The Gith Are Now Aberrations in Dungeons & Dragons

The githyanki and githzerai are officially reclassified as aberrations in Dungeons & Dragons. In a video released today about the 2025 Monster Manual, D&D designers Jeremy Crawford and F. Wesley Schneider confirmed that the two classic D&D species are now being classified as aberrations. The reasoning given - the two gith species have been so transformed by living in the Astral Plane and Limbo, they've moved beyond being humanoids. Schneider also pointed out that the illithid's role in manipulating the gith also contributed to their new classification.

The video notes that this isn't technically a new change - the Planescape book released in 2023 had several githzerai statblocks that had aberration classifications.

The gith join a growing number of previously playable species that have new classifications. The goblin, kobolds, and kenku have also had their creature classifications changed in the 2025 Monster Manual. While players can currently use the 2014 rules for making characters of those species, it will be interesting to see how these reclassifications affect the character-building rules regarding these species when they are eventually updated for 2024 rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You know, I actually love the idea of moving some humanoids to other creature types. It makes it clear who is a "person" and who is a fantastic creature.

Why kobolds are dragons but dragonborn aren't is something that doesn't make sense at first glance. Also elves being fey touched while Goblinoids are still fey needs some explanation. Tieflings being humanoids while Cambions are fiends works.

Also, if you are a sentient being, you're a person. I can't see it any other way.

 

[Corinnguard]

This is what I got when I googled what defines a person.

A person ( pl. : people or persons, depending on context) is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.

A sentient being regardless of what type they are, is still a person.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think this changes look cool at first, but folks will find it actually causes more problems both mechanically and lore side then folks think.

Like these are all creatures Slaads previously could infect, now they can't, same with Mindflayers, Gith are now immune to mindflayers. This could end up a major problem, it really should have been playtested.

This is one thing I have to imagine that they changed on the mind flayer, slaad, etc side in the new MM.
I HATE people saying "it'll make sense when the 24PHB comes out; then it comes out, and it becomes "it'll make sense when the 24DMG comes out," etc. BUT this is one instance where I think the preview needs to be taken in context of the book. If they didn't change how these things work for mind flayers/slaad etc and now a whole swathe of creatures are no longer RAW infectable, it tells me quality control is even worse off than with the Spelljammer release. But I would bet against that.

 

[Distracted DM]

This is what I got when I googled what defines a person.

A person ( pl. : people or persons, depending on context) is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.

A sentient being regardless of what type they are, is still a person.

I only bring this up because we're looking at definitions here, but aren't we talking sentient vs sapient in this?

 

[Remathilis]

Also, if you are a sentient being, you're a person. I can't see it any other way.

A warg is a person? A genie? A red dragon?

That seems extraordinary large...

 

[Corinnguard]

I only bring this up because we're looking at definitions here, but aren't we talking sentient vs sapient in this?

You're right. Thanks for the Insight check.

 

[Parmandur]

Psionics isn't nothing but tentacles, which I stated in my post with evidence in the Aberrant Sorcerer. We need to stop circling the drain on these arguments. The default for Forgotten Realms doesn't even mean all FR Psionics are from the Far Realm either. Like, it's not a real argument. There are possibilities for other types of psionics in the future. Need I remind you that Eberron is a canon 5E setting with psionics from dreams??

To be fair, the dream plane dwellers in Eberron are Lovecraftian Horrors themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A warg is a person? A genie? A red dragon?

That seems extraordinary large...

Be that as it may, it is what it is. Those are all people.

 

[Parmandur]

Goblins as fey in 5e is kind of interesting though I have not decided on whether that is a lore thing I want to adopt in my games (I have generally gone on a more Tolkien/Warhammer humanoid of the world take on them).

To be fair...Goblins/Orcs in Tolkien are actually malevolent immortal Fey creatures (people often miss out on the Orcs being undying and ageless, to the point where it is occasionally a point of Tolkien lore Co teoversy...but it's there in Lord of the Rings).

 

[Scribe]

You know, I actually love the idea of moving some humanoids to other creature types. It makes it clear who is a "person" and who is a fantastic creature.

Why kobolds are dragons but dragonborn aren't is something that doesn't make sense at first glance. Also elves being fey touched while Goblinoids are still fey needs some explanation. Tieflings being humanoids while Cambions are fiends works.

The issue I have here with how/what Wizards has done, is the nonsensical application. I dont see how changing a 'type' tag makes a Gith not a person, it just seems like that cracks open another front to in the battle of semantics going on.

I do think giving the various other species the relevant and logical 'type' makes a lot of sense.