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.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

Medusa was not the only gorgon nor was Medusa universally given as being cursed, that shows up much later. She is more often said to be born to the same divine parents as the immortal gorgons, Stheno and Euryale, but born mortal. Much like some sometimes in a group of dryad sisters there will be a mortal hamadryad.

The greek gods would seem to be genetically unstable since they produce everything from winged horses to fish.

 

[TravDoc42]

The greek gods would seem to be genetically unstable since they produce everything from winged horses to fish

Not just genetically unstable!

 

[Necropolitan]

My solution to the problems with hags was to change them from evil fey who appear as old people to fey of any alignment who appear as old people.

Good, Evil, Neutral, Lawful, or Chaotic, a Hag is always OLD.

They're fey representations of old age, a mortal can become a hag but the majority of them are old from the moment they take form and they take pride in their wrinkles.

A Hag might be a stern Lawful Good elder who helps a community stay on the right path (like Granny Weatherwax from the Discworld series), a Chaotic Good bon-vivant dedicated to helping the youth live their lives to the fullest (No Time At All from the musical Pippin is an excellent example of that), a Neutral Good long-timer at a senior living home who does their best to keep the other residents comfortable (where the mortal staff are likely to eventually end up as residents with them since hags are biologically immortal), a Chaotic Neutral woods-dweller who might help or devour whoever calls on them depending on their mood and the manners of their visitor (like Baba Yaga), a Lawful Evil bargainer who's more interested in the results of the deal than the actual exchange (like Rumpelstiltskin from Once Upon a Time), the stereotypical Chaotic Evil hag, or any other archetype of old age.

I did the same with other fey, although my version of fey have the different fey types basically be costumes fey spirits wear depending on what they want to be in the mortal world. Adventurers might spend a night partying with a satyr only to meet the same fey again later as a dryad after the fey spirit got partied out and felt like resting for a few centuries (or more) as a tree-person.

 

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

I tried to clutch my pearls but the string broke in 2024. I'd better turn on QVC and get a new necklace.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Demonic gnolls in a multiverse setting don't make a lot of sense, as several of them gave them completely different origin stories. Mystara they were magical creations that went a bit loopy when their creators got snapped out of existence due to some major naughtiness.

Having wildly different origin stories hasn't stopped Wizards of the Coast from gracelessly mushing together the "multiversal origins" of a whole bunch of other creatures from elves to goblinoids so I don't know why you'd expect them to exercise any restraint with gnolls.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

But they're not doing anything unique with male hags other than... having male hags. They're not engaging with the inherent gender transgression of such an identity. They're not making male hags into statements on patriarchy.

No one complained that George Romero's zombies had little to nothing to do with the folkloric zombies of voodoo... because Night of the Living Dead was a well made, artful, innovative film with plenty to say. From everything we know about the upcoming monster manual, that is not the case with male hags, nor is it with other traditionally feminine monsters like medusae or dryads.

For WoTC to engage with any of that level of thinking, they'd actually have to understand it to begin with, which they are not particularly interested in. Have a look at the way that Ravenloft was hacked around with to suit today's online mores, with scant regard to the underlying themes and tone of various folkloric inclusions. It's their prerogative and enough for some people but if you're expecting 5E D&D to have anything interesting to say beyond "hopefully no one on the Internet gets mad" you're going to be sorely disappointed.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The 2e Monstrous Compendium entry for maedars explained the reason for their petrification reversal powers. It was a hunting strategy. A medusa would petrify and shatter a victim, and a maedar would then turn the chunks of stone into edible chunks of meat.

Remember when Monster Manuals were interesting to read and full of ideas.

 

[Faolyn]

On the other hand, people who really like hyenas might be. Also, obligatory “offense is not the point.”

Meh. I really like hyenas. I mostly just shrug, change the way they're presented to look like something else (the idea behind them is really cool), and go back to making gnolls be humanoid with humanoid cultures.

I get far more "offended" (read: annoyed and irate) at all the invertebrates that are given eusocial structures, with queens and workers and soldiers. Like, there's only a very tiny number of invertebrates that have that sort of structure. The vast majority of species don't. And yet D&D and its kin give it to everything. Spiders get queens, for pity's sake. Argh! You want to talk about offensive? My biology nerd sense goes nuts when I see that!

 

[Charlaquin]

Meh. I really like hyenas. I mostly just shrug, change the way they're presented to look like something else (the idea behind them is really cool), and go back to making gnolls be humanoid with humanoid cultures.

I get far more "offended" (read: annoyed and irate) at all the invertebrates that are given eusocial structures, with queens and workers and soldiers. Like, there's only a very tiny number of invertebrates that have that sort of structure. The vast majority of species don't. And yet D&D and its kin give it to everything. Spiders get queens, for pity's sake. Argh! You want to talk about offensive? My biology nerd sense goes nuts when I see that!

In people’s defense, eusociality is really cool. But yeah, stick to ant and bee inspired monsters for it, certainly not spiders.

Actually naked mole rat inspired mammalian eusocial monsters would be pretty sick too.

 

[MGibster]

Meh. I really like hyenas. I mostly just shrug, change the way they're presented to look like something else (the idea behind them is really cool), and go back to making gnolls be humanoid with humanoid cultures.

Hyenas are one of those lifeforms I really dislike. Baboons too. It's like, come on, you look a lot like a dog but you're not really a dog. How dare you!

I get far more "offended" (read: annoyed and irate) at all the invertebrates that are given eusocial structures, with queens and workers and soldiers. Like, there's only a very tiny number of invertebrates that have that sort of structure. The vast majority of species don't. And yet D&D and its kin give it to everything. Spiders get queens, for pity's sake. Argh! You want to talk about offensive? My biology nerd sense goes nuts when I see that!

I feel the same way around Halloween when I see octopus skeletons or cat/dog skeletons with ears on the skulls. But, hey, eusocial spiders worked in Arachnophobia, right?

In people’s defense, eusociality is really cool. But yeah, stick to ant and bee inspired monsters for it, certainly not spiders.

Spiders make better bad guys. And it's weird to see where everyone draws their line in the sand. (Except for me. I am the standard by which all others are judged.) Some people argue it's fantasy and we can do whatever we want. In a world with flying dragons it seems odd to draw the line at eusocial spiders. But like I said, I guess we all draw our line in the sand somewhere. (Again, I am the standard by which all others are judged.)