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.

 

[dave2008]

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 always forget the 3e MM had playable monstrous species in there. That is what happens when you skip an edition!

 

[dave2008]

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

Or were a core option at one time. Still not the same as being in the PHB. Nor have they been core in any other edition. To be honest I am just being pedantic and writing these response to avoid working - please feel free to ignore my comments!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or were a core option at one time. Still not the same as being in the PHB. Nor have they been core in any other edition. To be honest I am just being pedantic and writing these response to avoid working - please feel free to ignore my comments!

Only if you allow me the same courtesy . I'm just waiting for the rest of my family to wake up.

 

[Zaukrie]

100 pages on playable gnolls. The Internet is amazing

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

None of it was as popular back in the day as they are now. They were very popular relative to their time though. Again, what is consider non-core by that definition really is just the PHB, DMG, and MM in that case.

 

[dave2008]

None of it was as popular back in the day as they are now. They were very popular relative to their time though. Again, what is consider non-core by that definition really is just the PHB, DMG, and MM in that case.

But again, compared to sales of the core books they were not that popular. Something like 1% or less of the sales of the core books.

Look, I am not suggesting that is a reason not have gnolls or any species option. The more the merrier as far as I am concerned. I am just suggesting it as reason WotC isn't to keen on expanding their list of species.

 

[Belen]

100 pages on playable gnolls. The Internet is amazing

I played both a Wemic and a Flind in 2e. The Wemic was a War Cleric and the Flind was a Pit Fighter.

 

[Bagpuss]

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!

The development team are cat people, not dog lovers.

 

[Belen]

But again, compared to sales of the core books they were not that popular. Something like 1% or less of the sales of the core books.

Look, I am not suggesting that is a reason not have gnolls or any species option. The more the merrier as far as I am concerned. I am just suggesting it as reason WotC isn't to keen on expanding their list of species.

I would have preferred that Gnoll became a core species before Orc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The development team are cat people, not dog lovers.

That sounds entirely plausible as a reason.