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.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, and the 2014 lore is fine. They didn’t need to be changed to fiends and their demonic nature doubled down on to justify WotC’s stubborn refusal to provide a PC playable version. They just needed a PC playable version.

Again, I have to ask, since when were gnolls ever a playable race? I suppose 3e since 3e had all things be playable. But outside of some really, really deep dives into edition splats, gnolls have never been playable out of the box.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is pretty cool. I personally prefer gnolls as "mortal demons" bent on destruction and carnage. One of Yeenoghu's greatest successes (who is one of my favorite demon lords).

Now, that doesn't mean all are evil and demonic destroyers. However, a gnoll, or group of gnolls, that is anything but destructive marauder is the exception.

And that’s fine. If the exceptions exist in 1st party, I’m not too fussed about the details. Heck, I already have my preferred take. It’s just bizarre and frustrating to me that WotC is so committed to keeping playable gnolls out of 1st party this edition, despite them having existed before.

Do you have the same concerns about Yuan-ti? I mean yaun-ti are pretty much universally evil aren't they (they are monstrosities in 5e). I had a good aligned yaun-ti PC in my 4e campaign (I had to custom make the species for them) because they were not a PC option.

Well, a 5e Yuan-ti PC race option exists in 5e, so no, I don’t have the same concerns. I’d prefer if they were a bit better balanced, but the option exists, so that’s a sight better than the gnoll situation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again, I have to ask, since when were gnolls ever a playable race? I suppose 3e since 3e had all things be playable. But outside of some really, really deep dives into edition splats, gnolls have never been playable out of the box.

3e and 4e both had playable gnolls. This aversion to playable gnolls is specifically a 5e thing, and it’s only made all the more frustrating due to the 2024 revision otherwise largely taking steps away from always-evil humanoids. But since being consistent with that would have to mean a 5e playable gnoll option, obviously they have to be changed to fiends now

 

[dave2008]

And that’s fine. If the exceptions exist in 1st party, I’m not too fussed about the details. Heck, I already have my preferred take. It’s just bizarre and frustrating to me that WotC is so committed to keeping playable gnolls out of 1st party this edition, despite them having existed before.

Well, a 5e Yuan-ti PC race option exists in 5e, so no, I don’t have the same concerns. I’d prefer if they were a bit better balanced, but the option exists, so that’s a sight better than the gnoll situation.

But there wasn't one in 4e was my point. These things come and go. If you didn't have dragon mag in 4e, you didn't have a playable gnoll either. KB authored that 4e article and he made a playable gnoll for 5e. My guess that is about as official as you are going to get. But heck, there are lot species that have been playable PCs that are not in 5e yet. It is not a vendetta against gnolls as I see it.

 

[Charlaquin]

But…. Playable gnolls have never been an option. So, sure I guess?

They have absolutely been an option in previous editions.

They tried to give us anthro-species and got shouted down. It’s not like WotC is opposed to anthro species.

No, and indeed, we have playable Yuan-ti in 5e too, so it’s not like they’re opposed to typically-villainous monsters getting the PC treatment either. It is very specifically a gnoll thing, and like I said, I will never understand it. Mostly it seems like Jeremy Crawford or someone else high up just doesn’t like them.

 

[dave2008]

But since being consistent with that would have to mean a 5e playable gnoll option, obviously they have to be changed to fiends now

I don't think that follows. I don't think consistency or lack there-of has anything to do with why we don't have official gnoll PCs.

 

[dave2008]

It is very specifically a gnoll thing, and like I said, I will never understand it. Mostly it seems like Jeremy Crawford or someone else high up just doesn’t like them.

I don't believe this either, but I have about as much proof as you do!

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think that follows. I don't think consistency or lack there-of has anything to do with why we don't have official gnoll PCs.

No, because they changed gnolls to fiends so it wouldn’t be inconsistent.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't believe this either, but I have about as much proof as you do!

I mean, I never claimed to have proof of anything, I just said it seems that way. I have no idea if it’s true, I was just expressing my emotional reaction to the situation.

 

[dave2008]

No, because they changed gnolls to fiends so it wouldn’t be inconsistent.

There is no requirement that all humanoids must have playable PCs species or that all PCs must be humanoids. As I you pointed out, yuan-ti have a PC options and they are monstrosities.

Now they did change the broodguard to humanoid in MotM, it was also a monstrosity previously. So consistent doesn't have to be a thing.

Also, centaurs and satyr are fey and playable: