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.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

But you're talking taste. Which yes, not all lore published is to my taste. But your tastes are not universal, nor are mine.

For example, I prefer MOrdenkainen's take on Correlon, as I don't view him as all that good of a guy to begin with.

For the rest , I don't think your point on specters has anything to do with lore, since you're talking about mechanics. Hadozee were indeed a miss. Gnolls in 3E being humanoids doesn't really matter anymore, as this is 5E and they are fiends.

IDK, to me, this doesn't really prove anything. Lots of lore in 5E is cool, but people stick to their schemas and reject it if there is no match. That's ok, this is just a human behavior, but my point is a lot of people also call any new lore bad that doesn't match said schema. I love the new Ravenqueen lore. I like Goblins being fey-exiles now. I think it's sick how Gith are now Aberrations, reflecting how their race will never be the same after what happened to them. You may not like it, and that's fine, and we can even discuss how one edition's lore is more interesting then another's, but I'm seeing a whole lot of "This is bad and can never be good" in this thread that isn't really deserved.

 

[Bae'zel]

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.

...but they still get transported to a "harmless demiplane" first though?

I mean, if a spellcaster banishes a Fey creature from the Feywild... they shouldn't be too surprised that it eventually comes right back into the Feywild?

It appears that they just nerfed the 2014 version a little bit, I guess?

Look, I know that some are not pleased with this edition, there are flaws, but some of these arguments are really coming across as made in bad faith from the start if you think that this is indicative of overall quality of the product.

To each their own, but geez.

 

[lefthandopal]

Thats a thing with your ex...

To the topic: 3e had a lot of playable species that were not humanoids.

Aasimar were classified as outsiders. And this meant they were immune to all those humanoid spells. But they also had a level adjustment.

In a later species book, they added the option of playing a lesser variant of those species, that reclassified them as humanoids and removed the level penalty.

In MMotM goblins are humanoids with the fey ancestry. I don't have a problem with those two variants loving side by side. Many goblins are fey. Some goblins are more removed from the feywild and are humanoid with fey ancestry.

Keith baker showed how he would treat gnolls as fiends. I love his take.

Instead of constantly complaining when something changes, he finds an easy solution that makes sense in the world.

Careful, you're going to hurt yourself falling off that high horse.

 

[Corinnguard]

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.

Exactly. Lore can be anything the narrator wants it to be for their setting.

It's also a Goldilocks thing. Too much lore and you crimp what a narrator can do for their setting in terms of creativity. Too little and there won't be enough for the players to go by as they adventure within the setting. The amount of lore is just right when both the narrator and the players are enjoying themselves.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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).


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.

I think it is more act as a way for organic beings to efficiently feel the force meaning someone with a high m count will almost always end up a force user of some kind by default but in principle, anyone could with the right training and time.

with the Jedi getting all of them in the republic era to prevent the possible rise of any dark side orders hence why the republic runs tests and lets them take kids after multiple massive wars with evil space wizards ethic warp to the practical

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.

why change what does not need changing? the point is making psionics nothing but tentacles is boring and making gith aberrations is pointless.
killing humanoids has an ethical angle to it sure but we kill humans in fiction all the time so I fail to see the problem as long as they are acting towards harming others.

 

[Mind of tempest]

But you're talking taste. Which yes, not all lore published is to my taste. But your tastes are not universal, nor are mine.

For example, I prefer MOrdenkainen's take on Correlon, as I don't view him as all that good of a guy to begin with.

For the rest , I don't think your point on specters has anything to do with lore, since you're talking about mechanics. Hadozee were indeed a miss. Gnolls in 3E being humanoids doesn't really matter anymore, as this is 5E and they are fiends.

IDK, to me, this doesn't really prove anything. Lots of lore in 5E is cool, but people stick to their schemas and reject it if there is no match. That's ok, this is just a human behavior, but my point is a lot of people also call any new lore bad that doesn't match said schema. I love the new Ravenqueen lore. I like Goblins being fey-exiles now. I think it's sick how Gith are now Aberrations, reflecting how their race will never be the same after what happened to them. You may not like it, and that's fine, and we can even discuss how one edition's lore is more interesting then another's, but I'm seeing a whole lot of "This is bad and can never be good" in this thread that isn't really deserved.

I can see the point of complaining if gods are labelled good we want them to be broadly good flawed and with blind spots sure but genuinely good.
if they are just jerks make them neutral.

Exactly. Lore can be anything the narrator wants it to be for their setting.

It's also a Goldilocks thing. Too much lore and you crimp what a narrator can do for their setting in terms of creativity. Too little and there won't be enough for the players to go by as they adventure within the setting. The amount of lore is just right when both the narrator and the players are enjoying themselves.

you need what it is, what it does, basic modus operandi and some ideas on how to use them.

 

[Shardstone]

I think it is more act as a way for organic beings to efficiently feel the force meaning someone with a high m count will almost always end up a force user of some kind by default but in principle, anyone could with the right training and time.

with the Jedi getting all of them in the republic era to prevent the possible rise of any dark side orders hence why the republic runs tests and lets them take kids after multiple massive wars with evil space wizards ethic warp to the practical

why change what does not need changing? the point is making psionics nothing but tentacles is boring and making gith aberrations is pointless.
killing humanoids has an ethical angle to it sure but we kill humans in fiction all the time so I fail to see the problem as long as they are acting towards harming others.

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??

 

[Xeviat]

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly. Lore can be anything the narrator wants it to be for their setting.

It's also a Goldilocks thing. Too much lore and you crimp what a narrator can do for their setting in terms of creativity. Too little and there won't be enough for the players to go by as they adventure within the setting. The amount of lore is just right when both the narrator and the players are enjoying themselves.

I do feel changing the lore without also changing the edition is a real miss, and (to this degree at least) unprecedented.

 

[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.

Because these decisions are not being made with game or implied setting concerns in mind.