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.

 

[Faolyn]

I saw some osr guy made ones derived from humans which is honestly way freaker.

Do you remember the source?

 

[Hussar]

I ment as i all old people are to train apprentices to take over their roles in society, I assume that is what old women where often doing in a pre-modern society

The key point you are missing is the ugly part. Ugly=unhealthy which means infirm and a huge drain of resources. There’s a reason lots of cultures practiced killing old people to save on resources.

Which I imagine might have a lot of impact on the source of hag stories. Remember so and so that we dragged kicking and screaming up the mountain and left to die? Well her spirit still lives on and it wants revenge.

 

[kigmatzomat]

There was one Golem created in Prague.

...and other golems created elsewhere in folklore. The Sefer Yetzira
dates back to the 10th century and has purported directions to create a golem. Some texts refer to Adam existing as a golem prior to being given a soul.

So Medusa is a specific, unique being who was given her name by her parents while golems are "imperfect things" (one translation of the yiddish 'goylem') that are a common noun, like chairs or spirits.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

There was one Golem created in Prague.
There was one Medusa in greek myth.

Of course you can create more Golems in D&D. Why shouldn't you create more Medusas, male or female, in D&D?

Because nothing prevents, in the Golem story, that several others coud be created using the same ritual. Also, there are other origin story that the Prague story. The story is about mimicking life creation, and the statement that it happened once in the lore -- which is incorrect -- doesn't mean the ritual can't be performed again to create other golems. Medusa is a single person/monster, it's her given name, making her a class of creature was a much stronger deviation from recognized myth. Though if you are bothered by golem being plural, I can understand you, but your conclusion is incorrect based on the premise -- that there was a single golem -- is false.

I am glad KB created warforged instead of calling his new man-created mechanical species Golems, as it was exactly what I am advocating here.

Just because you roll eyes at male medusas and don't notice every other incorrectness does not make one worse than the other.

I roll my eyes at a plurality of medusas. Their sex doesn't matter much and I welcome the maedars (look, they found a name for an original creature! And they had an ecology to support them being made into a species!).

It is possible that I don't notice every other incorrrectness because I am not knowledgeable with every lore and you are exactly right. It does not make one worse than the other. All the others are equally bad and should be avoided as well. If rakshasa in the hindi myth aren't what they are shown in D&D, then the name rakshasa shouldn't be used, irrespective of me being able to tell.

I really always thought about medusa in D&D lore as categories like Vampires.
And I bet, all Vampires in folklore are male... As far as I remember noone ever raised an eyebrow when suddenly there were female Vampires.

I hope you didn't bet money, since you have lost. There are several lore representation of female vampires much older than D&D, as several other posters confirmed above.

But now for medusas you do? Maybe because female Vampires are sexy, male Medusas are not?*

I think that sounds like having double standards, doesn't it?

*I think I have noticed a pattern there. But I won't dive deeper into it here...

You're not strenghtening your point by making baseless accusations. Please stay civil.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

why are you complaining about more hot monster women? or more monster men.
we are here to kill lot and maybe make a friend I do not even grasp what there is to complain about.

I was replying to a poster complaining a video where the video host apparently lost his marbles at the change in art, saying they were caused by the exagerated "inclusivity" of the times. I found this odd as I am not convinced the new art direction does a lot for inclusivity, since it existed before for half the example and is marginal at best for the other examples. I don't know why you're seeing a complaint in my post.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

I was replying to a poster complaining a video where the video host apparently lost his marbles at the change in art, saying they were caused by the exagerated "inclusivity" of the times. I am not convinced the new art direction does a lot for inclusivity, since it existed before for half the example and is marginal at best for the other examples. I don't know why you're seeing a complaint in my post.

I have sadly taken a break from believing what people say on YouTube . It is so easy for them to “manufacture outrage” without believing any thing they say. (And many of them have extremely believable delivery.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Because nothing prevents, in the Golem story, that several others coud be created using the same ritual. Also, there are other origin story that the Prague story. The story is about mimicking life creation, and the statement that it happened once in the lore -- which is incorrect -- doesn't mean the ritual can't be performed again to create other golems. Medusa is a single person/monster, it's her given name, making her a class of creature was a much stronger deviation from recognized myth.

This ship has sailed long ago when Gary Gygax decided to call the creatures medusas instead of gorgons. So why be bothered now? The youtube angry furry I refer to is not bothered by the plurality. He is bothered because it is woke in his eyes. Ans he seems to be offended by that. And thinks D&D is forever destroyed because of WotC agenda which isbreflected in diversifying monsters.
So while you seem to be bothered by the plurality, which is totally understandable, he is not.

Though if you are bothered by golem being plural, I can understand you, but your conclusion is incorrect based on the premise -- that there was a single golem -- is false.

I am not bothererd. I should have taken more time to research. As another poster already corrected me.

I am glad KB created warforged instead of calling his new man-created mechanical species Golems, as it was exactly what I am advocating here.

Ok.

I roll my eyes at a plurality of medusas. Their sex doesn't matter much and I welcome the maedars (look, they found a name for an original creature! And they had an ecology to support them being made into a species!).

Ok.

It is possible that I don't notice every other incorrrectness because I am not knowledgeable with every lore and you are exactly right. It does not make one worse than the other. All the others are equally bad and should be avoided as well. If rakshasa in the hindi myth aren't what they are shown in D&D, then the name rakshasa shouldn't be used, irrespective of me being able to tell.

Yes. Maybe new names should have been invented. But that decision has been made 50 years ago.
Mabye we should rename demons to Tanar'ri and devips do Baatezu again and do the same with every other monster. Lets see how people react to that.

I hope you didn't bet money, since you have lost. There are several lore representation of female vampires much older than D&D, as several other posters confirmed above.

Old news. I was corrected already.

You're not strenghtening your point by making baseless accusations. Please stay civil.

It is not baseless. And it was not adressed at you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have sadly taken a break from believing what people say on YouTube . It is so easy for them to “manufacture outrage” without believing any thing they say. (And many of them have extremely believable delivery.)

I usually don't watch videos. I was just googling for information on the new MM and was a bit curious to see how these people react.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Do you remember the source?

goblin punch the guy who made the false hydra

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This ship has sailed long ago when Gary Gygax decided to call the creatures medusas instead of gorgons. So why be bothered now?

I've been bothered ever since. Like I said earlier, it's just "eye-rolling silly" not something that would make me proclaim my hat of d02. It's as silly as stabbing oneself in the eye with a dagger every evening before going to sleep, saying at worst I'll lose 10 HP, I'll be fine next morning D&Dism. I live with it, despite it being silly. Same with hearing about encountering 1d6+1 medusas or encountering a serpent-bodied medusa (I've never, but apparently I should expect that if I were to play with a random group).

So while you seem to be bothered by the plurality, which is totally understandable, he is not.

You're replying to me, not him. I don't support the opinion of a random Youtuber in a video I've never seen. The only mention of sex was the silliness of female satyrs, since we already had nymphs and if you want pairs, you can call them Fauns. It would be also justified because another poster mentionned in the thread that it didn't want to see satyrs with giant erect male organs and brutal mating practices... Which are associated with satyrs but not fauns. Satyrs embody sexual energy and it's probably an association WotC would want to avoid for marketing purpose. Fauns are much closer to the "spirits of merriment" they're described as in D&D.

I am not bothererd. I should have taken more time to research. As another poster already corrected me.

Old news. I was corrected already.

It is not baseless. And it was not adressed at you.

Well, you were replying to me, and the accusation of double standards was because I was pretendedly not bothered by Golems being plural in lore, not bothered by vampire being female in lore, and bothered by medusas. As your two claims are found to be incorrect, this accusation of me having double standards falls.

Then you goes on a strange and insulting tangeant about either of these monsters being sexy influencing my choice as if I had some kink. It is coming out of nowhere and extremely offensive. I have no interest to interact with you any longer.