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.

 

[AlViking]

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!

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.

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.

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.

So you are the sole arbiter of deciding that gith can't be aberrations despite being genetically manipulated by mind flayers to give them psionic abilities, but celestials and demons are totally not humanoid as everyone knows because you've declared it?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So you are the sole arbiter of deciding that gith can't be aberrations despite being genetically manipulated by mind flayers to give them psionic abilities, but celestials and demons are totally not humanoid as everyone knows because you've declared it?

If I was, this thread wouldn't exist would it mate lol?

But you're getting yourself confused. The issue isn't whether celestials and demons are "humanoid", it's about how D&D has used the term "humanoid" historically, which is to say, it means corporeal beings - i.e. specifically ones that are flesh and blood, not beings of spirit - celestials and demons are beings of spirit. If you want to argue, argue with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and most of 5th edition, not with me. That's just how it was used, and pretending it's not is obviously not being real.

It's amazing how bad you guys are at presenting counter-arguments. Instead of doing so, you seem to be locked into "Well, that's like, just your opinion man...". And like sure! Obviously to some extent, but there are facts involved! And at least I'm presenting reasoning and explaining why, rather than just going "Well who died and made you god!" like we're all sulky teenagers in some early 1990s movie!

Also, what do you think of the fact that WotC are saying PC Gith count as humanoids, but NPC Gith count as aberrant? Does that sit well with you? Do you like that? Is that how you would do it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you are the sole arbiter of deciding that gith can't be aberrations despite being genetically manipulated by mind flayers to give them psionic abilities, but celestials and demons are totally not humanoid as everyone knows because you've declared it?

No, I'll arbitrate too. We can be dual arbitrators!

 

[Corinnguard]

So you are the sole arbiter of deciding that gith can't be aberrations despite being genetically manipulated by mind flayers to give them psionic abilities, but celestials and demons are totally not humanoid as everyone knows because you've declared it?

Aren't DMs the arbiters of their own role-playing sessions? If @Ruin Explorer and a number of other DMs don't want the Gith to be Aberrations, they are free to keep them as Humanoids. If a DM wants to follow WoTC and have the Gith to be retyped, they are free to do so.

 

[AlViking]

Aren't DMs the arbiters of their own role-playing sessions? If @Ruin Explorer and a number of other DMs don't want the Gith to be Aberrations, they are free to keep them as Humanoids. If a DM wants to follow WoTC and have the Gith to be retyped, they are free to do so.

Of course DMs are free to ignore any label that bothers them but that's not what @Ruin Explorer is saying, - edit - they're taking a confrontational approach to people who feel differently.

As others have pointed out the direction wizards has chosen to take is to have one and only one label. So a dracolich is undead just like a zombie giant. If humanoid just means has basic human form then a lot of things are humanoid. Gith's ancient ancestors likely were humanoid but they have been altered and now aren't what they once were like that undead zombie. My neighbor's border terrier's long ago ancestors were wolves but nobody would look at the 14 pounds of yipping fury and confuse it with anything other than a domesticated pet.

 

[Voadam]

If you want to argue, argue with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and most of 5th edition, not with me. That's just how it was used, and pretending it's not is obviously not being real.

Not in 4th where humanoid type meant humanoid shaped.

In 4th most angels and demons (the vaguely human shaped ones and not the bestial shaped ones although there are some nonhumanoid demons where the classification is suspect) were type humanoids, along with mind flayers and gray renders and most anything else vaguely humanoid shaped (apes were beasts).

 

[Corinnguard]

Not in 4th where humanoid type meant humanoid shaped.

In 4th most angels and demons (the vaguely human shaped ones and not the bestial shaped ones although there are some nonhumanoid demons where the classification is suspect) were type humanoids, along with mind flayers and gray renders and most anything else vaguely humanoid shaped (apes were beasts).

In RL, there are some angels who would fall into the category of Aberration if they ever appeared in D&D.

 

[Voadam]

In RL, there are some angels who would fall into the category of Aberration if they ever appeared in D&D.

I'm not sure I would place the wheels of fire with eyes along the rims angels, or the mutli-animal headed angels from the Bible as aberrations.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not in 4th where humanoid type meant humanoid shaped.

In 4th most angels and demons (the vaguely human shaped ones and not the bestial shaped ones although there are some nonhumanoid demons where the classification is suspect) were type humanoids, along with mind flayers and gray renders and most anything else vaguely humanoid shaped (apes were beasts).

Interesting, thank you, I take it back re: 4th, I had quite forgotten!

 

[Umbran]

It's amazing how bad you guys are at presenting counter-arguments.

Mod note:
Making it personal?

Look, there's a whole lot of X/twitter out there if you want to spend time insulting and mocking people. We ask you to not do that here.