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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Half of the party in my current game are orcs.

Yes, I’ve had that: 5 players, 2 orcs, one half orc/half eladrin.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Never read those. Did they have the cultural penetration of the Vampire Chronicles?

There's a TV show based on them right now. I think its second season premiers this month.

 

[Clint_L]

I just don't think that hags should be the vehicle for inclusion. They're villains. They're evil. If inclusion is good and exclusion is bad, shouldn't we have the monsters be exclusive?

Mine aren't villains. As I mentioned previously, a recent campaign arc had the party helping a hag coven reunite after they had to hide from persecution.

If you want them to purely be villains in your campaign, that's fine. No skin off my nose. But be aware that just because you see them that way, doesn't mean't mean everybody does.

Edit: a sympathetic portrayal of fantastical creatures that have traditionally been depicted as evil is hardly a new idea. Why is this even a discussion? These are all made-up creatures - we can do whatever we want with them.

 

[Remathilis]

Never read those. Did they have the cultural penetration of the Vampire Chronicles?

It's not quite the same, but if we accept hags as witches, then Charmed/Practical Magic/The Craft did a great amount of work moving witches from green-skinned hag to sexy goth girl.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I just don't think that hags should be the vehicle for inclusion. They're villains. They're evil. If inclusion is good and exclusion is bad, shouldn't we have the monsters be exclusive?

Inclusion isn’t about them being good guys. It’s about not using bad tropes. If there are monsters solely built on racist, sexist, ableist, or other bad tropes, they should be either removed from the game or changed to fix them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not quite the same, but if we accept hags as witches, then Charmed/Practical Magic/The Craft did a great amount of work moving witches from green-skinned hag to sexy goth girl.

So...problem solved? Seems to still be an issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Inclusion isn’t about them being good guys. It’s about not using bad tropes. If there are monsters solely built on racist, sexist, ableist, or other bad tropes, they should be either removed from the game or changed to fix them.

Which comes back to the old question (well outside the bounds of this thread): what acts of evil are bad guys allowed to engage in?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s important to note that the word zombie is never used in 1968s Night of the Living Dead. Roger Ebert even refers to the undead as ghouls in his review: I don’t even think the word zombie appears in Dawn of the Dead.

"Don't use the zed word".

 

[dave2008]

I'll let you get to work, but I do want to note that the default does not allow for the possibility of gnolls that aren't demonic monsters. The lore doesn't mention exceptions.

I know you are all about additive lore - so that shouldn't be stumbling block

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's not quite the same, but if we accept hags as witches, then Charmed/Practical Magic/The Craft did a great amount of work moving witches from green-skinned hag to sexy goth girl.

But at the same time D&D has seen a huge increase in ugly evil hags. In the beginning there was only Baba Yaga, now there are hag covens in nearly every adventure.