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.

 

[Teemu]

But the gith on Faerun were modified by Illithids just like the Gith on the Astral or Limbo. It is not their growing up in the Astral or Limbo that makes them aberrations but the Far Realms illithid modification connection, correct?

It is not like if a human had a background of growing up in Sigil they would no longer be humanoid, is it?

There's in fact precedent for that in prior editions. In 3.x if you're a human who's born outside the Material Plane, you'd be extraplanar on it and could get targeted by certain spells or other effects. In 4e you'd be an immortal humanoid if you were a human of the Astral Sea, not natural humanoid of the mortal world.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Actually that is not what they are saying. They are saying NPC and PC Gith can be either. The PC rules currently represent humanoind Gith and the 5e24 monster rules currently represent aberrant Gith. But it could be either.

This goes back to the idea that creatures actually have multiple types, and which is mechanically dominant might vary between individuals.

 

[VelvetViolet]

This goes back to the idea that creatures actually have multiple types, and which is mechanically dominant might vary between individuals.

Creatures should have as many types as an applicable. The one type per stat block rule is stupid

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Creatures should have as many types as an applicable. The one type per stat block rule is stupid

Yes, but there are rules conflicts between creature types. Those would have to be resolved - perhaps using some sort of X trumps Y type table. Far from impossible, but contrary to the KISS principle that underlies 5e.

 

[Corinnguard]

Yes, but there are rules conflicts between creature types. Those would have to be resolved - perhaps using some sort of X trumps Y type table. Far from impossible, but contrary to the KISS principle that underlies 5e.

Or something like the Fey Ancestry trait, which can give the PC a slight type benefit without actually picking up another type.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Or something like the Fey Ancestry trait, which can give the PC a slight type benefit without actually picking up another type.

Needs to be something that works with monsters as well as PCs, and supports weaknesses as well as benefits.

The complication being, a lot of the effects are written into spell descriptions rather than collected in one place.

 

[Voadam]

There's in fact precedent for that in prior editions. In 3.x if you're a human who's born outside the Material Plane, you'd be extraplanar on it and could get targeted by certain spells or other effects. In 4e you'd be an immortal humanoid if you were a human of the Astral Sea, not natural humanoid of the mortal world.

In 3e yes, I believe actual planar origin mattered for things like the banishment spell.

4e Githyanki who live in the Astral Sea are natural humanoids, not immortal humanoids though.

4e Immortal origin seems to be more the actually immortal creatures tied to the gods who originated there and not transplant natural beings whose populations moved to there.

"Immortal [Origin]: Immortal creatures are native to the Astral Sea. They include angels, devils, and other creatures with strong ties to the gods. They do not age or die of natural causes."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but there are rules conflicts between creature types. Those would have to be resolved - perhaps using some sort of X trumps Y type table. Far from impossible, but contrary to the KISS principle that underlies 5e.

The KISS principle has formed the heart of all my problems with WotC's version of 5e.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Yes, but there are rules conflicts between creature types. Those would have to be resolved - perhaps using some sort of X trumps Y type table. Far from impossible, but contrary to the KISS principle that underlies 5e.

4e already did the work. Creatures have an origin based on what plane they originated from (feywild, shadowfell, astral sea, elemental chaos, etc) and a type based on their body plan (animate, beast, humanoid, everything else). They can only have one of each. Then they can have tags keywords, as many as applicable.

Seriously, why should hold person work on a mermaid but not a centaur? What is the logic here? It’s not game balance.

 

[Voadam]

Seriously, why should hold person work on a mermaid but not a centaur? What is the logic here? It’s not game balance.

I would say generally subjective aesthetic judgment calls on what human like things should be considered more monstrous.

Merfolk and gnolls in 5e14 are humanoid. Merrow and medusas and minotaurs are monstrous monstrosities. I expect nobody was comparing merfolk to centaurs when assigning types, they were just thinking of mermaids as people and not monsters.

There is some consideration of the mechanical implications of type. 5e tieflings are humanoid and can be affected by person spells just like other PH PC races, while in 3e them being native outsiders meant outsider type who were not affected by person spells which made them tougher when they became PC options so they got a level adjustment for being considered more powerful than typical PC race options.

A little bit of this is history from prior editions which had more mechanical heft to type classifications. In 3e there were monstrous humanoids who narratively were humanoid shaped but had bestial features who were a different type from the mechanically person spell affected humanoid type. Gnolls were humanoids and not monstrous humanoids which meant their 2 racial HD were d8s with 3/4 BAB advancement instead of a tougher d10 HD and 1/1 BAB. Minotaurs and medusas were tougher more dangerous monstrous humanoids. Gnolls were just grunt baseline humanoids with 2 HD similar to how they had been in AD&D.