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.

 

[Dire Bare]

I haven't listened to the video yet. Did they say anything about making demons and devils more distinct from one another? Other than some hair-splitting aspects (unless you're playing a Planescape game), they've been way too similar to one another for most of D&D.

I had been hopeful that devils would be more humanoid and enticing, but the bone devil shows that's not the direction they're going with them as a category.

There was an attempt with the 4E world-building design to better differentiate demons from devils, which resulted in succubi changing sides and other changes . . . but the sheer scope of the 4E changes to classic lore and the pushback it got meant this wasn't lasting . . .

I'm excited to see how they attempt it this time around.

 

[Dire Bare]

Well, I hate to break it to you, J.C. and W.S., but you're way behind the times. Game companies are recognizing the inclusiveness needs of the role-playing game market now. Race is a pre-21st century social construct and has been replaced with species, which is purely scientific. Orcs are not inherently "evil" or "warlike," because such traits have been used to justify the oppression and dehumanization of real peoples. Practical boob armor never existed. Personal pronouns are always plural when the subject's preferences are unknown or in doubt. And there are more sexes and genders than just male and female (especially in fantasy).

I understand that Wizards of the Coast is one of the companies leading this movement.

Huh?

Why the snark directed at the D&D designers? They are pushing the game forward in a positive direction. That they are not the first to do so . . . who cares? As the unending arguments in fandom can attest, making these types of changes can be controversial, and WotC being a large profit-driven company, they are trying to balance pushing things forward and not alienating too many fans. So, they tend to move more slowly and conservatively than your indie designers. But they are moving forward.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Hags have bothered me for a while . . . and I'm not a good enough designer or world-builder to tweak them enough to remove all the ick. I don't think simply adding male hags is enough.

Old people = creepy, scary (ageism)
Women = evil, chaotic (sexism)
Ugly people = evil, demented (uglyism?)

Old, ugly women? Does she float in water like a duck? Burn her at the stake!

 

[Dire Bare]

I think your taking your experience in school and assuming it is common. It is not. I have lived with a HS teacher for most of my adult life and have an inordinate amount of friends that are teachers (middle, high, and college) from all over the USA. Mythology is not generally a required subject. If it is offered at all, it is usually elective. That means a good portion of the USA public is simple not introduced to the actual myths. That is why most people think Medusa had a snake body (and had no sisters).

As a school teacher . . . even folks who HAVE taken a class or unit on mythology . . . kids don't remember crap!

 

[Dire Bare]

I still can't see how goblins can be fey but elves are humanoids. I mean, I'm okay with the goblin-fey connection, I really am. I just think they shouldn't be more fey than elves. So if you want them to be fey, make elves fey too.

Good point.

Elves have always been fey in my own mental canon . . . so I forget they aren't officially fey in the current D&D rules. In 4E, weren't Eladrin true fey and elves had "fey ancestry", as they do in 5E?

 

[Minigiant]

In 4E, weren't Eladrin true fey and elves had "fey ancestry", as they do in 5E?

Elves, Eladrins, and Gnomes were all fey origin in 4e. They count as fey for effects.

 

[dave2008]

FOF has it at a CR 23 AC/DC 23 HP 375 Atk/Prof +15 DPR 186 Atks 5 × 1d6 + 34

This one is CR23, AC 22, HP 346, +15 / +17 to hit, and about 175 dpr (maybe more if that stun bypass comes into effect)

That's pretty close to me. I certainly wouldn't change a book over it.

No the DPR is 209:

Multiattack = 31+21=52x2=104
LA = 35x3=105

105+104=209

However, I agree your FOF is closer than the the 2014 DMG or the LevelUp monster maker on the pure math. However, what about all the other resistances (legendary resistance and BPS), does FoF have recommendations for monster features and resistances (it has been to long since I looked at my copy). Per the old 2014 guidelines that would give the 2024 version (with 4 Legendary Resistance uses) an effective HP of 466. That is quite a bit more than 375 (24% more + BPS resistance) and it does 19% more damage than the FoF table. IDK, together that seems like a significant difference.

Look, I am not saying you should do it. Your book still works (and better than the the 2014 guidelines now). I was just asking if it was on your radar. I have pretty much decided to reverse engineer it myself at this point anyway. I 'm always looking for an official reason to make monsters hit harder

 

[abirdcall]

I still can't see how goblins can be fey but elves are humanoids. I mean, I'm okay with the goblin-fey connection, I really am. I just think they shouldn't be more fey than elves. So if you want them to be fey, make elves fey too.

I think everyone should agree with me or you're just wrong. I mean...we can argue about some things, but this is just the way it is.

I would just love if they changed things so that half-elf was the playable species and elves were beings of magic that disappeared long ago from the realms.

But they can't and they won't. I will just do that for my home games.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Geezer has alliteration with gun and the idea of a male hag having a geezer gun is funny.

"Dang kids stealing my lemons again!"

 

[Chaltab]

No the DPR is 209:

Multiattack = 31+21=52x2=104
LA = 35x3=105

105+104=209

However, I agree your FOF is closer than the the 2014 DMG or the LevelUp monster maker on the pure math. However, what about all the other resistances (legendary resistance and BPS), does FoF have recommendations for monster features and resistances (it has been to long since I looked at my copy). Per the old 2014 guidelines that would give the 2024 version (with 4 Legendary Resistance uses) an effective HP of 466. That is quite a bit more than 375 (24% more + BPS resistance) and it does 19% more damage than the FoF table. IDK, together that seems like a significant difference.

Look, I am not saying you should do it. Your book still works (and better than the the 2014 guidelines now). I was just asking if it was on your radar. I have pretty much decided to reverse engineer it myself at this point anyway. I 'm always looking for an official reason to make monsters hit harder

So that's where you're getting 209! While that's certainly possible it requires using every LA on an attack each round which seems like a waste when there's two others that may be situationally more useful--especially if there's a creature in melee giving the Empyrean disadvantage to ranged attacks.