D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews

On Thursday August 1st, the review embargo is lifted for those who were sent an early copy of the new Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. In this post I intend to compile a handy list of those reviews as they arrive. If you know of a review, please let me know in the comments so that I can add it! I'll be updating this list as new reviews arrive, so do check back later to see what's been added!

---

Review List

• The official EN World review -- "Make no mistake, this is a new edition."
• ComicBook.com -- "Dungeons & Dragons has improved upon its current ruleset, but the ruleset still feels very familiar to 5E veterans."
• Comic Book Resources -- "From magic upgrades to easier character building, D&D's 2024 Player's Handbook is the upgrade players and DMs didn't know they needed."
• Wargamer.com -- "The 2024 Player’s Handbook is bigger and more beginner-friendly than ever before. It still feels and plays like D&D fifth edition, but numerous quality-of-life tweaks have made the game more approachable and its player options more powerful. Its execution disappoints in a handful of places, and it’s too early to tell how the new rules will impact encounter balance, but this is an optimistic start to the new Dungeons and Dragons era."
• RPGBOT -- "A lot has changed in the 2024 DnD 5e rules. In this horrendously long article, we’ve dug into everything that has changed in excruciating detail. There’s a lot here."

Video Reviews
Note, a couple of these videos have been redacted or taken down following copyright claims by WotC.

• 2024 PHB Rules Changes D&D 5.24 (Treantmonk's Temple)
• Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook 2024 Preview & Review | Key Takeaways and Comparisons with 2014 (Awesome Black)
• 10 Unexpected Changes in the D&D 5E 2024 Player's Handbook (This Effin' GM Games)
• Every Class and Subclass Change for 2024 (d4: Deep Dive)
• D&D Player's Handbook 2024 Winners & Losers! (The Character Sheet on ComicBook.com)
• 2024 Player's Handbook First Look Review (Dungeon Dudes)
• The 2024 Player's Handbook: Full Spoilers Review (DnD Shorts)
• Full Early Review! D&D 2024 Player's Handbook (JoeFudge)
• First Look at the 2024 Player's Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons (GameMasters)
• 2024 PHB Flip through (Jorphdan) [taken down]
• D&D New Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, Monster Manual, and Project Sigil Info (maturemindedgamers)
• 2024 Player's Handbook: Questions Answered! (Alphastream)
• D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Walkthrough (Sly Flourish) [redacted]

---

Release timeline (i.e. when you can get it!)

• August 1st: Reviewers. Some reviewers have copies already, with their embargo lifting August 1st.
• August 1st-4th: Gen Con. There will be 3,000 copies for sale at Gen Con.
• September 3rd: US/Canada Hobby Stores. US/Canada hobby stores get it September 3rd.
• September 3rd: DDB 'Master' Pre-orders. Also on this date, D&D Beyond 'Master Subscribers' get the digital version.
• September 10th: DDB 'Hero' Pre-orders. On this date, D&D Beyond 'Hero Subscribers' get the digital version.
• September 17th: General Release. For the rest of us, the street date is September 17th.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

it’s funny seeing people dismiss the issues with “that stuffs always been in the 5E” and somehow miss that the issue is that “there is far more of it”.

Reeks of “I don’t DM, so not my problem.” Might be your problem if less people want to DM. Which from what I understand is already a rare commodity.

I'm afraid you are wrong. Everyone thar I have seen that has argued against this position is not only a DM, but a DM who played with the playtest options. (Only some of which made it into the final game).

It's just not noticeably more complicated. It might be noticeable if you compared a mostly martial 2014 party to a mostly martial 2024 party, but not a mix - not by much. And a somewhat martial 2024 party compared to a mostly caster 2014 party still comes out as easier to manage.

Overall, it's not a big change - it's a little one. One that should be easily manageable for most tables.

 

[R_J_K75]

Again, this is funny. It seems you don't even realize what you're saying.

I know exactly what I'm saying, just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm a fool.

 

[dave2008]

I know exactly what I'm saying, just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm a fool.

I don't think you are a fool, but I do think you made a foolish comment. I don't know you well enough nor do I trust internet interactions enough to think anyone is a fool simply from correspondence on these types of platforms. To much is lost when we are not face to face.

What I think of 4e has nothing to do with it. However, excluding 4e from the discussion of risk taking in game design by WotC doesn't make any sense any way I look at it.

 

[Clint_L]

Please do not lie about what I claimed. I never said that "all the reviews are negative" nor that they were "overall negative" as you claimed in two other posts.

What I claimed was "most of the reviews [I saw] have been neutral and some of them negative". I stand by that statement.

I have looked at the written reviews linked in this thread and a number of the videos, and I have to say that it is hard to see how you are finding them neutral to negative. All of the written reviews are unequivocally positive as their overall takeaway. However, they do raise criticisms, because that's what reviewers do. For example, one gives an overall score of 9/10 but still points out some flaws.

That's how professional reviews go. Nothing is perfect.

The video reviews I have seen have similarly emphasized that, overall, the PHB is a success, but in that context have explored some critiques. Again, that's what a proper review does. In general, the points of criticism are more interesting than the points of praise, and so they tend to receive more ink/time, but that's why you are expected to consider them in the context of the overall opinion, which is generally written or stated at the beginning and end.

Perhaps you are casting a wider net and looking at more reaction type videos or something. I can't comment beyond what is linked on this thread.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't think you are a fool, but I do think you made a foolish comment. I don't know you well enough nor do I trust internet interactions enough to think anyone is a fool simply from correspondence on these types of platforms. To much is lost when we are not face to face.

What I think of 4e has nothing to do with it. However, excluding 4e from the discussion of risk taking in game design by WotC doesn't make any sense any way I look at it.

I feel like this forum needs a term, similar to Godwin's Law, for the fact that any discussion that goes on long enough will inevitably become about 4e.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I'm afraid you are wrong. Everyone thar I have seen that has argued against this position is not only a DM, but a DM who played with the playtest options. (Only some of which made it into the final game).

It's just not noticeably more complicated. It might be noticeable if you compared a mostly martial 2014 party to a mostly martial 2024 party, but not a mix - not by much. And a somewhat martial 2024 party compared to a mostly caster 2014 party still comes out as easier to manage.

Overall, it's not a big change - it's a little one. One that should be easily manageable for most tables.

Everyone that you have seen. Not a large enough sample size to claim “you are wrong”.

I’m afraid we will have to wait until the book is in more hands and seen actual play.

And even then we won’t have a full picture until all 3 core books are out.

So, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

I’d love to be wrong though. I’d love for 5.5 to be better game than 5e

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Everyone that you have seen. Not a large enough sample size to claim “you are wrong”.

No, I meant you were wrong about us here talking to you not being DMs.

Then I went on to explain my side of your specific criticism. I did not mean the two to be conflated. Sorry I was unclear.

I’m afraid we will have to wait until the book is in more hands and seen actual play.

And even then we won’t have a full picture until all 3 core books are out.

So, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

I’d love to be wrong though. I’d love for 5.5 to be better game than 5e

Yeah, we agree on that. We'll have to see. I think it will be better than 5e, but I sure as heck don't expect it to be perfect.

Just how imperfect it will be (and in what ways) remains to be seen.

 

[R_J_K75]

I don't think you are a fool, but I do think you made a foolish comment. I don't know you well enough nor do I trust internet interactions enough to think anyone is a fool simply from correspondence on these types of platforms. To much is lost when we are not face to face.

Agreed, it's hard to really have a complete, genuine conversation online as you can't see people emoting, their reactions, body language etc.

However, excluding 4e from the discussion of risk taking in game design by WotC doesn't make any sense any way I look at it.

I probably didn't articulate what I was thinking well enough. I excluded 4E because it was such a radical departure from what came before or since, and so I didn't feel it was relevant to this conversation. I played 4E for a while maybe a year or two but ultimately not too long before switching to Pathfinder. I applauded their willingness to take chances and not stay the course, even if it wasn't for me in the end.

That one comment that Crawford made struck a chord with me, it was something to the effect that it would have been easier to create a new edition than revise the current one. I call B.S. and implies to me that their confidence in the RPG team may be somewhat lacking, but I could be wrong. If they really think that this is an evergreen edition I disagree, there will come a time when it withers on the vine, and they will need to redesign the game from the ground up. But again, as unpopular as it may be, it's my opinion.

 

[R_J_K75]

ENW is the vast majority of players.

Bad, they ruined a bunch of spells, continue to make classes more same-y, and continue to put less emphasis on roleplay.

But they increased the overall power level of characters, so that alone will make people want this version.

As I said earlier a few days ago, 47% of people a choosing not to adopt it. So it seems it seems the community is pretty divided on this revision. For all intents and purposes, it's about 50/50. With the power creep leaning towards the PC favor, that's not a selling point for me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I’d say it’s not fun if it slows everything down. Especially combat turns when those not currently taking their turn tend to tune out..... I’m saying while more new powers are nifty they will slow down a game that’s already slow when it comes to its main time eater: combat.

Of course, you are JUST saying it will slow down combat... without having the rules, without running the rules, without having any experience of the rules. Just from vibes. And from rule examples that aren't actually in the book.

Meanwhile, people who have actually RUN the rules, multiple times, have come forward MULTIPLE times to say that... they don't really think combat has overall gotten any slower. That at worst it is pretty much the same. That tracking who is prone and who isn't is pretty much the same.

I’m not saying a DM can’t do it nor is it the players fault (where did I inject players v DMs,? and be specific),

Specific?

Reeks of “I don’t DM, so not my problem.” Might be your problem if less people want to DM. Which from what I understand is already a rare commodity.

My argument for the rules not being that disruptive for the DM were met with you saying it "reeks" of me being a player and not caring about the DM. Followed by the idea that it might become my problem if fewer people DM, because as a player, I would have to step up and DM I suppose. Oh, and you wanted to add that DMs are already a "rare commodity"

Want to guess why? It isn't because the rules are so difficult to understand, the DM doesn't need to understand any rules that a player doesn't need to understand. It is because we MAKE IT rare. People go on and on of the great burden of DMing, the titanic struggle of DMing, the hours and hours of work and sweat that goes into crafting something, only for stupid greedy, selfish players to thoughtlessly destroy it all. Then you want to turn around to someone whose just picked up a DnD book for the first time and say "Hey, you want to have a go at it?"

I've tried encouraging so many people to run games, because they have AWESOME ideas for campaigns, and almost every time, they back out. Because they don't think they can deal with the immense struggle and weight and difficulty of being a DM, which I keep telling them DOESN'T EXIST. It is not the default state of DMing. We know this, because we have seen small children run games. If an 8 year old can DM a game, anyone over the age of 15 can do it. Yes, there is a burden in running a game if you become responsible for everything. IF you take on scheduling the game, solving rules debates, tracking every players resources and special abilities... but this is a GROUP activity. Tell someone else to schedule when the sessions are and just let you know. Designate the person who knows the rules best to cover knowing the rules. Or, have every player be responsible for their own stuff.

Even as a player, I step up and I help the DM. They need HP tracked for monsters? I can do that. Remember who has what status effect? I can do that. Communicate with and lean on your players. You are not a "Master", you are a fellow person trying to have fun.

rant/