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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

You think there might be some difference between a monster always depicted as being completely androgynous and only even vaguely having heads and arms, and a monster which is specifically called out as being a woman? Some difference that makes it a decent question to ask why there is only one version of that monster?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Ah, well that would explain things. He was far more likely to break into latin and praise the emperor than talk about Greek stuff.

Though, I will note, your wikipedia entry does not say that the Greek Satyr was a goat-like man. So if people just associated the Roman Faunus (who were goat-like) with the Greek Satyr who were also rapicious male nature spirits, it is possible my former co-worker was still mostly correct.

 

[dave2008]

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.

You never know. Thoroughout 5e people have said WotC will never of X, Y, & Z and then they eventual do get around to X & Y.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Well, if we go by the idea that D&D nymphs, D&D satyrs and D&D dryads have nothing to do with Greek mythology but are their own thing entirely and that the name is irrelevant -- an idea that I don't share, but not a hill I'd die on -- then I don't think D&D dryads were called out as being women in the 2014 DMG.

The imagery is slender, hermaphrodite. All primary and secondary sexual organs are covered by the leafy "fur". It's difficult to identify any sign of the sex of this creature. It might appear "feminine", as per the description, but I'd say it's just because it might have some qualities associated with human women, but it's more because we're projecting our sexuality on these creatures (for example, nude shoulder, nude thin legs... but see the Mallard duck male and female, they wouldn't see it the same). And because we know them to be female from Greek myths, of course. But without the association, if one had said "here is a picture of a totally original oak tree Nature spirit" it isn't immediately making us think it's a single-gendered female species. After all, oak trees have both male and female sexual organs.

At least the 4e version had frontal outgrowths that a human might associate with a female mammalian secondary sexual organ, but I wouldn't call this creature "feminine".

 

[wizard71]

You think there might be some difference between a monster always depicted as being completely androgynous and only even vaguely having heads and arms, and a monster which is specifically called out as being a woman? Some difference that makes it a decent question to ask why there is only one version of that monster?

Perhaps because the original monster was a female cursed by her goddess for being unfaithful, the monster was unique and no thought was given to procreation. It’s not that difficult.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

In the D&D I cut my teeth on, fairies and pixies were considered humanoid and susceptible to charm person.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!

I'll admit we don't have nearly as many shape-shifting horses as we could.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Yes, why?

It's the definition of the word. Like "all mares are females" or "all bulls are male". The superset of "dryad" is "goddess" which rolls up to "divinity".

Nymphs are minor female nature divinities, usually bound to a place or type of feature. Dryads are a subset of nymphs tied to trees, hamadryads are a subset of dryads that are tied to a specific tree.

I had players asking that: "Why do they have ((mammaries)) if they don't reproduce?".

A dryad (or nymph) could mate with a male god or human. The nymph Amphitrite married Poseidon. The nymph Thetis married a mortal and gave birth to Achilles.

((Edited for Eric's grandma))

 

[Azzy]

Given the liberties (to understate things) that D&D has taken with various creatures from folklore and myth since the game's inception, I find adding male versions of traditionally female creatures unworthy of the digital ink that's been spilt.

 

[cranberry]

Who cares if a monster is male or female. They are just constructs that equal a bag of xp, or get you closer to a milestone.

Once they are dead, and you've looted the corpse, do you really ponder their gender?

If it's that important to someone, simply reskin them, and you're good to go.