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]

I find it endlessly fascinating to see how things have been forgotten over the years. Then when something comes back around, and you see lots of complaints about the "change" it suddenly turns out that it isn't a change at all.

And 'cos I stumbled across this:

View attachment 392412

Odd choice for the 1e Medusa as this is the image from the 1e MM (also note that they have a human body too):

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe more mythologically accurate, but not more D&D accurate. D&D is not mythology, it is a game and its lore is its own thig.

To clarify that the Nymph is more specifically a "Naiad" is still D&D. It would be a minor update to the D&D game, but would be more helpful to those who know what the words nymph, naiad, dryad, etcetera mean.

Same issue with the "Sprite", it is a group name. It includes several kinds of smaller humanlike Fey: Fairy, Pixie, Gnome, Goblin, Leprechaun, Spriggan, Nixie, etcetera.

 

[Tonguez]

The concept of a male Medusa works fine. Granted, it would be better to call the species Gorgon. In Greek folkbelief, there are three sisters who are Gorgon. It seems just as plausible there could have been a brother as one of the siblings. Alternatively, if a new species is named after a person called Medusa, it makes sense that this species includes males and females. Since there can be more than one Medusa/Gorgon, some can be male.

A number of Gorgon shield images depict the Gorgons with beards , so theres certainly precedent for Gorgons having male characteristics as part of their 'beastial' nature

 

[dave2008]

To clarify that the Nymph is more specifically a "Naiad" is still D&D. It would be a minor update to the D&D game, but would be more helpful to those who know what the words nymph, naiad, dryad, etcetera mean.

Same issue with the "Sprite", it is a group name. It includes several kinds of smaller humanlike Fey: Fairy, Pixie, Gnome, Goblin, Leprechaun, Spriggan, Nixie, etcetera.

Again, that may make sense in mythology or folklore, but not D&D. D&D is 50 and quite its own thing by now. If you want to advocate for D&D being more like mythology, folklore, and religion that is fine; however, that is not the discussion I was having (nor do I want to have at this time).

 

[Yaarel]

Odd choice for the 1e Medusa as this is image from the 1e MM (also note the they have a human body already too):
View attachment 392416

Huh. I notice the original 1e Medusa is gender-neutral. The text describes it as "it" and "human" like. There is no reference to "she" or "female".

 

[Yaarel]

Again, that may make sense in mythology or folklore, but not D&D. D&D is 50 and quite its own thing by now. If you want to advocate for D&D being more like mythology, folklore, and religion that is fine; however, that is not the discussion I was having (nor do I want to have at this time).

Specifically, when D&D uses reallife names, I prefer an effort to model its reallife meaning.

When D&D diverges from the reallife concept, it should diverge from the reallife name as well.

For example. In Nordic countries, the concept of "troll" is highly significant. There are many different kinds of troll. When D&D reduces an important concept of several Nordic cultures down to a single entry, its inaccuracy becomes problematic. On the other hand, if the D&D entry specified it as a "Green Troll", or whatever, that would be fine. Even this slight variation of name is enough to indicate it is a specific kind of troll, it is ok if it is non-Norse, and it isnt meant to represent all troll.

 

[dave2008]

Specifically, when D&D uses reallife names, I prefer an effort to model its reallife meaning.

When D&D diverges from the reallife concept, it should diverge from the reallife name as well.

For example. In Nordic countries, the concept of "troll" is highly significant. There are many different kinds of troll. When D&D reduces an important concept of several Nordic cultures down to a single entry, its inaccuracy becomes problematic. On the other hand, if the D&D entry specified it as a "Green Troll", or whatever, that would be fine. Even this slight variation of name is enough to indicate it is a specific kind of troll, it is ok if it is non-Norse, and it isnt meant to represent all troll.

I understand that is your preference, and that is great! I have no issue with that. However, that is not what I was discussing.

 

[TiQuinn]

Specifically, when D&D uses reallife names, I prefer an effort to model its reallife meaning.

When D&D diverges from the reallife concept, it should diverge from the reallife name as well.

For example. In Nordic countries, the concept of "troll" is highly significant. There are many different kinds of troll. When D&D reduces an important concept of several Nordic cultures down to a single entry, its inaccuracy becomes problematic. On the other hand, if the D&D entry specified it as a "Green Troll", or whatever, that would be fine. Even this slight variation of name is enough to indicate it is a specific kind of troll, it is ok if it is non-Norse, and it isnt meant to represent all troll.

Here we go again…

 

[dave2008]

For example. In Nordic countries, the concept of "troll" is highly significant.

Just want to point out that this is not exactly true. From my experience (my wife is half-dane with her father being first generation in the USA), modern Danes do not consider trolls significant in any way. So, maybe in the past, maybe some cultural influences, but highly significant is a stretch.

 

[Yaarel]

Just want to point out that this is not exactly true. From my experience (my wife is half-dane with her father being first generation in the USA), modern Danes do not consider trolls significant in any way. So, maybe in the past, maybe some cultural influences, but highly significant is a stretch.

Maybe. But in Norway the troll matters alot. Iceland too. I think in Sweden too. Finland doesnt have troll by name, but does have an analogous concept.