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]

I wish they had broken backwards compatibility a bit more.
But really, how difficult is it to just say that in those campaigns goblins are treated as huamnoids. MM is not a law text. And actually the most easy book to replace with any monster compendium you like.

You mean to differentiate the PHB PC species from the other creatures. Maybe that is one thing.

But another reason given in the video which I agree with is that now you can't solve any low level encounter with the same spell. Now having protection from evil and good prepared at level 1 is not totally nonsense.

While I think masteries are a very nice addition to martial characters, although maybe the implementatiin could have been a bit different.

There are many, many low level monsters that weren't humanoids, so I don't buy what you're saying that they're saying. That feels like looking for a game reason to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They did. But nit the best game you like. Probably, because they did not want to just reprint 50 years old material?

I don't recall claiming there were only two choices. You tell me how what they're doing makes a better game, if you're so sure it does.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't recall claiming there were only two choices. You tell me how what they're doing makes a better game, if you're so sure it does.

A little more variation. Also in the choice of spells at low level. As mentioned in the video. Did you see that?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There are many, many low level monsters that weren't humanoids, so I don't buy what you're saying that they're saying. That feels like looking for a game reason to me.

Yes. But goblins and kobolds are very common as foes for the first 2 levels where 1st level spells are top notch.

Also if you don't believe me. Just watch the video yourself. Not so hard to check that fact. And yes it is also a game reason.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

First of all, that phrasing is condescending.

How so?
Inhabe been playing that game for 30 years. Just stating facts.

Secondly, "person" is not a game term, so not sure what you're trying to get at.

It is a game term regarding spells. When there is "Person" in the title, the spell only works on humanoids.

Which was part of the discussion why the change seems bad for some people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. But goblins and kobolds are very common as foes for the first 2 levels where 1st level spells are top notch.

Also if you don't believe me. Just watch the video yourself. Not so hard to check that fact. And yes it is also a game reason.

I believe what you saying they said in the video. I just don't think it's a good argument.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How so?
Inhabe been playing that game for 30 years. Just stating facts.

It is a game term regarding spells. When there is "Person" in the title, the spell only works on humanoids.

Which was part of the discussion why the change seems bad for some people.

Humanoid is a game term. Person is part of a spell title. Is "mystic" a game term (as in Nystul's Mystic Aura)?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Humanoid is a game term. Person is part of a spell title. Is "mystic" a game term (as in Nystul's Mystic Aura)?

Apples to oranges. And you know that.

"Cure..." Would have been a more appropriate comparison.
No game term, but everyone knows what it generally does.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Apples to oranges. And you know that.

"Cure..." Would have been a more appropriate comparison.
No game term, but everyone knows what it generally does.

Then maybe stop claiming its a game term? I thought these new 5.5 books were designed to indoctrinate entirely novice players into WotC's new game paradigm. How would they know what the book means by "cure" or "person" when the common use definition clearly doesn't apply?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Then maybe stop claiming its a game term?

I did not. I specified where it is as close as it could be. Regarding spells.

I thought these new 5.5 books were designed to indoctrinate entirely novice players into WotC's new game paradigm.

Wow. THAT is descending.

How would they know what the book means by "cure" or "person" when the common use definition clearly doesn't apply?

Ok. I should have said: everyone who played the game for 30 years knows that. Because we are used to those terms. Should they rename them to "hold humanoid"? Maybe. But then YOU would be the first one complaining how they rename something just for renaming's sake.

I am done with this discussion.