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.

​

 

[Demetrios1453]

As I said previously when the dragon art PDF was released, just assume, like in real life, there is a huge variety of phenotypes within any given species. Thus, the look of both the new and old versions are valid, as are even older looks back to 1e!

 

[dave2008]

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

I understand that, my son is the same way. Me on the other hand, I prefer almost all of the 2024 versions compared to the 3e/4e/5e14 versions.

 

[dave2008]

As I said previously when the dragon art PDF was released, just assume, like in real life, there is a huge variety of phenotypes within any given species. Thus, the look of both the new and old versions are valid, as are even older looks back to 1e!

Yep, also the 1e dragonlance versions (which were different from the standard 1e versiosn).

 

[InkTide]

IMO, limiting fantasy monsters (like dragons) to what is possible or probably IRL is a mistake.

I think you're focusing a little too much on my discussion of the spines (less a real biology thing, more a basic physics thing) and the "no living thing I'm aware of" aside I made - my main problem is aesthetic, not realism. I don't want to limit them to what exists IRL, I want the design to work in its world... and those spines would be a problem even in the fantastical world of D&D. It's more a "what was the theming purpose of putting those spines there, why bring up the question of them stabbing themselves in the throat at all?" thing.

That split-chin lip-tooth structure is extremely unappealing to me. To me, It doesn't look cool, it doesn't look on theme, it doesn't even really fit with the rest of the head. I can't ignore how outright bizarre its mouth looks, and all the lines of the head and "mane" are guiding my eyes directly to it.

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.

I disagree with your premise here, not because I don't think dragons should be reptilian, but because I don't think they should all have the same animal inspirations. White dragons were the only ones with a solid avian motif - it set them apart, even if it was a bit clunky. Now, their faces don't really have an avian or reptilian (lizard, specifically) motif - they have more of a mammalian/vaguely dragon turtle motif with the face structure and the mane. That's fine in theory, but I don't think they do it well, and in terms of making the dragons very distinctive from each other, they're edging in on some of the new metallic dragon mammalian face theming, especially with the almost lion-like brass dragon face... but not even really committing to the design (they've kept the upper beak, but now it feels out of place). If they do revisit dragon turtles again (and I hope they do), I'd want their wide, flat, triangle faces to be distinct from anything in the chromatics or the metallics (or the gems, if they revisit those - good lord do Topaz wings need it).

1. I am not fond of the preponderance of big chins in these redesigns.
2. I have some small issues with all of the redesigns, but I think they are all improvements except...
3. I don't like the copper design. The long neck and small head don't fit to my eye.

These I can largely agree with - with the copper I think the problem with its neck would be mitigated if the shoulders and body were balanced with it better (could probably stand to have a slightly thicker neck, too - bit too noodly for my taste), and if its head was slightly larger. I still prefer it to the old copper, because there was barely anything memorable about the old copper dragon. Didn't really capture a "jokester dragon" vibe at all for me. I feel like the new one does a better job of that.

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.

I just don't agree with your seeming conclusion that any dragon with avian theming shouldn't have it (it really was just the white dragon - I think there's space in the lineup to have just one frozen bird boi). However, if it had a more rounded snout like a savannah monitor (perchance, depending on your mood, with a subtly beak-like structure at the tip), I probably wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it. But that ugly chin thing, the flattened face (doesn't feel long enough for a savannah monitor snout), and the fact that the frill is way too far forward ruins any comparison with a monitor for me.

For the record... red dragons are actually kinda low on my favorite dragons list. I liked them better than black dragons (least favorite in the old chromatics) or white dragons (second least favorite), but they were middle of the pack for me. I liked green and blue the best, preferring blue. I think the redesign pushed green to the front, and the new white dragon to the back of the list.

to fit theme (or what I assume theme will be)

I just don't think it holds a theme cohesively. There's too much going on that isn't working well as a thematic whole, IMO.

You have the body with a solid (pun intended) theme, but then a tail that's arguably too long for the stocky build (and notably lion-like), and then this strange imbalanced mishmash face sticking out of it that can't decide if it wants to be a polar bear, a lion, a bird, a snapping turtle, or one of those hideous Klingons from Star Trek: Discovery.

I just don't see what they were trying to do, theme wise. It doesn't feel like a redesign of the white dragon, it feels like something else entirely, and (to me) like it isn't even sure what that something else was supposed to be.

Thanks. I accidentally deleted my email with the link to that book so never got it before now.

Glad to have helped! Looking it up, I think they may have quietly made it pseudo-public because they had a bunch of difficulty getting it out to people through emails. Since it was never individually for sale AFAIK that was probably less of a problem.

As I said previously when the dragon art PDF was released, just assume, like in real life, there is a huge variety of phenotypes within any given species. Thus, the look of both the new and old versions are valid, as are even older looks back to 1e!

I like thinking of it this way (and even official stuff can imply this sometimes), but I also really like the level of detail in this new art, and since it's clearly a push to make D&D dragons more distinctive (whether to stand out or because it's easier to copyright post-OGL, you be the judge), we'll probably never get anything like the old dragon designs again from official sources.

If somebody really dislikes the replacements (like a lot of people seemed to with the gold), it stings a little more, since the detail of this artwork is so much higher than the detail given to the older stuff. Usually the new art carries over previous themes (it can feel like an improved 'resolution' image of the original creature still), but when you have stuff like the new white dragon or the Fizban's deep dragon (which genuinely looks like its existence is suffering), if the new design isn't a hit, fans of the old one being upset about it is perfectly understandable, IMO, even with the "you can still use the old ones" caveat.

 

[mamba]

That split-chin lip-tooth structure is extremely unappealing to me. To me, It doesn't look cool, it doesn't look on theme, it doesn't even really fit with the rest of the head. I can't ignore how outright bizarre its mouth looks, and all the lines of the head and "mane" are guiding my eyes directly to it.

Reminds me of a Spinosaurus

 

[TravDoc42]

I love the old-school look of this art by Aaron Miller!
Edit: Read the wrong artist name! My bad!

 

[InkTide]

Reminds me of a Spinosaurus

I can see the parallel, but spinosaurus still has a bit of an overbite - and a much longer snout, where that meshing of teeth is similar to crocodilians. One of the things that's really throwing me about the new white dragon is those lower teeth are outside of the mouth, fused to the lips. Which could still work, but there's a beak-like structure behind them in the adult dragon.

I don't actually hate the white dragon wyrmling or the young dragon designs (I'd get over the lip teeth if the adult kept that young dragon's chin with the beak sticking forward between them, even if I would still prefer a taller, thinner frill that was further back). Truth be told, I probably prefer these two to the new black dragon, which feels meh to me, but that preference doesn't hold with the adult dragons, and a ton of the dragons in the book appear to vastly expand their chins with age for some reason (or like the copper are just... born with serious underbites that they retain). The white dragon is the worst offender by far, while also having probably the strangest chin of the lot. It's as if the lip teeth also move forward with age, just to facilitate the adult dragon's cartoonishly massive chin, and the bulking up of the face and "mane" sort of wipes out the shape of the wyrmling and the young dragon heads so now it's an indistinct mass.

 

[dave2008]

I think you're focusing a little too much on my discussion of the spines (less a real biology thing, more a basic physics thing) and the "no living thing I'm aware of" aside I made - my main problem is aesthetic, not realism. I don't want to limit them to what exists IRL, I want the design to work in its world... and those spines would be a problem even in the fantastical world of D&D. It's more a "what was the theming purpose of putting those spines there, why bring up the question of them stabbing themselves in the throat at all?" thing.

That split-chin lip-tooth structure is extremely unappealing to me. To me, It doesn't look cool, it doesn't look on theme, it doesn't even really fit with the rest of the head. I can't ignore how outright bizarre its mouth looks, and all the lines of the head and "mane" are guiding my eyes directly to it.

Aesthetics are of course subjective. It works for me. I see whites as being the bull dogs of the chromatic dragons, so this works for me:

I disagree with your premise here, not because I don't think dragons should be reptilian, but because I don't think they should all have the same animal inspirations.

Perhaps you missed it, but I said dragons are chimeras. I agree that they should take their inspiration from many animals

White dragons were the only ones with a solid avian motif - it set them apart, even if it was a bit clunky.

Though I liked the 1e design (the 3e designs are not avian in any real way), I don't think an avian design is correct thematically for white dragons. So changing that approach made sense to me. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the white. There is room for me to like it and you to dislike it.

I just don't agree with your seeming conclusion that any dragon with avian theming shouldn't have it (it really was just the white dragon - I think there's space in the lineup to have just one frozen bird boi).

That is a misunderstanding on your part. I never said that. In fact, I said dragons are chimeras (traditionally). So mixing and match features is par for the course with dragons.

I just don't think it holds a theme cohesively. There's too much going on that isn't working well as a thematic whole, IMO.
View attachment 390483
You have the body with a solid (pun intended) theme, but then a tail that's arguably too long for the stocky build (and notably lion-like), and then this strange imbalanced mishmash face sticking out of it that can't decide if it wants to be a polar bear, a lion, a bird, a snapping turtle, or one of those hideous Klingons from Star Trek: Discovery.
View attachment 390480
I just don't see what they were trying to do, theme wise. It doesn't feel like a redesign of the white dragon, it feels like something else entirely, and (to me) like it isn't even sure what that something else was supposed to be.

Regarding the tail, as far as I know we haven't seen the actually reference design so I can't comment on that with certainty. I think it should have a shorter tail than the rest for sure, but they may be the case. I just don't have enough evidence as each artist takes a little license with designs.

I disagree about it not have a theme. The parts work well for the theme I see in the design: a tenacious brute. The bulldog underbite, snapping turtle jaws, thick muscular neck, stocking body, spine like mane, all speak to a close combat tenacious bruiser to me.

 

[dave2008]

I always thought the green could draw inspiration from Spinosaurus. I even mentioned that in my dragon redesign thread from 2019: Interested in new dragon designs for 5e (5.5e or 6e)? @InkTide, that old post might give you an idea of what I was looking for in the new designs. Though my thoughts have been changed some with the 2024 redesigns

From the linked thread:

Reminds me of a Spinosaurus

View attachment 390522

I can see the parallel, but spinosaurus still has a bit of an overbite - and a much longer snout, where that meshing of teeth is similar to crocodilians. One of the things that's really throwing me about the new white dragon is those lower teeth are outside of the mouth, fused to the lips. Which could still work, but there's a beak-like structure behind them in the adult dragon.
View attachment 390561
I don't actually hate the white dragon wyrmling or the young dragon designs (I'd get over the lip teeth if the adult kept that young dragon's chin with the beak sticking forward between them, even if I would still prefer a taller, thinner frill that was further back). Truth be told, I probably prefer these two to the new black dragon, which feels meh to me, but that preference doesn't hold with the adult dragons, and a ton of the dragons in the book appear to vastly expand their chins with age for some reason (or like the copper are just... born with serious underbites that they retain). The white dragon is the worst offender by far, while also having probably the strangest chin of the lot. It's as if the lip teeth also move forward with age, just to facilitate the adult dragon's cartoonishly massive chin, and the bulking up of the face and "mane" sort of wipes out the shape of the wyrmling and the young dragon heads so now it's an indistinct mass.

 

[InkTide]

View attachment 390634

It's this one.
This image right here is probably the thing that kills the design for me the most. It's gone past muscular brute and well into bobblehead, and the main culprit is probably the two-tiered jaw. It would still look stocky and intimidating if its head was half that wide (as in, if it followed that first upturn of the jaw below the eye as the end of the jaw, and didn't add another head's worth of jaw to either side).

Perhaps you missed it, but I said dragons are chimeras. I agree that they should take their inspiration from many animals

I'm not certain what you think I'm saying there - I want different dragons to take different sets of inspirations from different sets of animals, and would prefer that they didn't overlap too much in which inspirations they put where. I did misinterpret you saying you thought avian was a mistake for the white as you thinking avian was a mistake period, I apologize for that.

We do have avian theming elsewhere, at least, so it's not wholly abandoned: it's very evident in the new bronze dragon wings, which is one of my favorite parts about them.

It doesn't have to be the white dragon (I just don't like what they did to that one regardless of bird theming, the discussion of bird theming was mainly to point out all the stuff that had been changed or kept) - in fact, it might have been better to give more avian-head theming to the black dragon, to fully lean into the "pale faced carrion eater with a dark, winged body, that seeks out and surrounds itself with rot and ruin" idea with... well... vultures. I think I'd probably prefer it to the cliche face of a dead goat, but we've got what we've got.

Regarding the tail, as far as I know we haven't seen the actually reference design

The reference designs have so far been extremely close to, if not identical to, the "age progression" designs in the "anatomy" section of the art book (they use the same exact breath weapon and adult dragon profile illustrations, AFAIK). The white wyrmlings (you can see their design in one of my previous posts) appear not to have a short tail, and I doubt the tail is shortened for the adults.

I don't know if they're going to release all the reference designs. If they haven't yet, even after the art book, they may never do it.

I always thought the green could draw inspiration from Spinosaurus.

I think there is something similar, with the way their long, skinny snout flares/rounds out at the tip. I could see some possible vague spinosaurus inspiration here.

...Although that could just be eel inspiration converging on a face that's good for catching fish, depending on where one sits on the heated (no I'm not kidding) "did spinosaurus primarily eat fish" debate in paleontology.