2025 Monster Manual to Introduce Male Versions of Hags, Medusas, and Dryads

The upcoming Monster Manual will feature artwork depicting some creatures like hags and medusas in both genders, a first for Dungeons & Dragons. In the "Everything You Need to Know" video for the upcoming Monster Manual, designers Jeremy Crawford and Wesley Schneider revealed that the new book would feature artwork portraying both male and female versions of creatures like hags, dryads, satyrs, and medusas. While there was a male medusa named Marlos Urnrayle in Princes of the Apocalypse (who had a portrait in the book) and players could make satyr PCs of either gender, this marks the first time that D&D has explicitly shown off several of these creatures as being of both male and female within a rulebook. There is no mechanical difference between male creatures and female creatures, so this is solely a change in how some monsters are presented.

In other news that actually does impact D&D mechanics, goblins are now classified as fey creatures (similar to how hobgoblins were portrayed as fey creatures in Monsters of the Multiverse) and gnolls are now classified as fiends.

Additionally, monster statblocks include potential treasure and gear options, so that DMs can reward loot when a player character inevitably searches the dead body of a creature.

The new Monster Manual will be released on February 18th, 2025.

 

[Chaltab]

I am always angered by "Medusas." That is like "Draculas".

Medusa was a gorgon, Dracula is a vampire.

Euryale was another gorgon. Her father the God of Sea Hazards, her Mother was the Goddess of Sea Monsters. She was raised under the sea.

It kind of reminds me of Nintendo games where you meet Toad and Yoshi and then find out that their species is also called Toads and Yoshis.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Depends on which lore. Heroes of the Feywild added Satyrs and Hamadryads to 4E as the sexually dimorphic counterparts of the same ancestry. Thought it was weird then but hey, two new playable races so why not!

I don't think it's that weird. Sexual dimorphism is a thing much more prevalent in other species than in our own.

Also, I have no problem with single-sexed, ie, asexual, creatures existing. Not every species needs to mate sexually (especially when if they are born from a free or from a god masturbating furiously in the ocean).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That is like "Draculas".

 

[Chaltab]

It's not weird to have more pronounced sexual dimorphism than humans. It's weird that the dimorphism is expressed as 'boys are half goat, girls are half tree'.

And I say 'weird' with affection. I'm not anti-weird.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Since my gimmick for Yeenghu is that he gets a little juice from the Abyss every time a beast is changed into an aberration, fiend, monstrosity, or undead, it doesn't matter if gnolls are monstrosities or fiends.

I noticed that a lot of demon lords are associated with changing a creature from one type to another type and decided to make that their gimmicks. Every time something changes type, that damages the fabric of reality a little bit, making it easier

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

But D&D us not Greek mythology, it is its own thing. I mean the neither the D&D gorgons or medusae look much like the mythological gorgons

Indeed. And it's something I've always had a problem with.

Is this mechanical bull a cool creature? Yes, indeed.

Is there a reason to call it a gorgon? Sure, it adhere to an obscure early 17th century source, but it's totally different of what people imagine gorgons to be with their current knowledge of classical culture. If you say "just when you enters the room, a gorgon attacks you" nobody will picture a four-legged, metallic bull. Using the gorgon name in is case is silly.

It's tantamount to calling a terrifying, fire immune monster a gazebo. It might lead to misunderstanding.

 

[Minigiant]

The male hag should have been called another ageist insult for an old man.

Like a coot or codger or geezer.

Killed or cursed by some geezer.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It's not weird to have more pronounced sexual dimorphism than humans. It's weird that the dimorphism is expressed as 'boys are half goat, girls are half tree'.

And I say 'weird' with affection. I'm not anti-weird.

Sorry, I thought you meant that in the sense of "breaking your suspension of disbelief" not in the affectionate sense.

 

[Chaltab]

I am always angered by "Medusas." That is like "Draculas".

Well obviously that is wrong. The plural should be 'Medusae' and 'Draculae'.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The male hag should have been called another ageist insult for an old man.

Like a coot or codger or geezer.

Killed or cursed by some geezer.

I previously preferred "coot," but "geezer" is a lot of fun.

I do think the whole category has gotten more and more problematic as time has gone on. Maybe there's some better monster name for the category that doesn't rely on ageism.