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.

 

[MReav]

My dude, what do you think midichlorians are?

Miniature Giant Space Flumphs.

 

[Staffan]

Jedi aren't really part of D&D though. Psionics has always been an odd thing in D&D, might as well give it the "slime and tentacles" treatment. At least that's interesting.

If not Jedi, Jean Grey (minus Phoenix). Usually no tentacles there (except that one time when Masque turned her arms into tentacles for gits and shiggles).

My dude, what do you think midichlorians are?

Answer 1: BS.
Answer 2: A symbiotic microcellular organism that thrives on the Force and as such are present in high numbers in those who have the ability to channel it, in proportion to the strength of that ability. They are not however the source of that strength.

 

[AlViking]

I generally like these changes. I also think dragonborn, elves, tieflings, and aasimar should be dragons, fey, fiends, and celestials, respectively. Goliaths should probably be giants, too.

However, I really don't like the half-baked implementation of things surrounding the changes, especially the spells that care about creature type.

For example, how the wording of Banishment works now - Dispel Evil and Good mentions a "home plane" (I much prefer the "home plane" wording, because it allows some flexibility with defining a home plane so you can't, for example, cast Nystul's Magic Aura on someone naming "Aberration" and then banish them to the Far Realms), but Banishment in 2024 specifically banishes based on type.

Meaning you can Nystul's Magic Aura someone into an Aberration and then Banishment them into the Far Realms. You can also Banishment a Githyanki, who was almost certainly born and grew up on the Prime Material Plane (in Forgotten Realms, they live near the moon), to the Far Realms.

Nystul's new "willing creature" clause (which makes the only real utility it had in the 2014 version worthless, very in keeping with the sometimes bizarre spell wording changes in the new PHB) is rendered moot with a simple persuasion check and/or Charm Person, which shouldn't be difficult since it's a harmless illusion that also grants immunity to stuff like Hold Person or Charm Person being cast on them (but won't dispel either).

Another casualty of this that people aren't really talking about that is that necromancy (the actual kind, not the "deal some necrotic damage and/or debuff" kind) gets continually worse with each of these changes. Raisable corpses are fewer and further between. Not even Nystul's Magic Aura fixes this (it never did, in fact), since corpses are objects, and you can only change creature types of a creature.

Of course, all of this is a consequence of certain spells being worded in a way that was either not considered (it really feels like they just didn't realize what Banishment can actually do without the "home plane" wording, which it used to have) or were balanced for a distribution of types that increasingly no longer exists (e.g. spells that raise undead, except Danse Macabre, which forgot the restriction and can thus turn ooze remains into skeletons - back to the "not considered" thing from earlier).

I would say that a creature categorized as fey does not necessarily have an origin plane of the feywild. My ancestors were from Scandinavian countries but I was not born there so I cannot be deported and would not be considered a citizen of the country my great grandparents came from. At least that's how I plan on running things.

 

[Belen]

I am telling you I have invested in others like Shadowdark and old-school Essentials, as D&D appears to be going down a rabbit hole more and more.

I have Shadow. I am not very interested in OSE. I’d just got back to 2e if I wanted Old School. Otherwise, nothing wrong with staying with 5.0.

 

[Shardstone]

It's so fascinating to me how people take change in D&D so personally. I get being attached to ideas, but most D&D changes aren't exclusionary. For example, making Aberrations default to the Far Realm isn't exclusionary; we saw in the Aberrant Mind UA and publishing that people do want non-slime Psionics as well. Furthermore, Crawford's entire motto is that they are light on lore so that the DM can either use old lore or custom lore for the creatures. It's literally like, they write a paragraph or two, and then say but hey, this is just seeds for inspiration, make it your own as you want.

What gets me is that so many people ask for more lore in these monster books. But you aren't asking for more lore, you're asking for more lore that you like as it fits your schema. For a long time, I wondered why WotC was going so lore-light on monsters but now I think I finally get it. If they go into detail about how kobolds are dragons and what that means for them lore-wise and in terms of ecology, a lot of people will get irrationally mad about it. These same people adopt the argument "They should give more lore and I'll just ignore it if I want!" But they don't ignore it; they trash it first, let everyone else know their opinions, and then just don't even use the creature at all.

Weird.

 

[InkTide]

I would say that a creature categorized as fey does not necessarily have an origin plane of the feywild. My ancestors were from Scandinavian countries but I was not born there so I cannot be deported and would not be considered a citizen of the country my great grandparents came from. At least that's how I plan on running things.

I agree, and this is why I like the "home/native plane" wording Banishment used to have (and DIspel Evil and Good still has), but now the paragraph for it is this:

"If the target is an Aberration, a Celestial, an Elemental, a Fey, or a Fiend, the target doesn’t return if the spell lasts for 1 minute. The target is instead transported to a random location on a plane (DM’s choice) associated with its creature type."

Extending your analogy, if "Scandinavian" was your creature type, it wouldn't matter where you were or how long you (or your family) have been there - 2024 Banishment would yeet you to a random location on the DM's choice of plane of Scandinavia (presumably the countries).

Compare the old wording:

"If the target is native to a different plane of existence than the one you’re on, the target is banished with a faint popping noise, returning to its home plane. If the spell ends before 1 minute has passed, the target reappears in the space it left or in the nearest unoccupied space if that space is occupied. Otherwise, the target doesn’t return."

Which is possibly too wordy (they don't like to give spells flavor like a popping noise RAW anymore, which I think were mechanically useful for spell identification and useful for DMs to inspire descriptions of their use and descriptions of other things, but whatever, it's not a hill I'd die on), but if the goal was to shorten it, "a plane (DM’s choice) associated with its creature type" is longer than, "its native plane (DM’s choice)." I like "(DM's choice)" being explicit here, but that's about it.

It really should have kept the "if the target is not native to the plane you're on" clause either way, because it's not even fixable by invoking a native plane anymore: even if the DM rules that the mindflayer BBEG's type of 'abberation' is 'associated with' the Prime Material enough to not be sent to the Far Realms, it doesn't negate the "random location" clause. This means a 4th level spell can still send the BBEG to a random location on the Prime Material, because they accidentally split the "random location" and "other plane" functions of the original spell by putting "DM's choice" after "a plane" instead of before the whole clause (e.g. "The target is instead transported to the DM's choice of a location on a plane associated with its creature type.")

This also means you can Banishment fey to a random location in the Feywild while in the Feywild.

It is, in a word, sloppy.

It really gives me the impression they weren't very careful with a lot of the changes they were making to shorten descriptions in 2024 rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree, and this is why I like the "home/native plane" wording Banishment used to have (and DIspel Evil and Good still has), but now the paragraph for it is this:

"If the target is an Aberration, a Celestial, an Elemental, a Fey, or a Fiend, the target doesn’t return if the spell lasts for 1 minute. The target is instead transported to a random location on a plane (DM’s choice) associated with its creature type."

Extending your analogy, if "Scandinavian" was your creature type, it wouldn't matter where you were or how long you (or your family) have been there - 2024 Banishment would yeet you to a random location on the DM's choice of plane of Scandinavia (presumably the countries).

Compare the old wording:

"If the target is native to a different plane of existence than the one you’re on, the target is banished with a faint popping noise, returning to its home plane. If the spell ends before 1 minute has passed, the target reappears in the space it left or in the nearest unoccupied space if that space is occupied. Otherwise, the target doesn’t return."

Which is possibly too wordy (they don't like to give spells flavor like a popping noise RAW anymore, which I think were mechanically useful for spell identification and useful for DMs to inspire descriptions of their use and descriptions of other things, but whatever, it's not a hill I'd die on), but if the goal was to shorten it, "a plane (DM’s choice) associated with its creature type" is longer than, "its native plane (DM’s choice)." I like "(DM's choice)" being explicit here, but that's about it.

It really should have kept the "if the target is not native to the plane you're on" clause either way, because it's not even fixable by invoking a native plane anymore: even if the DM rules that the mindflayer BBEG's type of 'abberation' is 'associated with' the Prime Material enough to not be sent to the Far Realms, it doesn't negate the "random location" clause. This means a 4th level spell can still send the BBEG to a random location on the Prime Material, because they accidentally split the "random location" and "other plane" functions of the original spell by putting "DM's choice" after "a plane" instead of before the whole clause (e.g. "The target is instead transported to the DM's choice of a location on a plane associated with its creature type.")

This also means you can Banishment fey to a random location in the Feywild while in the Feywild.

It is, in a word, sloppy.

It really gives me the impression they weren't very careful with a lot of the changes they were making to shorten descriptions in 2024 rules.

Being careful doesn't seem to have been their priority, at least in terms of rules.

 

[Voadam]

Answer 2: A symbiotic microcellular organism that thrives on the Force and as such are present in high numbers in those who have the ability to channel it, in proportion to the strength of that ability. They are not however the source of that strength.

Ooh, I really like that take.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ooh, I really like that take.

I think that's pretty much the official take.

 

[Voadam]

What gets me is that so many people ask for more lore in these monster books. But you aren't asking for more lore, you're asking for more lore that you like as it fits your schema. For a long time, I wondered why WotC was going so lore-light on monsters but now I think I finally get it. If they go into detail about how kobolds are dragons and what that means for them lore-wise and in terms of ecology, a lot of people will get irrationally mad about it. These same people adopt the argument "They should give more lore and I'll just ignore it if I want!" But they don't ignore it; they trash it first, let everyone else know their opinions, and then just don't even use the creature at all.

Weird.

I think there is also a lot of people who just want cool lore.

I think Eberron has a lot of cool lore and takes on things and I use some but I don't use a lot of it in my homebrew mashup campaign setting. Aberration dwarves are a neat idea I like to read about but not really a thing in my game.

Cannibal halflings from Dark Sun are interesting but not for my setting as well.

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).

I want lots of different cool interesting lore and I get different settings and monster books and 3rd party monster books for a bunch of different ideas and possibilities.

I am down on lore and lore tied mechanics that seems disappointing to me in various ways. Modenkainen's 5e take on Correlon and Moradin lore as moral jerks who are supposedly good seemed very poor to me and I do not like it. Specters going from core D&D Nazgul 0e to 4e to core 5e D&D level 1 ghosts was a poor idea from a design standpoint in using older material in 5e. Spelljammer Hadozee minstrelsy images and slavery background were unfortunate choices. Gnolls in 3e being humanoids instead of monstrous humanoids (defined in flavor text as humanoids with bestial features) was an odd flavor choice as was ropers not being aberrations.