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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And weird. So, the NPC Gith are Aberrations, but the PC ones are humanoids. If a Gith PC were to retire from adventuring, would they undergo a Type change back to Aberration? It's more likely there will be a point in a Gith PC's career where they can shrug off any spell that targets Humanoids.

No, that isn't how any of it works, if you bothered to watch and listen to the video.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am by no means someone that thinks monsters and player characters need to use the same abilities and rules, but having the creature type of the player option and monster version be different is dumb. When the Gith change came in Planescape, I was excited because I thought that meant Gith would be playable aberrations. Making playable Gith be humanoid while the monsters are aberrations doesn’t make any lore sense and doesn’t please either crowd.

You have the order of events mixed up. They didn't make the Gith into Aberrations, then make the playable version humanoid.

They released a humanoid playable version, because they were humanoid at that time. Now they have altered Gith to be Aberrations, but are not going back and errataing the version that exists to be played.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You have the order of events mixed up. They didn't make the Gith into Aberrations, then make the playable version humanoid.

I know. I just thought they might errata Monsters of the Multiverse to turn the playable version into Aberations. I wanted them to do that.

 

[Azzy]

I know. I just thought they might errata Monsters of the Multiverse to turn the playable version into Aberations. I wanted them to do that.

Unfortunately, WotC is rather errata-shy.

 

[Echohawk]

Unfortunately, WotC is rather errata-shy.

They seem to have become shy about publishing formal errata since 2023, certainly. Shy about making undocumented changes to D&D Beyond content, not so much. I guess that isn't really errata though, since errata is specifically a documented list of corrections.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I am by no means someone that thinks monsters and player characters need to use the same abilities and rules, but having the creature type of the player option and monster version be different is dumb. When the Gith change came in Planescape, I was excited because I thought that meant Gith would be playable aberrations. Making playable Gith be humanoid while the monsters are aberrations doesn’t make any lore sense and doesn’t please either crowd.

at least make the player option dual creature typed

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I will point out that, if D&D had ever used "humanoid" in it's literal sense, apes would be humanoid. But D&D has always made them beasts (well, since creature type was introduced in 3rd edition). And most golems are humanoid. But are still classed as constructs. etc.

Now, what is a dracolich? Is it a dragon or is it undead? Surely it's both? But the rules say it's undead. Why? Because being undead has the greatest mechanical effect. The rules don't allow for multiple creature types because of the potential for conflict. So they just go with whatever has the greatest mechanical impact. It doesn't mean the dracolich is not a dragon, it means being undead is what matters mechanically.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is no rational, logical or game-balance justification TO YOU. It is perverse and bizarre TO YOU.

No. There's no logical, rational or game-balance justification that's ever been stated for that. Not by you, not by WotC, not by anyone I've seen.

You can't pull out the "TO YOU" line in that particular way unless you've got some kind of actual different/alternative view that you can explicate.

You don't appear to have one. In fact, I strongly suspect you agree!

stop acting like they clearly did it for the lulz

Why? Their stated reasons re: Gith are already within touching distance of "we did it for the lulz". Hell, when you factor in that PC Gith are apparently humanoid, only NPC Gith are aberrant, then we are 100% in "lulz" territory, that's just silly business.

What do you want me to do about the fact

You're choosing to respond here. You have a choice to not do that, or to respond less or only to points you feel are relevant, so don't blame me for your posting. That's getting into pathological territory - I've been there myself! It's not healthy to blame others for your own posting choices.

We certainly didn't have Planetars or Ogres or any of a dozen other monsters that were "human-shaped, roughly human-sized corporeal beings" that weren't listed as Humanoid until 2019, right?

Ogres are absolutely humanoids, they're even in the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2E, what on earth are you talking about?! And the idea that angels and demons are "corporeal beings" is pretty funny stuff. Corporeal has a meaning, I suggest you look it up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They seem to have become shy about publishing formal errata since 2023, certainly. Shy about making undocumented changes to D&D Beyond content, not so much. I guess that isn't really errata though, since errata is specifically a documented list of corrections.

It's not errata if they do it without telling anyone. Hilarious!

 

[Corinnguard]

No, that isn't how any of it works, if you bothered to watch and listen to the video

True, I haven't watched the video, but how do you expect it to sway my opinion regarding what appears to be an inconsistency in Monster Type? Since the two of us are both into 5e/5.5e, if you don't like a particular rule, you can either ignore it, take it as is, or come up with something better. I am looking for something better.