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]

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

I love that it has more. When I design an existing monster I like to review its statblock in all editions and if there is a D&D monster it likely has a 2e statblock!

 

[Chaltab]

I love that it has more. When I design an existing monster I like to review its statblock in all editions and if there is a D&D monster it likely has a 2e statblock!

Every edition seems to have a few monsters that are wholly its own, but yeah, second edition sure had a bunch of them.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

But still a much worse chance then they do in the real world where you'd just be murdering some innocent frail old woman. And it's likely to cost them a few people.

Indeed. Though if it does cost them a few people, then it was a real monster and contrary to the real world, mobbing it is justified. It is an exemple of en evil fey, "representative of malice and malignency" to quote their description.

Actually, if there is a risk that ugly old women are hags and not just ugly old women, villagers would be right to take extra preventive steps when they meet a new ugly old woman. Having them be geezers-looking (I don't care about their actual sex, only how they look like to the casual peasant observer) justifies prejudice against ugly old people of all sexes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I just stumbled over a video of some angry youtuber that was almost crying because of those additions. That alone was worth it. I really can´t understand people being annoyed about inclusive content...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ugh. I don't think I've ever seen the binder in person, so I often forget how bad that supposedly was.

Its badness is not oversold. It was a perplexing decision, right from the start.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

View attachment 391869
View attachment 391870

It feels weird that the blight entry -- which is otherwise nice -- doesn't mention "oh, and you can find that tree in one of the adventures in Tales From the Yawning Portal, on sale at a better retailer near you!"

Making Gulthias into a mythic figure is fine, but why not at least tell DMs they can actually have that tree in their games in a book that's been in print for quite some time?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I just stumbled over a video of some angry youtuber that was almost crying because of those additions. That alone was worth it. I really can´t understand people being annoyed about inclusive content...

I don't see this pictorial choice as particularly inclusive. It's marginal as best.

Having a few benevolent creatures be female (like satyresses) despite already having an established benevolent female counterpart in myth (the nymphs) doesn't help, the female version was already present. And honestly, the nymph was certainly depicted more postively than the satyr, even though D&D official art fell short of representing satyrs with their namesake oversized, excited genital organs.

Having a single evil monsters (Hags) being shown as male is a really slight gain (it's still a monster that is the reflection on prejudice against age and ugliness).

Having a poor, cursed creature who can't help but petrifying any social contact it may have (Medusa) be either male of female is certainly more inclusive, as in "every sex can get cursed", but I wouldn't use that as a badge of inclusivity. Especially when it's not new, male medusa have been part of the game since 3e (Sharn City of Towers, 2004) and apparently already had a male counterpart (the maedar, of whom I learnt in this thread).

Having a few benevolent creatures (nymphs, dryads) be male doesn't seem to do much for inclusivity. Sure, making this creature sexed (before, one could say that it was a single-sex species, therefore neutral as they weren't known to breed) gives more visibility to males in the game, but I don't feel we lacked cool depictions of male creatures in the game at this point. If they wanted to do more for inclusivity on this front of male representation, they'd depict more female orcs and goblins in published content: I am pretty sure a lot of groups imagine all male when they are told "the peaceful caravan is ambushed by 6 goblin warriors". As an example, the goblin tribe described in Rime of the Frostmaiden has exactly 1 female goblin, and she's a healer. There are several children goblins, so it's not just the author wanting to avoid a slaughter of civilians...

 

[Faolyn]

Sounds good in theory, but at this point I'd have to ask, "for what game?"

Generic, perhaps. Or maybe something more OSR-ish.

 

[dave2008]

It feels weird that the blight entry -- which is otherwise nice -- doesn't mention "oh, and you can find that tree in one of the adventures in Tales From the Yawning Portal, on sale at a better retailer near you!"

Making Gulthias into a mythic figure is fine, but why not at least tell DMs they can actually have that tree in their games in a book that's been in print for quite some time?

If it wasn't clear those are images from the 2014 Monster Manual. Tales from the Yawning Portal was not a book when these were published

 

[Micah Sweet]

Generic, perhaps. Or maybe something more OSR-ish.

Like the Monster Overhaul? I'd buy that right now.