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.

​

 

[Zaukrie]

I liked it when WotC (briefly) included some spells written out in the Actions / Reactions sections of the statblocks. For example, the Black Gauntlet of Bane (Descent into Avernus) has guiding bolt written out as an action:



I liked that, and I would have preferred that they continue with that method rather than the current spell slot-less way they are doing spellcasting.

I'm hopeful that continues.

 

[pukunui]

I'm hopeful that continues.

It won't. They abandoned it as of Monsters of the Multiverse.

 

[Zaukrie]

It won't. They abandoned it as of Monsters of the Multiverse.

Huh. Guess that shows how much I used spellcasters out of that book!

Also, very disappointing. SO MUCH easier.

 

[mamba]

well there is a matching trigger for that (the charm monster) its just not a damaging trigger.

sure, but I do not feel beholden to the triggers either way

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I liked it when WotC (briefly) included some spells written out in the Actions / Reactions sections of the statblocks. For example, the Black Gauntlet of Bane (Descent into Avernus) has guiding bolt written out as an action:



I liked that, and I would have preferred that they continue with that method rather than the current spell slot-less way they are doing spellcasting.

I prefer a combination. A list of spells like they have now and then one or two key spells, that they’re basing the CR on, detailed in the block.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

This is why I prefer to design stat blocks with an extra "block" of spells that can be referenced or not. I get it that a publisher is not going to waste the money on paper, but it is immensely helpful in combat for DMs.

Something like:
View attachment 375574
Followed by (on a separate page, or the back):
View attachment 375575

I would prefer an abbreviated approach that gets to the heart of the spells. Not the full write up. Well, your approach is helpful, it would take up a lot of space that was already in another book you should have. Do you have to look two places anyway, might as well leave the spells spell book.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

I would prefer an abbreviated approach that gets to the heart of the spells. Not the full write up. Well, your approach is helpful, it would take up a lot of space that was already in another book you should have. Do you have to look two places anyway, might as well leave the spells spell book.

Yeah, the problem is that, with more robust spells (like Charm Monster and Polymorph), there is a lot of "edge case" language. It's hard to decide what to include and what to leave out. The damage spells are simple (nearly one-liners). The edge-case spells make me not like the additional spell block approach because, in the end, something must get cut from the "brief" description. If a spell was as simple as the following, then I don't mind including it in the stat block, but once you hit three or more lines, it's a visual mess.

Target: All creatures in a 5-foot line emanating from you and extending 120 ft. Save: Dex. Failure: 10d6 Lightning and the target is knocked Prone. Success: Half damage (no Prone condition).

 

[dave2008]

It won't. They abandoned it as of Monsters of the Multiverse.

Huh. Guess that shows how much I used spellcasters out of that book!

Also, very disappointing. SO MUCH easier.

They didn't exactly abandon it. In the Planescape book spellcasters get a magic action outside there spell list. For example, Shemeshka has Arcane Flux as an action and Fell Counterspell as a Reaction. These are both "spells," just not spells a PC has access too.

 

[pukunui]

They didn't exactly abandon it. In the Planescape book spellcasters get a magic action outside there spell list. For example, Shemeshka has Arcane Flux as an action and Fell Counterspell as a Reaction. These are both "spells," just not spells a PC has access too.

That's been the case since the 2014 MM: there are plenty of creatures that have access to magic "spells" that PCs can't replicate. But I like humanoid spellcasting NPCs (the PCs' peers, if you will) to work more or less the same way. It's fine if a lich or an archfey or whatever has an ability that the PCs can't ever learn, but your average NPC cleric or druid shouldn't have, by default, access to magic that the PCs can't learn. I know people have argued that some of it is just shorthand - e.g. you can flavor "Arcane Burst" as a Fire Bolt or a Shocking Grasp or whatever - but it's still not how I would prefer that they do it.

IIRC one of their main arguments for going with the current spellcasting format is to make it clearer what spells affect the CR. The Descent into Avernus method of spelling out various spells in the actions while also listing them in the Spellcasting feature did that too. Yes, it ultimately takes up more space, but that is nevertheless my preferred method for spellcasting NPCs. You get a clear picture of which spells factor into the CR while also having the NPC still function more or less in the same way as a comparable PC.

 

[dave2008]

The Descent into Avernus method of spelling out various spells in the actions while also listing them in the Spellcasting feature did that too. Yes, it ultimately takes up more space, but that is nevertheless my preferred method for spellcasting NPCs. You get a clear picture of which spells factor into the CR while also having the NPC still function more or less in the same way as a comparable PC.

That is my preferred method as well.