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]

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.

I think we can have them generally be fiends and have playable ones too.

 

[wizard71]

I think it’s silly but it’s not a big deal. Not every creature needs to be represented by their sex or have a sex at all. For example, there does not need to be male, female or hermaphrodite elementals.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Must... Not... Say... Tom... Bombadil...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Male nymphs are satyrs.
Female satyrs are nymphs.

That is all.

Had a classics enthusiast tell me in great detail about how what we call a Satyr in DnD is actually a Faun, and male and female fauns have existed since ancient greece. And actually the Satyr was a horse-faced being. This making most of the goat-man depictions being a renaissance creation.

And Nymphs and Fauns were depicted together because NATURE and both were associated with the god Pan.

 

[MGibster]

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

I've been working on using things from D&D that I've never really used extensively in the past and I'm going to consider gnolls. I need a monstrous species of nogoodniks the PCs can dispatch with no guilt. Their next adventure centers around brokering a peace between an orc tribe and Greyhawk, so I might throw in the gnolls and see what happens.

 

[Alzrius]

Had a classics enthusiast tell me in great detail about how what we call a Satyr in DnD is actually a Faun, and male and female fauns have existed since ancient greece. And actually the Satyr was a horse-faced being. This making most of the goat-man depictions being a renaissance creation.

And Nymphs and Fauns were depicted together because NATURE and both were associated with the god Pan.

Your enthusiast needs to check their sources. From the Satyress article on Wikipedia:

Satyress is the female equivalent to satyrs. They are entirely an invention of post-Roman European artists, as the Greek satyrs were exclusively male and the closest there was to female counterparts were the nymphs, altogether different creatures who, however, were nature spirits or deities like the satyrs. Later on, Romans described their counterpart of the satyr -- the faunus -- as having a female counterpart, the fauna. Although effectively the same creature as the then-inexistant satyress, it actually came to be part of the Roman religion. The creation of gender-complementary pairs of deities serving the same function was a typically Roman religious characteristic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't mind the mythical concept of "malevolent creature that takes an attractive or sympathetic guise to trick people into getting drowned" as this idea exists in so many cultures all over the world, mostly as a story to warn children to stay away from dangerous bodies of water (strong currents, thin ice, predators etc...).

What I do mind is the lazy trope that these beings are always "hot young women who trick men". Like, the idea is that these being entice all kinds of mortals to their doom. Why be so limited? The original Tome of Beasts from Kobold press has at least half a dozen varieties of this exact same idea (evil pretty seductress who tempts men to their deaths). Boring.

It makes more sense to me that a Fey creature may have a grudge against mortals encroaching on their natural terrain, maybe changing their appearance to better lure different kinds of targets. Or maybe they're just predators who feed on people, not specifically "evil" per se, just sentient things that need to feed. Cruelly, perhaps, but that's nature.

I think that's the direction that WotC is going; more flexibility and a departure from dull, limited tropes.

Can't help but agree on that. I'm not against the drowned maiden trope, but seeing it a half dozen times with tiny little variations (oh, this version has seaweed in her hair instead of black pits for eyes) is boring as heck. Give me a shapeshifting horse instead!

 

[Chaosmancer]

There a couple examples in the Theros book. They’re quite good, too. But they play up the elemental nature of them, as there are several types of nymphs in Theros, based on those from Greek mythology.

View attachment 391751
View attachment 391752

Gorgeous art and such a powerful concept of what a Nymph actually IS

 

[abirdcall]

Your enthusiast needs to check their sources. From the Satyress article on Wikipedia:

That is just modern retconning of what real folklore was. Doesn't count.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think we can have them generally be fiends and have playable ones too.

Would certainly be possible, if they decided to do that, but it seems like they won't do that officially. Which is a little disappointing.