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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

This was just his starter. He then ranted about everything that makes gaming a friendlier place...

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.

I did not know nymphs are female satyrs... but yeah, could also have been an approach.
I think diverting from greek mythology is not a bad choice overall. It is a fantasy setting.

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).

Never saw it that way.

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).

So even less reason to flip out now... 20 years to late?
Might be someone having missed a bit in the last 20 years.

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 male, 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, they'd depict female orcs and goblins: I am pretty sure a lot of groups imagine all male when they are told "the peaceful caravan is ambushed by 6 goblin warriors".

Good reasoning. Maybe we see some in the 2025 books too.
I am actually curious about how orcs will be depictured in the new MM. Do they now just fall under strong humanoid warriors? Which can be customized to be an orc?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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, when not referencing Ovid, was a monster woman with monster sisters who was never cursed.

Also, still doesn't explain why you felt the need to point to elementals and ask why this was needed. Elementals don't even always have HEADS, they are a bit different from a obviously female being.

 

[MGibster]

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...

While I'm not bent out of shape about this, it's a bit silly to have male hag. At least change its name to something more appropriate. I think it's also silly to have male nymphs and dryads. I'm not all huffy about it, but I'm rolling my eyes over here.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This was just his starter. He then ranted about everything that makes gaming a friendlier place...

OK!

I did not know nymphs are female satyrs... but yeah, could also have been an approach.
I think diverting from greek mythology is not a bad choice overall. It is a fantasy setting.

Yeah, my take is that diverting can be good, but then choosing a new name would be better. I mean, they can create many interesting things (and lore!) but conflating it with names that describe... other things, with existing (if conflicting) lore that they discard or use incorrectly doesn't help. Especially with people familiar with the original material. Successful examples: the various gods, the drows, the purple worm. Unsatisfying examples: having real life gods as fantasy gods if the setting is not explicitely an historical game -- I can accept Zeus in a game set in Greece, but saying that Lathander is Apollo would not fit well), greek-or-roman-named creature that don't try to adhere to an existing lore. But YMMV.

So even less reason to flip out now... 20 years to late?
Might be someone having missed a bit in the last 20 years.

Indeed. They're jumping on a bandwagon that is really old now. I guess people looking to be offended just started looking now and didn't really follow D&D as much as we did.

Good reasoning. Maybe we see some in the 2025 books too.
I am actually curious about how orcs will be depictured in the new MM. Do they now just fall under strong humanoid warriors? Which can be customized to be an orc?

Since orcs are a playable species now, I doubt they'll be featured in the MM at all, except as NPCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This was just his starter. He then ranted about everything that makes gaming a friendlier place...

I did not know nymphs are female satyrs... but yeah, could also have been an approach.
I think diverting from greek mythology is not a bad choice overall. It is a fantasy setting.

Never saw it that way.

So even less reason to flip out now... 20 years to late?
Might be someone having missed a bit in the last 20 years.

Good reasoning. Maybe we see some in the 2025 books too.
I am actually curious about how orcs will be depictured in the new MM. Do they now just fall under strong humanoid warriors? Which can be customized to be an orc?

I think that's how virtually all humanoid species are going to work.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Wasn’t Medusa the name of one of the three Gorgon sisters?

Without needing to question whether there should be gender balance, it was actually her name not her species!

 

[dave2008]

Since orcs are a playable species now, I doubt they'll be featured in the MM at all, except as NPCs.

I'm curious about that. However, there are a lot of playable species that will be in the MM, so I suspect orcs will be too.

 

[dave2008]

Wasn’t Medusa the name of one of the three Gorgon sisters?

Without needing to question whether there should be gender balance, it was actually her name not her species!

In Greek mythology yes (they are the 3 Gorgons). D&D is not Greek mythology and has had medusae from the first 1e MM on.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Wasn’t Medusa the name of one of the three Gorgon sisters?

Yep.

But at some point D&D decided to make this single monster a race, so in the D&D lore there are medusas, much like I guess one could find Zeuses, Tarrasques and Gandalfs. Except the latter is IP-protected, so maybe not.

Without needing to question whether there should be gender balance, it was actually her name not her species!

Yep... That's the problem when D&D lore names things that aren't closely related to existing lore and change them extensively. Many people will say they are not bothered. I am, but I won't prevent people from enjoying the game with botched representation of real life myth.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

While I'm not bent out of shape about this, it's a bit silly to have male hag. At least change its name to something more appropriate. I think it's also silly to have male nymphs and dryads. I'm not all huffy about it, but I'm rolling my eyes over here.

I am not against eye rolling.

It is this unnecessary ranting.