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.

 

[Chaltab]

In the Hobbit, the Goblin King recognizes the swords from the fall of Gondolin over 5000 years prior, and there are a lot of dialogue cues in the scenes where the Orcs talk amongst themselves that they remember the War of the Last Alliance over 3000 years previously.

It is, admittedly, somewhat subtle, but whatever Tolkien's varying ideas where about Goblons/Orcs, massive longevity was part of it, probably immortality. Kind of makes then significantly worse.

I mean there was also the part in the films where they were digging orcs out of the ground at Isengard and they they just hopped up fine and ready to kick ass after presumably thousands of years without food, light, or oxygen. Like LOTR orcs are horrifying.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't understand why that matters. Jean Grey doesn't exist in D&D. D&D is not the Marvel universe. Both can handle psionic powers in completely different ways.

Also, “affected by the far realm” need not mean ooze and tentacles.

 

[Chaltab]

I'll enjoy myself by not playing this "4e in sheep's clothing"

Your literal first post on these boards is a backhanded edition warring insult. I'm sure you'll go far.

 

[MGibster]

Also, “affected by the far realm” need not mean ooze and tentacles.

Don't take away what little joy I have in 2025.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it?

I think orcs being made out of elves is only in Silmarillion and I don't think it is ever stated that they retained the elven immortality. (It also is just one of the several orc origins considered by Tolkien. In some versions are made out of men. The elf version is just what ended up in the book.)

Why wouldn't they maintain their immortality, if they used to be orcs? Morgoth can't change the nature of their souls. That power resides only with Iluvatar.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't understand why that matters. Jean Grey doesn't exist in D&D. D&D is not the Marvel universe. Both can handle psionic powers in completely different ways.

Than what benefit to the game is there to decide that psionics are all about the tentacles and the mind-destroying secrets none were meant to know? Why even try to force that narrative as a default? It's pretty specific, and colors everything about the topic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean there was also the part in the films where they were digging orcs out of the ground at Isengard and they they just hopped up fine and ready to kick ass after presumably thousands of years without food, light, or oxygen. Like LOTR orcs are horrifying.

That scene has no precedent in the source material, as cool as it was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, “affected by the far realm” need not mean ooze and tentacles.

Far Realm things are called aberrations. That word has a pretty strong connotation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Far Realm things are called aberrations. That word has a pretty strong connotation.

There are plenty of things that are aberrant that don’t have ooze or tentacles. And indeed plenty of things with ooze and/or tentacles that are not aberrant at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are plenty of things that are aberrant that don’t have ooze or tentacles. And indeed plenty of things with ooze and/or tentacles that are not aberrant at all.

I didn't say dictionary definition. I said connotation. You still have to deal with a term's associations, either by playing to them or making it clear in the text that you are not. Is WotC making either of those choices?