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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don’t have anything against turning creatures from mythology/folklore that were supposed to be one of a kind into the name of their entire species in D&D (Minotaurs, Goliaths, Tritons, et cetera). What bugs me about the name “Medusas” is that there was already a term for the type of creature Medusa is in Greek Mythology; Gorgons. Calling all Gorgons “Medusas” is like calling all Centaurs “Chirons,” all Wizards “Gandalfs,” or all Dragons “Smaugs.” That just seems weird to me.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Maybe? I haven't read it but people have said it's good. I'd buy it if it weren't $30.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe? I haven't read it but people have said it's good. I'd buy it if it weren't $30.

It's amazing! Worth the $30 to me, but I could see waiting for a sale.

 

[dave2008]

It's amazing! Worth the $30 to me, but I could see waiting for a sale.

What do you like about it? I'm always on the lookout for a good monster book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What do you like about it? I'm always on the lookout for a good monster book.

Lots of things:

1. It focuses on an OSR style of naturalistic play and rules which I prefer.

2. It uses a lot of random tables, that are designed to be rolled on during actual play. This makes it ideal for wandering monsters and other unexpected encounters.

3. It includes a menu option for most creatures; ie, the effects of eating it. I absolutely love Delicious in Dungeon, so this appeals to me.

4. It expressly says it is not designed to create balanced encounters for a particular party, but rather to give logical examples of the creatures in question in their environment.

5. The index is organized by many different systems, so you can find what you need no matter what metric you're using at the time (power, environment, creature type, its WotC IP equivalent, etc.)

And that's just for starters.

 

[Clint_L]

I don’t have anything against turning creatures from mythology/folklore that were supposed to be one of a kind into the name of their entire species in D&D (Minotaurs, Goliaths, Tritons, et cetera). What bugs me about the name “Medusas” is that there was already a term for the type of creature Medusa is in Greek Mythology; Gorgons. Calling all Gorgons “Medusas” is like calling all Centaurs “Chirons,” all Wizards “Gandalfs,” or all Dragons “Smaugs.” That just seems weird to me.

I think of it as more like calling a photocopy machine a Xerox.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for the reply!

1. It focuses on an OSR style of naturalistic play and rules which I prefer.

What does the bolded part mean?

2. It uses a lot of random tables, that are designed to be rolled on during actual play. This makes it ideal for wandering monsters and other unexpected encounters.

I like tables, but I use them something like less than 1% of my gaming time. So, not a selling point for me.

3. It includes a menu option for most creatures; ie, the effects of eating it. I absolutely love Delicious in Dungeon, so this appeals to me.

I couldn't get into Delicious in the Dungeon, which is weird as I like cooking shows (even animated ones) and fantasy shows! Menu option are pretty much the same as point #1 one. I like the idea, but never use them.

4. It expressly says it is not designed to create balanced encounters for a particular party, but rather to give logical examples of the creatures in question in their environment.

Well that is definitely how I run my games, but I have never thought of monsters being created with the purpose to create balanced encounters. That is definitely not how I use them.

5. The index is organized by many different systems, so you can find what you need no matter what metric you're using at the time (power, environment, creature type, its WotC IP equivalent, etc.)

And that's just for starters.

Sounds good!

Not the tricky question for you: how is the art!?

 

[Shades of Eternity]

deleting - inappropriate comment.
my bad.

 

[Faolyn]

I did not know nymphs are female satyrs... but yeah, could also have been an approach.

They're not, but even in mythology they're connected to satyrs and are usually the objects of their affections.

Never saw it that way.

They are. It falls into the idea that "good" women are young, pretty, and fertile, and that society has no use for older, unattractive, and infertile women. In Ravenloft (3e), evil post-menopausal women could even become a hag.

 

[dave2008]

I'm just not getting the problem or issue.

Why are things that were perfectly fine a few editions ago now being complaining about being "woke"

More monsters are more options...period.

I have not seen anyone say the issue is "wokeness" and just an FYI, using that phrase will get you banned from a thread.