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.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Ok its a fantasy game. Now they're male dryads. Just because. What fantasy was destroyed? It must not even be a biological reason. Maybe dryads copy the gender of the first humanoid they meet. Maybe they change it on a whim. Its not a detailed explanation,

Why? DnDryads being fey creature that copy the first humanoid form they see is fun and can be interesting. Let's develop that instead of just putting flat-chested dryads in the game (I suppose the illustration won't show male sexual organs of DnDryads). So saying they are "male" is an extrapolation of human assumptions, not seeing extraordinary, magical creatures.

A male and a female.

The DnDryads we see in the illustration could be female and ungendered. Or the tittied-version could be male (since we don't have any information of dryad giving birth, there is no reason to think that their front appendage is destined to breastfeeding. It may be the organ that let them merge with trees).

its just an artwork because people rolled their eyes.

I wasn't aware of people rolling their eyes at the idea that there are no female satyrs nor male dryad. I was aware of controversy about orcs being always evil and real-ethnicity in disguise, but nothing about satyrs and dryad.

 

[Echohawk]

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

As @Azzy already mentioned, gnolls were a playable race at least as far back as 2e, with an appearance in 1993's The Complete Book of Humanoids.

 

[Retros_x]

It turns a creature with exceptional ecology into another case of not so exceptional.

Ah yes, exceptional, fantastical ecology: What if they are female only?!? Amazing! /s

Personally I find the idea of gender fluid dryads much more exceptional and fantastical. But that is only a taste, like yours. Good thing, now not only your taste has official artwork, but mine got better support in artwork too. You can use female dryad artwork, I can use both artworks. In my world we both win with this new art.

 

[Corinnguard]

Something tells me that WotC is allergic to making playable dog races for whatever reason.

Level Up does have a playable dog heritage. The Madrai.

Madrai | Level Up

a5e.tools

Back in 3e, Bastion Press had the Dover, who looked like anthropomorphic German Shepard Dogs. Later on, Epidemic Books made the Dover resemble a number of RL dog breeds

Ironically the bone devil is the devil nobody actually wants to bone.

Something tells me that they prefer being on top anyway.

 

[Alzrius]

Always thought devils made more sense than demons for succubi; temptation has always been a devil's wheelhouse. Though NE fiends works too.

D&D was fairly consistent in its succubi not being temptresses, though (up until the end of 3E, at least). They weren't using the promise of sex as a lure to convince people to commit evil acts. Rather, they used sex as a weapon, literally able to kill with it (via negative levels). In that way, they made perfect sense as demons; their desire was simply to kill, and sex just happened to be their method of doing so.

To put it another way, they were femme fatales rather than temptresses.

 

[Dire Bare]

Ah yes, exceptional, fantastical ecology: What if they are female only?!? Amazing! /s

Personally I find the idea of gender fluid dryads much more exceptional and fantastical. But that is only a taste, like yours. Good thing, now not only your taste has official artwork, but mine got better support in artwork too. You can use female dryad artwork, I can use both artworks. In my world we both win with this new art.

I remember the upset of some folks with the 4E dryad, which went from a sexy forest nymph to a scary, avenging tree spirit. The art was awesome . . . IMO.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

That's why a male hag should be called a geezer and be a property occupying, xenophobic old man with a boomstick who doesn't let progress happen.

"Get off my lawn!"
Bang!
Roll initiative.

Geezer, koot, alter kocker; my particular favorite is "Gammon."

 

[GMMichael]

Adding males to female-only creatures (or viceversa) seems on the surface to add diversity, but instead it decreases diversity across different creatures. I prefer having some creatures that defy real-life ecology, so that they leave players wondering why are dryads only female?

PCs aren't supposed to wonder. That's why all the rules, spells, and 20 levels of classes are in the PHB.

That's why a male hag should be called a geezer . . .

But then a geezer would be a different species than the hag! Hmm. Why don't they call it the "Species Manual?"

Speaking of different species, I think D&D should call male medusae "mercers."

 

[TiQuinn]

Introducing the imagery of geezers and hags having sex to produce baby hags is strangely unappealing. What does a baby hag looks like? Can we get some illustration? It will invariably lead to the question "what do we do to baby hags? Since they are always evil, is it good to kill them?" that they wanted to get rid of with orcs.

Their origin can be completely supernatural, though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Their origin can be completely supernatural, though.

Then why add male hags at all?