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.

 

[TiQuinn]

Then why add male hags at all?

Because a supernatural origin doesn't prevent that concept.

 

[Weiley31]

Then why add male hags at all?

Modern day philosophy that has emerged more recently in today's times.

 

[Umbran]

I had players asking that: "Why do they have tits if they don't reproduce?"

Mod Note:
Folks, this is not the only example, but let us keep the language a bit higher-brow, please.

 

[Clint_L]

In my home campaign, a major story arc involved the party assisting a coven of hags who had been persecuted and forced into hiding. The party helped reunite them. These hags weren't "evil" at all (I don't use alignment) and were the victims of prejudice. It was a super fun arc; possibly my favourite of the campaign. Adding male hags is fine by me.

I am troubled by the sexist, ageist implications of the word in real life, and am open to using a different word.

 

[Umbran]

Then why add male hags at all?

In many/most human supernatural traditions, the male/female dyad is a powerful and frequently used symbolic form.

And, in more practical terms, so that they don't unthinkingly overplay the stereotype of ugly old evil woman.

 

[Stormonu]

My homebrew will still have gnolls as humanoids, but I might use the fiendish ones as "touched by Yeeneghou".

Also, Ogres are my campaign world's male hags.

My goblins will remain humanoids, not fey. and F* 4E style eladrin.

I wish they had done a separate creature entry for Maedar, rather than a plain either-or. I mean, they were willing to do that for Succubus/Incubus.

I miss the andro- gyno- crio- heiraco- sphinx variants.

Still up in the air about dryads, nymphs, nixies and the like. I kinda like having them be a singular gendered race and I might do different male types. Thinking along the lines of "little boys are made of snips & snails and puppy dog tails" sort of division of fey.

In the end, I'm going to take a look at the new MM when it comes out, but considering my disappointment with the new DMG, I'm probably not going to pick it up. I don't like the direction the game is going.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In many/most human supernatural traditions, the male/female dyad is a powerful and frequently used symbolic form.

And, in more practical terms, so that they don't unthinkingly overplay the stereotype of ugly old evil woman.

Did they provide a different story for male hags? If not, I don't see how this provides any modification or nuance to the symbolic form.

 

[Umbran]

Some might say that nothing is more explicitly evil than a furry

Mod Note:
I know this is waaaaaay back in the thread, but it deserves a note: Furry-bashing does not sit well with respect to the inclusivity policy. Furries should not be, even in jest, the next group that we look down on and make jokes about because we don't understand them.

They aren't harming anyone. Leave them be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My homebrew will still have gnolls as humanoids, but I might use the fiendish ones as "touched by Yeeneghou".

Also, Ogres are my campaign world's male hags.

My goblins will remain humanoids, not fey. and F* 4E style eladrin.

I wish they had done a separate creature entry for Maedar, rather than a plain either-or. I mean, they were willing to do that for Succubus/Incubus.

I miss the andro- gyno- crio- heiraco- sphinx variants.

Still up in the air about dryads, nymphs, nixies and the like. I kinda like having them be a singular gendered race and I might do different male types. Thinking along the lines of "little boys are made of snips & snails and puppy dog tails" sort of division of fey.

In the end, I'm going to take a look at the new MM when it comes out, but considering my disappointment with the new DMG, I'm probably not going to pick it up. I don't like the direction the game is going.

Yup, me too. I'd accept it as a gift, but it's not worth spending my own money on when there are so many other threat-book options out there.

 

[TiQuinn]

My homebrew will still have gnolls as humanoids, but I might use the fiendish ones as "touched by Yeeneghou".

Also, Ogres are my campaign world's male hags.

My goblins will remain humanoids, not fey. and F* 4E style eladrin.

I wish they had done a separate creature entry for Maedar, rather than a plain either-or. I mean, they were willing to do that for Succubus/Incubus.

I miss the andro- gyno- crio- heiraco- sphinx variants.

Still up in the air about dryads, nymphs, nixies and the like. I kinda like having them be a singular gendered race and I might do different male types. Thinking along the lines of "little boys are made of snips & snails and puppy dog tails" sort of division of fey.

In the end, I'm going to take a look at the new MM when it comes out, but considering my disappointment with the new DMG, I'm probably not going to pick it up. I don't like the direction the game is going.

I think these are all fine origins for a campaign, and I think it always benefits DMs to give some consideration to where monsters fit within their game worlds, but it does underscore the difficulty of WotC official lore having to answer this question across the board.