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.

 

[Bae'zel]

How depressing. The idea that the game's lore can be determined even in part by how many people play a branded video game is a little sad, no matter how understandable WotC's logic might be.

To be fair, sometimes that's what is necessary to generate interest. Sometimes us normies need to experience the lore from a different perspective, in a different medium by different people to get it to "click" with us.

I can empathize with existing fans who resent the changes. For example, I loved the Dirk Gently books, but hated the TV show, but that's what most people view as the story, as the character, and I can't have discussions with regular people about Dirk Gently anymore because we're speaking a different language.

Speaking as someone in their 40s who has casually followed along TSR and WotC since the late 80s (and played classic games like Eye of the Beholder and Neverwinter Nights), I never cared even a bit about any D&D lore before I experienced Larian Studios' take on Forgotten Realms, or saw the recent D&D movie, for that matter. If WotC ignores those changes... well to hell with them, I'm adopting what I loved from the video game because that's all that interested me anyway. I guess I'm like those people who liked the Dirk Gently tv show and couldn't care less about the books. IRONIC

 

[Remathilis]

Do you actually believe that, or are you just being snarky so you call out supposed hypocracy?

I'm saying appeals to original intent or history is a lost cause in D&D. Gnolls were an also-ran for most of their 1e and 2e existence, they only existed because of a typo. And 3e gave them "they're rangers!" as a gimmick, but that's barely much to distinguish them for the dozen or so other tribal, evil, low-level humanoids in the Monster Manual. To me personally, demonic gnolls are the first time gnolls have seemed interesting. The idea of hyena's mutating into demonic bipedal locusts isn't exactly Shakespeare, but it's something to differentiate them from every other warband of pillaging humanoids out there.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

I'm saying appeals to original intent or history is a lost cause in D&D. Gnolls were an also-ran for most of their 1e and 2e existence, they only existed because of a typo. And 3e gave them "they're rangers!" as a gimmick, but that's barely much to distinguish them for the dozen or so other tribal, evil, low-level humanoids in the Monster Manual. To me personally, demonic gnolls are the first time gnolls have seemed interesting. The idea of hyena's mutating into demonic bipedal locusts isn't exactly Shakespeare, but it's something to differentiate them from every other warband of pillaging humanoids out there.

I honestly feel I say this a lot but... gnolls are interesting in Eberron. Where pretty much every monster race is interesting. And now gnolls are 100% incompatible with decades of Eberron lore, because Eberron had gnolls overcoming their savage natures and becoming productive members of society under the assumption they were humanoids, rather than fields.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair, sometimes that's what is necessary to generate interest. Sometimes us normies need to experience the lore from a different perspective, in a different medium by different people to get it to "click" with us.

I can empathize with existing fans who resent the changes. For example, I loved the Dirk Gently books, but hated the TV show, but that's what most people view as the story, as the character, and I can't have discussions with regular people about Dirk Gently anymore because we're speaking a different language.

Speaking as someone in their 40s who has casually followed along TSR and WotC since the late 80s (and played classic games like Eye of the Beholder and Neverwinter Nights), I never cared even a bit about any D&D lore before I experienced Larian Studios' take on Forgotten Realms, or saw the recent D&D movie, for that matter. If WotC ignores those changes... well to hell with them, I'm adopting what I loved from the video game because that's all that interested me anyway. I guess I'm like those people who liked the Dirk Gently tv show and couldn't care less about the books. IRONIC

5e was plenty popular without changing the tabletop to more accurately model the lore in a video game.

 

[Remathilis]

I honestly feel I say this a lot but... gnolls are interesting in Eberron. Where pretty much every monster race is interesting. And now gnolls are 100% incompatible with decades of Eberron lore, because Eberron had gnolls overcoming their savage natures and becoming productive members of society under the assumption they were humanoids, rather than fields.

I find it bitterly ironic that Eberron, which was designed with "modern" (post 2000) D&D rules in mind is as incompatible with the current "modern" rules as settings made in the early 80s.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm saying appeals to original intent or history is a lost cause in D&D. Gnolls were an also-ran for most of their 1e and 2e existence, they only existed because of a typo. And 3e gave them "they're rangers!" as a gimmick, but that's barely much to distinguish them for the dozen or so other tribal, evil, low-level humanoids in the Monster Manual. To me personally, demonic gnolls are the first time gnolls have seemed interesting. The idea of hyena's mutating into demonic bipedal locusts isn't exactly Shakespeare, but it's something to differentiate them from every other warband of pillaging humanoids out there.

To me, personally, taking away options from players of previous editions is a bad thing.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

To me, personally, taking away options from players of previous editions is a bad thing.

In this, we are in agreement.

The best way to do it is to have fiendish gnolls and non-fiendish gnolls. Why is it that Orcs can shake off the influence of Gruumsh and Tieflings aren't bound to Asmodeus, but gnolls must follow Yeenoghu? We should have gnoll npcs bound to yeenoghu, and gnoll PCs who can work in civil society. Ink and paper are cheap, why not do both?

 

[Micah Sweet]

In this, we are in agreement.

The best way to do it is to have fiendish gnolls and non-fiendish gnolls. Why is it that Orcs can shake off the influence of Gruumsh and Tieflings aren't bound to Asmodeus, but gnolls must follow Yeenoghu? We should have gnoll npcs bound to yeenoghu, and gnoll PCs who can work in civil society. Ink and paper are cheap, why not do both?

Heck, why distinguish? NPC gnolls should be able to not be demons too.

 

[dave2008]

In this, we are in agreement.

The best way to do it is to have fiendish gnolls and non-fiendish gnolls. Why is it that Orcs can shake off the influence of Gruumsh and Tieflings aren't bound to Asmodeus, but gnolls must follow Yeenoghu? We should have gnoll npcs bound to yeenoghu, and gnoll PCs who can work in civil society. Ink and paper are cheap, why not do both?

Anyone can do that. Infact, KB has already published a gnoll PC species in his 5e Eberron supplement. As @Micah Sweet always says (paraphrasing): "don't be a slave to WotC." I mean you can't get much closer to the source than KB!

 

[Remathilis]

To me, personally, taking away options from players of previous editions is a bad thing.

I want those words etched on the tombstone of every person who say "X class should not be a class anymore."