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.

 

[Gradine]

Yes, in Roman mythology Medusa is a human cursed because she had involuntary sex with Neptune in Athena’s temple.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Then why add male hags at all?

shank evil old men and steal their stuff, we players are always going to do it but now they have more powers to make the fight fun.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Yes, I mean it came out in 2014. I'm old, but my mind is not that far gone yet!

You got a different one to the one I did with a statblock and some dot points?

 

[Minigiant]

Weird? What kind of D&D games are you playing where the players are getting into the nitty gritty of gender/sex with creatures?

It's more about dimorphism and having monsters with different forms.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Well, strictly speaking, if we're comparing the first Monster Manual for each edition, 2e fares quite poorly, because that would be the incomplete Monstrous Compendium: Volume One, which covered only 250 monsters, of which 36 were ordinary animals and 29 were Player's Handbook races (including a whopping 24 stat blocks for various "Men"!).

I'll grant you that it had a lot of lore for the monsters it did include, especially compared to 1e, but it wasn't a great first monster "book" overall.

The Monstrous Manual came out in 93, and 2nd edition was in 89, so of the 10+ year life of AD&D it spent longer as "the" manual. Regardless of when it was it is still the superior collection across all editions.

 

[dave2008]

You got a different one to the one I did with a statblock and some dot points?

I guess so, mine didn't have any bullet points, but lots of this:

And of course stuff like this:

 

[dave2008]

The Monstrous Manual came out in 93, and 2nd edition was in 89, so of the 10+ year life of AD&D it spent longer as "the" manual. Regardless of when it was it is still the superior collection across all editions.

That is subjective though. I found the monstrous manual to have more words, but to be less inspiring and useful to me than my 1e MM 1&2, so I stopped buying them. More doesn't equal better.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

I'd be neat if someone took another crack at a binder style MM. Full art on one side and stats on the other, with mylar reinforced edges where the holes are.

Those were just terrible, and honestly, its why the only aftermarket monster books you can find anymore from the 2E days are the later bound Compendiums, because that original Monstrous Manual pretty much guaranteed loss through wear and tear, falling out pages, misplaced pages.....it was (I guess) an okay concept in the late 80s'early 90's but in the modern age of digital completely irrelevant. And this is an old grognard who only likes print speaking directly from experience.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, in Roman mythology Medusa is a human cursed because she had involuntary sex with Neptune in Athena’s temple.

That would be Minerva

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is subjective though. I found the monstrous manual to have more words, but to be less inspiring and useful to me than my 1e MM 1&2, so I stopped buying them. More doesn't equal better.

For me, more often than not it does. I'm generally inspired by fantasy encyclopedias and factbooks. You're right; it is subjective.