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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's very surprising to me that the Lupin (or any dog-folk) have yet to appear in 5e.

Level Up introduced a dog-based heritage in an issue of the Gate Pass Gazette.

 

[Weiley31]

I will never understand why the current D&D team is so opposed to sympathetic gnolls. Like, fiendish gnolls are fine as an option, but give us playable humanoid versions too, you cowards!

Exploring Eberron has you covered.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again, "I like hyenas, so no one can have fiendish hyenas" isn't really a group that I honestly care about. I'm sorry, but, there's absolutely no way that this should preclude the use of anthropomorphic animals in demons. I'm willing to go a long way towards being understanding, but, nope, this is a jump too far for me.

Who has ever said no one can have fiendish hyenas? My first post in this thread literally said, “fiendish gnolls are fine as an option, but give us playable humanoid versions too”

It is not the people who want fiendish gnolls who are being denied an option here.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yet we apply human morals to fictional nonhuman sentient beings all the time. If animals are also sentient, shouldn't the same judgements apply to them?

You’re mixing up sentient and sapient

 

[Charlaquin]

I get where you're going with this, but, again, I'm thinking that this is perhaps not as big of a deal as all that. It's not like people have been complaining about the depictions of gnolls for the past forty or fifty years. Gnolls just don't have that much baggage and have never really had very much in game lore written about them.

We’ve also had sympathetic gnolls for a good chunk of that time. The weird aversion to non-evil gnolls is specifically a 1st party WotC thing, and it’s weird. 4e had playable gnolls, 3.5e had playable gnolls. It seems like Jeremy Crawford in particular has just decided to remove them from the game.

 

[dave2008]

I think Ray Harryhausen has a Medusa with a snake body as well.

Yep, look at the post just above yours!

 

[Charlaquin]

Exploring Eberron has you covered.

That’s 3rd party. And yeah, I know I can get 3rd party playable gnolls if I want them, I was specifically expressing frustration with WotC’s aversion to playable gnolls, which seems to have manifested with 5e.

 

[dave2008]

We’ve also had sympathetic gnolls for a good chunk of that time. The weird aversion to non-evil gnolls is specifically a 1st party WotC thing, and it’s weird. 4e had playable gnolls, 3.5e had playable gnolls. It seems like Jeremy Crawford in particular has just decided to remove them from the game.

They had a demonic origin in 4e as well. So just because they are fiends now doesn't mean they can't be PCs.

 

[Kromanjon]

I would like to add the Flind to the sicussion about Gnolls. Perhaps they could be used as an alternative? Don´t know it they are represented in 5e.

 

[dave2008]

I would like to add the Flind to the sicussion about Gnolls. Perhaps they could be used as an alternative? Don´t know it they are represented in 5e.

5e has them, from Monsters of the Multiverse (notice flind were already fiends):