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]

Another illustration of the problem of using name that evoke specific things to designate different, original things. There is no reason to think that humans have a single heart in D&D (as far as I know, the lore doesn't address internal organs), or even that they have internal organs at all and aren't just a bag of flesh inside made of HPmatter that regenerate overnight (compliant with healing rules), yet we do assume that, because they are designated as human, in the silence of the rulebook, D&D humans work as humans do. If they don't, maybe calling them humans isn't the smartest choice.

In D&D dryads are fey creatures that are associated to a tree, and nymph are associated with natural beauty. While it's not explicitely mentionned that both creatures are related, why shouldn't we assume they are, the same way we assume humans don't have a tail, despite human's lack of tail never being part of the established D&D lore.

 

[Hussar]

Even if they aren’t specifically related, game wise they exist in the same niche. Temptation monsters that use beauty and charms to foil the pcs.

And really any critter in that niche should appeal to anyone’s preferences. Only having female nymphs and dryads makes them less useful when your group isn’t five straight guys.

 

[pawsplay]

At some point, D&D gave us the hamadryad, a dryad who isn't bound to a particular tree to survive. That's reverse, and I am far more keen to see that reversed than I am concerned about what genders a dryad might have.

I don't particularly like the idea of male hags, because I don't have a concept in my mind of that, and it seems dreadfully boring. I dislike it for the same reason I disliked driders being members of drow society, the same reason I dislike a goliath tied to every giant race. It's just so relentlessly consistent and symmetric. It's nothing that I feel calls out to exist. I don't object to purple and orange dragons, but I don't want them just to have them. So for me it remains to be seen whether male hags are better than no hags at all.

 

[Hussar]

Male hags sort of fit with the idea of Rumpelstiltskin. Or the old magical hermit. Miracle Max and his wife fit the male and female hag mold.

It’s not without precedent.

 

[Demetrios1453]

wasn't that for the dryads?

Oh sorry, you're right.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Indeed. And it's something I've always had a problem with.

View attachment 391586
Is this mechanical bull a cool creature? Yes, indeed.

Is there a reason to call it a gorgon? Sure, it adhere to an obscure early 17th century source, but it's totally different of what people imagine gorgons to be with their current knowledge of classical culture. If you say "just when you enters the room, a gorgon attacks you" nobody will picture a four-legged, metallic bull. Using the gorgon name in is case is silly.

It's tantamount to calling a terrifying, fire immune monster a gazebo. It might lead to misunderstanding.

I dunno, man. D&D has 50 years of instilling new definitions and descriptions over old concepts. D&D has become more mainstream in the public consciousness.

For instance, there are many different mythological ways to describe or name the same kinds of "fey" of Europe, but in D&D they all get their own new definitions. As an example, look up the word "drow" in Wikipedia. It references "trolls" and "sprites" as part of its origin.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I still can't see how goblins can be fey but elves are humanoids. I mean, I'm okay with the goblin-fey connection, I really am. I just think they shouldn't be more fey than elves. So if you want them to be fey, make elves fey too.

I think everyone should agree with me or you're just wrong. I mean...we can argue about some things, but this is just the way it is.

To be honest, I get elves being fey. It's fine for Charm Person not to work on them, but what other "humanoid"-targeting spells would they get to ignore? Is there more than Hold Person and Dominate Person?

In my home campaign, any humanoid who is born in the Feywild, or lives in the Feywild too long becomes a "Fey" creature type. Alongside other rules, this means there are fey humans dwarves, and humanoid goblins and eladrin.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

For instance, there are many different mythological ways to describe or name the same kinds of "fey" of Europe, but in D&D they all get their own new definitions. As an example, look up the word "drow" in Wikipedia. It references "trolls" and "sprites" as part of its origin.

Well, they used a new name for their well-defined and original depiction of this species. The wikipedia articles mentions trolls and sprite as part of the inspiration, but makes it clear it's an article about the D&D race. There is a Trow creature (that is apparently not widely known) and there is no Drow entry in the OED. So they created a new thing, and called it a new name -- it's originality being confirmed by translation as "drow", unchanged from English, not as the name of original troll creature, in the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese versions). That's exactly what I am supporting. I would not have liked the drow to be called the spidermen, or the hecatonchire, or the Nubians.

When Tolkien defined orcs for his narrative needs, he didn't call them orca.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I’m a little taken aback by all the gnoll love. I don’t know if I’ve ever used them in a campaign.

Doesn't surprise me that much. I can think of.... three different fantasy works off the top of my head with major Gnoll characters. The big one is the Wandering Inn, which has AWESOME gnoll characters

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not that I wouldn't want them, but you seem to be the only person demanding them in all of these pages.

I would love to see some playable gnolls, though I'm always divided because I love using them as fiend monsters too.

I just had to go to work today, so the thread continued without my input.