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.

​

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

Okay, I am a stat block nerd and have been designing and redesigning stat blocks for years. While I have some minor complaints about the new design, overall, I think it's a good change.

Here are a few quick notes, along with some questions I am hoping someone in the community can help with:

1. General Formatting Comments
   • Capitalization: I like the standardization when it comes to capitalizing ability names, feature names, spells, Advantage, etc.
   • Non-Combat Stats: A lot of room can be saved by moving non-combat-related stats outside of the stat block. For the Ancient Green Dragon, for example, moving Persuasion, XP, Alignment, Languages, Amphibious, and Detect Magic would save room. While you might not think this would save room, as a DM for several decades I can attest to the benefit of streamlining stat blocks for high-CR creatures.
   • Redundant Features: Some people have already mentioned this, but there is no need to include Battle Ready. The stat block should have an Advantage notation on the Initiative bonus or include a flat additional bonus of +5. DM's need fewer dice rolls, so I vote for the flat +5 bonus.
   • Numerical Counts: This is very, very minor, but room can be saved by replacing words with numbers, when possible. That is, "three Rend attacks" can be replaced with "3 Rend attacks." This saves an entire line (in this case).
   • Melee, Ranged, Spell Attack Rolls: The switch from Melee Weapon Attack to Melee Attack Roll saves some space, but more could have been done. I recommend replacing these with Melee Roll, Ranged Roll, and Melee Spell Roll or Ranged Spell Roll.
   • Reach: This should be its own inline subheading - "Reach:".
   • "Damage": The word "damage" on damage types should be removed.
   • Spell Descriptions: I like having stat blocks "self-contained." Therefore, I have a list of spell descriptions on a separate page (therefore, DMs can use or not use these depending on their experience, but the descriptions do not get in the way of the stat blocks).
2. AC
   • Minor Quibble: I prefer the parenthetic armor type. In this case, something like "AC 21 (natural)." This is not as beneficial for the green dragon; however, it becomes important for creatures wearing armor. This way there is no need to include the armor on a list of "possessions" later. Moreover, having the armor type in the AC row allows for quick adjudication of spells like Heat Metal.
3. Bloodied
   • Minor Quibble: I would have preferred a Bloodied level on the same line as the HP.
4. Initiative
   • Very Minor Quibble: I think the Initiative data should be in the final line in this block; however, this is only to make room for armor types in the first row. It's not a major deal.
   • Major Quibble: So, I need someone to explain to me how this creature has a +8 to Initiative. The Advantage on Initiative rolls from the Battle Ready ability should only add 5, and the Dex mod is +1. This equates to a +6 (if the Advantage bonus is included; +1 otherwise). This type of numerical mystery makes DMs and players feel like the designers are not playing by the same rules as everyone else.
5. Ability Block
   • Major Quibble: My issue here is not about the hotly contested design of this block - I am okay with it and, despite what others say, there are many spells which require you to know a creature's ability score. Thus, I am fine with including those; however, since saving throw modifiers are listed here, that's where my eye needs to be when looking at... well, making a saving throw. Hence, that is also where any modifications to saves should be listed. My stat blocks normally have an "Advantage vs..." below the ability scores and modifiers; however, in this case, it includes the Legendary Resistances trait.
6. Condition/Damage Resistances and Immunities
   • Major Quibble: Combining the Condition and Damage resistances and immunities will be overwhelming for a DM who is already overwhelmed with tracking a lot of other things in combat. These should be split apart as before.
7. Spells
   • Major Quibble: All non-combat spells (or spells that are likely to never be cast during combat) should be moved outside the stat block.

EDIT
I just thought about the initiative thing some more and I think they are making it possible for creatures to be proficient with Initiative. If this is the case, then the dragon's initiative would be +1 (dex) + 7 (PB) = +8, and if it has Advantage on Initiative, then a +5 would be given to the Passive Initiative (yielding a 23).

 

[Chaosmancer]

You do realize that battle ready is already included in the stat block under initiative. It is redundant to also make it a trait. Now, if you are rolling initiative sure, it is good to know where that 23 came from, and it interacts with the new surprise rules well, but I hardly think it is essential. That being said, I did keep it in later revisions (mainly because of how surprise works now).

I am aware it is in the passive initiative, but I don't think that is something that will be commonly used on such an important monster as this. Unless, as a DM, everyone rolls initiative while I'm setting up the map, and everyone rolls under a 23.

 

[MNblockhead]

I mean, that is a very literal definition of "miasma" - in general it's a rather old-fashioned, perhaps even poetic, way of describing some kind of gaseous emanation that has about it an insidious, corrupting quality. Miasma makes me think of disease (partly because of the Victorian era "miasma theory"), of a cloying, heavy, toxic fog. When the dragon uses its breath weapon, that's not a miasma to me - it's a blast of gas that spews out and chokes everyone in its path. Its miasma is something less immediately destructive: something it summons using its inherent magic which has soaked into the surrounding terrain.

I know people like to do the thing where they read things in the least generous way possible to make a point, but a specific phrase like "Corrosive Miasma" does actually carry a certain amount of semantic weight.

I'm only 5 pages into this thread. Wondering how many more posts before the obvious fart joke.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm only 5 pages into this thread. Wondering how many more posts before the obvious fart joke.

There is more than one way to emit gas...

10 posts.

 

[Chaosmancer]

• Non-Combat Stats: A lot of room can be saved by moving non-combat-related stats outside of the stat block. For the Ancient Green Dragon, for example, moving Persuasion, XP, Alignment, Languages, Amphibious, and Detect Magic would save room. While you might not think this would save room, as a DM for several decades I can attest to the benefit of streamlining stat blocks for high-CR creatures.
  
  
• Spell Descriptions: I like having stat blocks "self-contained." Therefore, I have a list of spell descriptions on a separate page (therefore, DMs can use or not use these depending on their experience, but the descriptions do not get in the way of the stat blocks).
  
  
• Major Quibble: All non-combat spells (or spells that are likely to never be cast during combat) should be moved outside the stat block.

While I get some of the intent behind this, your example statblock does what I immediately feared this would do. I don't want to have to look in two or three places to get a full picture of the monster. It may seem like being amphibious isn't important, until it is. This may make the statblock easier to use in terms of straightforward combats, but what the actual effect in practice is making everything have two statblocks I need to reference.

In terms of spell descriptions, it is a nice thought, but practically speaking, no publisher is ever going to republish every spell they use in the monsters in the MM. It would balloon the size of the book, and be cumbersome if the DM ever decided to alter any of those spells.

• Redundant Features: Some people have already mentioned this, but there is no need to include Battle Ready. The stat block should have an Advantage notation on the Initiative bonus or include a flat additional bonus of +5. DM's need fewer dice rolls, so I vote for the flat +5 bonus.
• Numerical Counts: This is very, very minor, but room can be saved by replacing words with numbers, when possible. That is, "three Rend attacks" can be replaced with "3 Rend attacks." This saves an entire line (in this case).
• Melee, Ranged, Spell Attack Rolls: The switch from Melee Weapon Attack to Melee Attack Roll saves some space, but more could have been done. I recommend replacing these with Melee Roll, Ranged Roll, and Melee Spell Roll or Ranged Spell Roll.
• Reach: This should be its own inline subheading - "Reach:".
• "Damage": The word "damage" on damage types should be removed.

1. AC
   • Minor Quibble: I prefer the parenthetic armor type. In this case, something like "AC 21 (natural)." This is not as beneficial for the green dragon; however, it becomes important for creatures wearing armor. This way there is no need to include the armor on a list of "possessions" later. Moreover, having the armor type in the AC row allows for quick adjudication of spells like Heat Metal.
     
     
     
   • Condition/Damage Resistances and Immunities
     • Major Quibble: Combining the Condition and Damage resistances and immunities will be overwhelming for a DM who is already overwhelmed with tracking a lot of other things in combat. These should be split apart as before.
       
       
     • Very Minor Quibble: I think the Initiative data should be in the final line in this block; however, this is only to make room for armor types in the first row. It's not a major deal.

This is one of those weird things. For example, you are arguing that we could take out things like Battle-Ready which is obvious, and change things to "melee roll" or "3d6 poison" but at the same time, you want to break out poison and poisoned because it will cause confusion.

I think you can do many of the things you propose here, but I think readability would suffer.

1. Bloodied
   • Minor Quibble: I would have preferred a Bloodied level on the same line as the HP.

There is no current bloodied level in the statblock, and I don't see the value in adding one.

1. Initiative
   • Major Quibble: So, I need someone to explain to me how this creature has a +8 to Initiative. The Advantage on Initiative rolls from the Battle Ready ability should only add 5, and the Dex mod is +1. This equates to a +6 (if the Advantage bonus is included; +1 otherwise). This type of numerical mystery makes DMs and players feel like the designers are not playing by the same rules as everyone else

The dragon has proficiency in initiative rolls.

The fact that this is a "numerical mystery" I think just heightens the argument that things like Battle-Ready are good to have in the statblock.

 

[Stalker0]

1. • Major Quibble: So, I need someone to explain to me how this creature has a +8 to Initiative. The Advantage on Initiative rolls from the Battle Ready ability should only add 5, and the Dex mod is +1. This equates to a +6 (if the Advantage bonus is included; +1 otherwise). This type of numerical mystery makes DMs and players feel like the designers are not playing by the same rules as everyone else.

Monsters don’t play by the same rules as PCs, never have in 5th edition. This isn’t 3rd whenever number has to be justifked…an ancient green dragon has a +8 imitative because it’s an ancient green dragon….nothing more

 

[MNblockhead]

Booo alignment is listed as "lawful evil" rather than "typically lawful evil."

I assumed from MotM that the word "typically" was the standard going forward (e.g. a Green Abisai is "typically lawful evil" despite being a devil.

This doesn't affect me as I don't use alignments anyway, but it feels like a step backwards for the game.

I assume they will have a section in the beginning of the book that states that the printed alignment in the stat blocks are "typical" and perhaps some language about alignment being optional. I prefer this approach. No need to add an extra word to every stat block.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

Monsters don’t play by the same rules as PCs, never have in 5th edition. This isn’t 3rd whenever number has to be justifked…an ancient green dragon has a +8 imitative because it’s an ancient green dragon….nothing more

Actually, my edit at the end of the post (and what is confirmed by Chaosmancer) is that there is a justification. The dragon has proficiency in Initiative.

 

[MNblockhead]

Yes, that was suggested by someone else and it disappoints me.

I'm a bit torn. When running and prepping games, I prefer to have green dragon under G. Just easier to flip to that page. I don't want to flip to dragon and then further flip through the many dragon pages to the one I want. But when reading through and browsing the book, it is more flavorful to have a section on dragons and have some nice fluffy lore to read about dragons in general. I fear that putting each dragon in alphabetic order in the book based on the type of dragon will mean cutting down on fluff. One thing a learned over the course of the 2014 edition is that most DMs seem to prefer a fluff light approach and getting as many stat blocks as possible into the page count. I fear that the Volos Guide approach is as obsolete as Volos Guide, which bums me out a bit as it was by far my favorite 2014 era D&D book.

I know we have Fizban's Guide and the Giants book. But having a monster book with a good collection of monsters well fleshed out and with sample lairs was a real treat.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

While I get some of the intent behind this, your example statblock does what I immediately feared this would do. I don't want to have to look in two or three places to get a full picture of the monster. It may seem like being amphibious isn't important, until it is. This may make the statblock easier to use in terms of straightforward combats, but what the actual effect in practice is making everything have two statblocks I need to reference.

I get this. I have gone back and forth with that very thought.

In terms of spell descriptions, it is a nice thought, but practically speaking, no publisher is ever going to republish every spell they use in the monsters in the MM. It would balloon the size of the book, and be cumbersome if the DM ever decided to alter any of those spells.

Yup - agreed; however, I am thinking of a 3rd-party, PDF-only product.

This is one of those weird things. For example, you are arguing that we could take out things like Battle-Ready which is obvious, and change things to "melee roll" or "3d6 poison" but at the same time, you want to break out poison and poisoned because it will cause confusion.

It's not a "confusion" per se. It's more of a visual distraction.

For example, if you had a line like:
Immunities: Acid, Blinded, Lightning, Poison, Poisoned, Stunned, Thunder, Unconscious; Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing from non-magical, non-silvered attacks

I think it's just hard to read.

Versus
Condition Immunities: Blinded, Poisoned, Stunned, Unconscious
Damage Immunities: Acid, Lightning, Poison, Thunder; Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing from non-magical, non-silvered attacks;

There is no current bloodied level in the statblock, and I don't see the value in adding one.

Currently, no - you are correct; however, I am thinking of what has been reported in the 2024 printing (there is a Bloodied condition). If a Bloodied condition exists, then it might trigger other events (some feature that turns on when the creature is Bloodied).

The dragon has proficiency in initiative rolls.

I caught that and edited my post.