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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thank you for the reply!

What does the bolded part mean?

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

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.

Sounds good!

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

Serviceable, and not more than necessary. The book is about using monsters in your game, not about showing off your art budget. Just how I like it.

I suggest you go to Drivethru and have a look at the sample pages. They do a better job selling it than I ever could.

Regarding the bolded, I just mean the entries focus on what makes sense in the setting, and what's fun to play with, in that order (IMO). Base mechanics adhere closer to OSR mechanics (B/X, etc) than to modern D&D, but a lot of it is system-agnostic.

 

[Bae'zel]

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

Black and white (greyscale) and all of very good quality. Far from the pollished, full color painting style of mainstream RPG products, but very good nonetheless. However, I like this because it lets the content and tables take center stage, without overwhelming you with visuals that may influence your personal interpretations.

Each major chapter has a different artist, so related groups or themes of monsters will be done by the same style or approach. This could be good or bad, depending on your point of view.

I quite like the art overall, however one or two artists used line weights that made the illustrations a bit harder to "see". Mainly, some art styles were better suited to the print format, at that size. Not a unique problem to this book, but something I've noticed over the years.

 

[occam]

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.

Heck, D&D has even done this to itself! Now all Type IV Demons are called "Nalfeshnees", Type V Demons are all "Mariliths", and all Type VI Demons are "Balors"! Marilith was an individual, with her own personality and history and desires; she doesn't deserve to have her bad name appropriated by all Type V Demons! What could possibly be the problem with continuing to refer to the summit (nadir?) of demonic grandeur as a Type VI Demon?

 

[maceochaid]

So to be clear, creatures from mythology changed in ancient times too. Satyrs originally were human bodies, with horse tails and deformed faces (and extreme erect male organs that I definitely don't want in my game art). The goat like features became more common much later and into the roman period. Roman art also started to portray "Fauness" figures in their art (and the myth of Medusa being a cursed woman doesn't emerge until the Roman period.) Mythological figures respond to the people who are telling them, and I have no desire to enforce on any of my players male or female, that they can't tell the stories they're interested in telling.

So yeah, if Roman society had continuted female Satyrs would have been a thing, so we're just witnessing the eventuality of all of that. Mythology is not fixed, and so DnD shouldn't be either.

That said, stop giving Chimeras and Manticores wings.

 

[dave2008]

Heck, D&D has even done this to itself! Now all Type IV Demons are called "Nalfeshnees", Type V Demons are all "Mariliths", and all Type VI Demons are "Balors"! Marilith was an individual, with her own personality and history and desires; she doesn't deserve to have her bad name appropriated by all Type V Demons! What could possibly be the problem with continuing to refer to the summit (nadir?) of demonic grandeur as a Type VI Demon?

That has been a thing since 1e!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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


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.

I take your word for it.

I always saw them as perversions of the nice elderly women that care for the grand children when parents have to work on the field.

In Ravenloft 5e they do steal the kids and sell them as pastries. Somewhat like in Hänsel and Gretel.

But I also never saw Orcs as mockeries of real people. And still don't see it.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Hyenas are one of those lifeforms I really dislike. Baboons too. It's like, come on, you look a lot like a dog but you're not really a dog. How dare you!


I feel the same way around Halloween when I see octopus skeletons or cat/dog skeletons with ears on the skulls. But, hey, eusocial spiders worked in Arachnophobia, right?


Spiders make better bad guys. And it's weird to see where everyone draws their line in the sand. (Except for me. I am the standard by which all others are judged.) Some people argue it's fantasy and we can do whatever we want. In a world with flying dragons it seems odd to draw the line at eusocial spiders. But like I said, I guess we all draw our line in the sand somewhere. (Again, I am the standard by which all others are judged.)

spiders are not bad animals, they are perfectly loveable.

 

[Faolyn]

I take your word for it.

I always saw them as perversions of the nice elderly women that care for the grand children when parents have to work on the field.

In Ravenloft 5e they do steal the kids and sell them as pastries. Somewhat like in Hänsel and Gretel.

But I also never saw Orcs as mockeries of real people. And still don't see it.

It's not that orcs are deliberate mockeries of real people (except in the infamous Gazetteer #10 from way back when). It's that the descriptions of orcs have used the exact same terminology that racists have used to describe people of color. Like, in the 1e MM and PHB, it talked about how some small percentage of half-orcs could "pass" for an ugly human. This is identical to how people of mixed heritage are often described as being able to "pass" as white. The 1e MM goes on to say that they're particularly disgusting because of their coloration--which includes being brown. In the interest of fairness, this is because it "highlights" their pink snouts--which makes absolutely no sense; you wouldn't call this disgusting:

(random cat pic taken from reddit)

Best case scenario, he's talking about poop brown instead of human skin color brown, but still, it ties in to how many racists automatically think brown skin is inherently ugly.

(I do not want to get into a "was Gygax racist?" tangent here. The only thing that's important for this discussion is the language, not his views on actual, real-life people.)

Even the 5e Volo's book talks about how orcs can be "domesticated" into acting like civilized people, an idea that many white people thought--and still think--about non-white people. "You talk so well for a [insert ethnicity here]." (A while ago, when the Radiant Citadel adventure compilation came out, I saw at least one person--can't remember who--saying (paraphrasing) "it's good that they're getting minority writers and editors, but I'd rather that the book be written by accomplished writers." As if someone can't be brown and also accomplished.)

Orcs and other evil humanoids tend to live in "tribal" societies, even when they logically shouldn't. Hobgoblins in 5e live in tribal bands, even though by their description they should have empires. But tribal is "savage" and "less civilized"--and nearly always referring to non-white people. So it doesn't matter if hobgoblins are actually red or blue or whatever they are; they're described as lesser.

So again, orcs aren't supposed to be parodies or adaptation of Black people or African societies or anything like that. It's the type of language used.

 

[MGibster]

spiders are not bad animals, they are perfectly loveable.

Anything that eats bugs is a-okay in my book, but a lot of people are scared of spiders. I've never seen someone recoil at the sight of a grasshopper, ant, or even a bee like I have seen them recoil from the sight of a spider. I've seen grown adults run away from a tarantula encountered in the wilds of Texas. There are message boards with rules against even posting pictures of spiders such is the fear so common.

 

[Mind of tempest]

DM: You meet a wolly elephant, ready to charge, as you wander through the terrible blizzard of the Icewind Dale....
Players: WAIT, is it a she-elephant or a he-elephant?
DM: What? It's about to charge
Players: That's important. Can we roll Perception? Or is it Animal Handling?
DM: It runs toward you...
Players: "I cast Unresistible Guts Explosion on him." rolls 18 Now that he's dead, let's examine it more thoroughly. Was it a he or a she elephant?
DM: and you really have no clue on why it's difficult to find DMs these days?


But TBH, it actually mattered a few times.

1. I had an alien race (it was in the long-forgotten days of 2023, we had races back then) whose elite where sexless cloned in vats, while the mindless slaves reproduced sexually. When interacting with them, asking if they were man or woman resulted in a fun roleplay with the alien being insulted. And the players understanding why later.

2. In a murder mystery I had, I made a prop with a letter from the mastermind who sent an assassin, and it revealed the culprit's sex thanks to grammar (does not work in English as well as it is either too obvious (her majesty/his majesty) or doesn't appear at all). I had carefully written the text so it was long enough to not make it obvious and carefully wrote to avoid situations where the grammatical gender of the writer would be revealed except once.

But those are odd cases.

if it is a mammoth in musth it certainly matters, it would be in the worst anger you can think off and only males can end up like that.