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.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I don't think D&D has ever treated her that way...

I think Cerberus is only a single entity, as was the Golem.

I wasn't aware of multiple cerberus in D&D, but the Golem, despite being a single achievement, could be made using a ritual, so it's not out of lore that one could create several of them.

If we go by that standard, D&D worlds will probably be quite monster free...

So tell me what is better:
A monster manual with a wide variety of monsters so you can chose which one live in your world and how many of them, or only those that are present in greek history exactly as they were depicted there, because all worlds have to exactly copy their myths?

Isn't that a false dichotomy? The better is "a wide variety of original monsters, that don't bear a name that cause confusion/eyerolling".

If you create a cool vampire with its own lore, call it Strahd, not Dracula, not Adolf. One can, of course, but I think it does'nt add anything.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I don't think D&D has ever treated her that way...

I think Cerberus is only a single entity, as was the Golem. If we go by that standard, D&D worlds will probably be quite monster free...

So tell me what is better:
A monster manual with a wide variety of monsters so you can chose which one live in your world and how many of them, or only those that are present in greek history exactly as they were depicted there, because all worlds have to exactly copy their myths?

I suspect you already know the answer.

On the other hand there's no consistency with this, and I was reliably informed that changing hobgoblin to "fey" is better because it's "more in keeping with their mythological origins", despite being disconnected to their history and use in D&D. People are free to question whatever lore change WoTC offers up, I think, and there's no need to just go like this:

.... uncritically.

 

[Bohandas]

I actually do like male ancient evil fey, and I think they are actually somewhat represented in folklore as strange old men with power, sometimes as gnomes, dwarves, or trolls but behaving differently than the way DnD versions act. Hag as a name might be confusing to my players though. Codger? Geezer?

Boomer?

 

[amethal]

But we know splatbooks simply were not as popular back in the day as they are now (we have the sales numbers). Nor did we have the internet or the robust marketing we have today to tell us about these books. Today is not comparable to the 70;s, 80's, or even the 90's. I knew about the few books my local hobby store carried and that was it. If they didn't carry it. I don't think my experience as unique.

100% of the gamers I knew back in the day had access to a copy of the Complete Book of Humanoids. Since I had one and I used to lend it out (frequently, since it was super-cool book).

Since your hobby store didn't carry it, but my hobby store did, I think we can safely say that it was in 50% of hobby stores. That is how statistics work, right ?

There was also an article in Dragon extending the list of playable monsters to various undersea races, but I don't remember reading it - maybe it didn't overlap with the times I had a Dragon subscription.

 

[dave2008]

100% of the gamers I knew back in the day had access to a copy of the Complete Book of Humanoids. Since I had one and I used to lend it out (frequently, since it was super-cool book).

Since your hobby store didn't carry it, but my hobby store did, I think we can safely say that it was in 50% of hobby stores. That is how statistics work, right ?

One could make wild speculations based on anecdotes, sure. However, we have the sales numbers (they were released in a book a few years ago and posted about on these forums extensively). Splat books sold very poorly.

 

[amethal]

Geezer, koot, alter kocker; my particular favorite is "Gammon."

Since that's a derogatory term based on skin colour I don't expect we'll see it in a published RPG book.

 

[amethal]

One could make wild speculations based on anecdotes, sure. However, we have the sales numbers (they were released in a book a few years ago and posted about on these forums extensively). Splat books sold very poorly.

I agree.

I just think that in the context of a side-discussion on "the history of monsters as playable races in D&D " on ENWorld, the Complete Book of Humanoids isn't an obscure book. Several people mentioned it pretty much straight away.

 

[dave2008]

I agree.

I just think that in the context of a side-discussion on "the history of monsters as playable races in D&D " on ENWorld, the Complete Book of Humanoids isn't an obscure book. Several people mentioned it pretty much straight away.

I think we Enworlders sometimes need to be reminded our experience and opinions on D&D tend to be fairly niche compared to the greater sea of D&D players past and present.

I also don't that it being obscure as a pejorative, it is just a fact.

 

[Hussar]

I think we Enworlders sometimes need to be reminded our experience and opinions on D&D tend to be fairly niche compared to the greater sea of D&D players past and present.

I also don't that it being obscure as a pejorative, it is just a fact.

I'll admit we were aware of the book, but, never saw it in use in 2e. That was a major change in 3e, where virtually everything was playable right out of the gate with things like Level Adjustments and whatnot. Or was that 3.5 that added that? I do vaguely recall a Complete Humanoids book for 3e, or is that just fuzzy memories.

In any case, gnolls were not a particularly popularly played race, I don't think. I'm sure some people played them. Not denying that at all. But, not very commonly IME.

 

[Echohawk]

I just think that in the context of a side-discussion on "the history of monsters as playable races in D&D " on ENWorld, the Complete Book of Humanoids isn't an obscure book. Several people mentioned it pretty much straight away.

Especially when we have so many other much more obscure but technically official playable races in D&D's history, such as the cayma, laika, manscorpion, o'bati and quesar.

(Note: Some of those links are to zip files or PDFs rather than web pages.)