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]

Maybe there can be four common sexes... male and female medusae, plus male and female maedar. Either way you split it it takes one medusa and one maedar to actually propagate the species.

That would be interesting new lore, and multiple sexes isn't something that is commonly found in fiction, so it would be an interesting take on this creature. Male medusae couldn't mate with female medusae (their power makes them isolate, with only maedars capable of approching them) and they'd need to be sexually compatible to produce offspring. Nice idea.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

The problem here is Medusa wasn't the only gorgon. She had two sisters who could also turn people to stone. Nothing prevents her parents from having other gorgons, or even the three gorgons giving birth to other gorgons.

I mean, Medusa had two offspring posthumously (a winged horse and a male humanoid with a golden sword) in one of the weirdest forms of cesarean births possible, via the neck. Is it less plausible she could have given birth to other gorgons?

Of course not. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the Gorgon's parents, who also had very different-looking offsprings, with some kind of thematic continuity of mixing serpents and women in various proportions, could certainly have created more gorgons later. However, from a gaming point of views, Medusa was probably the best choice because she was mortal. Having immortal foes in an RPG doesn't make for a fun opponent, gameplay-wise.

 

[Richards]

Is the gnyosphinx still going to be a thing? Has anyone ever used a gnyosphinx in their campaign?

I've used them in two different campaigns. In one, it was the ghost of a gynosphinx cursed to watch over her treasures until someone could best her riddles and take that which she guarded so scrupulously during her life. The next one involved a gynosphinx and two lamia assistants capturing adventurers and "testing" them in Jigsaw-like scenarios. And while my current campaign won't have a gynosphinx, I do have an upcoming adventure that has a sphinx colossus (a Pathfinder monster) that riddles those trying to pass by the area it was built to guard, which therefore has gynosphinx traits.

Johnathan

 

[Echohawk]

I am pretty sure that was implied to be a joke. (Probably Volo is responsible for that... )

It doesn't come across as a joke (at least no more than anything else in 2e Spelljammer). They are built into the ecology of the planet. To be fair, the text does make it clear that they might be creatures that happen to be exactly the same as tarrasques, instead of actual tarrasques:

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just because somebody brings up a complaint now, doesn't mean it wasn't an issue before. The medusa/gorgon thing bugged me when I first encountered it 37 years ago, and it still bugs me today.

Yeah, but... this isn't a complaint that it makes sense to level against Wotc in 2024. I guess go to Gygax's grave and complain to him, because at this point, it is just the cultural zeitgeist. We know it is wrong, but we also know exactly what they are saying and exactly what they are referring to.

 

[Yaarel]

I will never understand why the current D&D team is so opposed to sympathetic gnolls. Like, fiendish gnolls are fine as an option, but give us playable humanoid versions too, you cowards!

Is a Humanoid gnoll by an other name acceptable to playable Gnoll fans? Like Werehyena, or Hyen, or so?

It is possible to play any monster, but the Hyen would be designed as a playable species.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is a Humanoid gnoll by an other name acceptable to playable Gnoll fans? Like Werehyena, or Hyen, or so?

It is possible to play any monster, but the Hyen would be designed as a playable species.

If it’s homebrew, I already have my preferred take on gnolls. My grievance is that WotC seems to be going out of their way to shut the door on any possibility of a 1st party playable gnoll.

 

[Yaarel]

If it’s homebrew, I already have my preferred take on gnolls. My grievance is that WotC seems to be going out of their way to shut the door on any possibility of a 1st party playable gnoll.

I suspect the WotC direction is as follows.

• Humanoids are problematic for an always-Evil monster.
• Gnolls are nonhuman hyena-folk.
Therefore:
• Double down on these nonhumans being always-Evil.

It is similar to insisting on Mindflayers as a go-to always-Evil.


By contrast, a new Humanoid "Hyen" would never be always-Evil in the first place. So the Fiend narrative doesnt imply. Just the humanimal tropes apply.

 

[Yaarel]

Now that gnolls are Fiends, one can presumably play a tiefling of gnoll descent.

Actually, that seems like a great solution.

Play a gnoll Tiefling!

 

[Chaltab]

It doesn't come across as a joke (at least no more than anything else in 2e Spelljammer). They are built into the ecology of the planet. To be fair, the text does make it clear that they might be creatures that happen to be exactly the same as tarrasques, instead of actual tarrasques:

View attachment 392383

Wrong thread?