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]

I think of all non core books are obscure. I never knew the above book existed when it was in print, nor most of the non-core books.

So every edition might as well have just had the core three? That seems very limiting to me, but then I always want more material and have never accepted the validity of "bloat" as a concept.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not? I mean really, what are we getting upset about hear?

I'm not upset at all. I'm curious. It's just art, and I don't really care all that much about art. Words are far more important to me, and even there i have words I prefer.

But this is the topic of the day...

 

[dave2008]

It was no more obscure than saying Xanathar's or Strixhaven is obscure in 5e. It was part of a very popular set of player's options in the 2e days published by TSR -- part of what they used to call the splatbooks.

But we know splatbooks simply were not as popular back in the day as they are now (we have the sales numbers). Nor did we have the internet or the robust marketing we have today to tell us about these books. Today is not comparable to the 70;s, 80's, or even the 90's. I knew about the few books my local hobby store carried and that was it. If they didn't carry it. I don't think my experience as unique.

 

[dave2008]

So every edition might as well have just had the core three? That seems very limiting to me, but then I always want more material and have never accepted the validity of "bloat" as a concept.

No, I never suggested that. I was just pointing out gnolls were never a core species. I have no issue with splatbooks and options. And we have a ton of them for 5e, it is just a lot of them are 3PP and I think that is great!

 

[Echohawk]

The maedar's existence was merely a reversal of the ability to petrify to being able to depetrify, which I don't think is that mechanically unique, and there was never much of a lore explanation for that either (unless at some point some creative author decided to publish something in Dragon), other than perhaps a very simplistic "if medusae are female and maedars are male than clearly they would be opposites of each other in ability."

Some creative author (none other than Ed Greenwood!) did indeed publish The Ecology of the Maedar in Dragon #106, but it is only two pages, and based on a quick skim, it doesn't seem to provide any explanation of why the male and females versions of the species have different abilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I never suggested that. I was just pointing out gnolls were never a core species. I have no issue with splatbooks and options. And we have a ton of them for 5e, it is just a lot of them are 3PP and I think that is great!

I agree they were never a core PC species for D&D. However, I've never limited myself to core material, or first party either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some creative author (none other than Ed Greenwood!) did indeed publish The Ecology of the Maedar in Dragon #106, but it is only two pages, and based on a quick skim, it doesn't seem to provide any explanation of why the male and females versions of the species have different abilities.

Makes sense. Maedar were included in FR material at the time.

 

[Belen]

My 3e campaign world had a Gnoll Empire. They were not demonic although the empire was LE to NE and always looked to conquer their neighbors. I do not like the demonic angle.

 

[Voadam]

It was really @Hussar that was asking that question. So the answer is in 2e, 3e, and 4e gnolls have been playable. However, only in more obscure supplements it would seem.

3.5 gnolls were a playable race in the 3.5 core MM. At 2HD with an LA they were a mechanically poor option, but they were an option.

 

[Micah Sweet]

3.5 gnolls were a playable race in the 3.5 core MM. At 2HD with an LA they were a mechanically poor option, but they were an option.

View attachment 391660

I take it back. By appearing in a core book gnolls are technically a core option.