body is bulkier (whether through muscle or hollow scale insulation - I wasn't kidding when I said I thought that was a cool idea). Yes, the snout is probably too thin, especially at the tip, but converging to some kind of beak-like tip was one of my favorite parts of the white dragon. It looks too skinny in the old art, probably (though this is speculation) because it is basically a bird without feathers; when you look at a bird, generally way less of the bird's volume that you think you're seeing is actual bird and not just feathers. Especially in the neck area, birds have much longer and thinner necks than you'd expect most of the time.

Contrast this goofus:
View attachment 390470
Not only is the beak totally overridden by the way the weird split-chin, lip-tooth underbite covers it up, the frill is too far forward (it being further back helped break those converging lines and emphasized the snout taper, while also providing a counterbalance to the dewlap; now the whole upper head in profile is a homogeneous mass, made worse by the "mane"), too vertically short, and not even really a frill anymore - it's wide and shield-like, more like nose/forehead ridges. Even the old dewlap throat that I liked has been hidden by distracting, impractical downward-facing spine scales.

There are two big reasons these structures in animals are rarely downward-facing: one, they're display structures, meant to be seen, and two... how does this poor thing lie down without stabbing itself in the throat? Even if it can fold the scales down, they're still inflexible scales unlike the fur manes they're meant to be referencing, so any backwards movement of the head still shoves them forward into the dragon's throat if it's lying down. The front upper section also appears to flare out in front of the eyes, blocking forward vision in what is supposed to be an incredible hunter dragon... which might be part of why they had to widen the face so much in art where it's facing forward.

All the bird theming is basically gone, except for a now-out-of-place beak-like curve at the tip of the the upper jaw. The face doesn't even taper like an ice-dwelling mammal snout (even polar bears aren't this flat-faced). All the effort to push face bulk forward has flattened it into a weird snapping turtle shape that doesn't jive with the ice theme at all IMO (and I've even seen an image where the white dragon's face looks flatter than a snapping turtle, though that one's not in the art book AFAICT).

This redesign gives a lot of the adult dragons underbites or huge chins for some reason (it's not quite an underbite, but the super-pointed chin of the new bronze adult dragon is probably the only thing I slightly dislike about it - could easily be a dimorphism thing, though), but this one is by far the most egregious. Actual turtles, including snapping turtles, have overbites. No living thing I'm aware of has a weird split-chin, lip-toothed underbite.

Sorry, I just cannot stand what they've done to its face, especially its jaw. I'm also very passionate about creature design in general and dragon design in particular... as one can probably tell.

As an amateur artist, professional designer, and avid animal lover* I am very passionate about monster design and in particular dragons as well.

I am not going to go through all of your post, but I want to make a few quick points.

1. IMO, limiting fantasy monsters (like dragons) to what is possible or probably IRL is a mistake.
2. However, I do like if a monster design has a theme and the physical manifestation of that theme is present in the design.
3. What is most important in a monster design for me, and paramount for dragons, is that it looks good. I am less interested in pseudo-biological integrity than I am a cool looking monster. Fit the theme and make it cool, that is the number one job IMO. Of course, that is very subjective.
4. Regarding dragons:
   1. I think relying on bird-themes to much is a mistake. Dragons are traditionally chimeras or sorts without being overly reliant on one creature type. The one exception may be serpents, but not birds. I think dragons should be more reptilian than avian (though there are obviously similarities all around). That is a thing I think they got correct with the many of the new designs. I see a lot of serpent and lizard influences.
   2. I am not fond of the preponderance of big chins in these redesigns.
   3. I have some small issues with all of the redesigns, but I think they are all improvements except...
   4. I don't like the copper design. The long neck and small head don't fit to my eye.
   5. I agree the white is less bird-like, but that is a good thing IMO. To me it resembles a polar savannah monitor in a good way. I think this is a big improvement over the 3e design. It is very different, but on par for me with the 1e design (which is one of my favorite D&D dragon designs). I really like the 1e design, but I love this new direction for my probably my 2nd favorite dragon after the red.
   6. I agree the white dragons dorsal frill/fin has been mostly removed. I too think this is to the determent of the design. I appreciate them redesigning it (as opposed removing the "ears" of the blue) to fit theme (or what I assume theme will be), but I wish they could have kept it closer to the original (1e).
   7. I plan to commission my own redesigns for the chromatic dragons. Keeping a lot of the 2024 designs, but adding back some 1e flavor too were needed (IMO0 and making a few other tweaks. When I get those done some time in 2025 I will post them.

Spoiler: * Animal husbandry reference

Here are the animals I have had as pets or relationships with:

• garter snakes (pet)
• rat snake (pet)
• corn snake (pet)
• king snake (pet)
• ball python (pet)
• Anoles (pet)
• chameleon (pet)
• iguanas (pet)
• basilisks (pet)
• nile monitor (pet)
• water monitor (pet)
• savannah monitor (pet)
• caimans (pet)
• alligator (pet)
• cats (pet)
• dogs (pet)
• horses (family owned)
• timber wolves (zoo staff)
• cheetahs (zoo staff)

 

[pukunui]

P.S.: I don't know if this is intended or not but the PDF for the 2024 dragon artbook is currently an exposed URL. I searched for the artbook to see where I could find the new designs, and the first result was a PDF served up for free by the kindly folks at (checks notes)... media.dndbeyond.com. Huh. Wasn't it for sale as part of a bundle or something?

Thanks. I accidentally deleted my email with the link to that book so never got it before now. Taking a quick look through, and I'm still getting that intensely negative reaction to these new designs. I'm only glad that they don't seem to have changed the silver dragon much, if at all, since that one has always been my favorite.

But all of the others? No, thank you! I'll stick with the 2014 5e versions.