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]

Maybe WotC should codify all of my house rules so, that way, other DMs have to use them.

Nah. They should codify all of MY house rules, and make YOU use them!

(This is what a lot of arguments around here often sound like, it's true).

Philosophically, I understand the Anti-"DM May I" argument, but seeing as my personal #1 Rule of Roleplaying Games is "Play Nice With Others" (which goes for everyone at the table) - I haven't seen it be a problem at any table I've ever played at, so it's hard to get worked up about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh yeah, I knew that at one point, but I forgot about it.


Well... yeah, but it's ALSO the PH for beginners. In the very least, it's something that the designers need to consider.


Don't you think that it would be in WotC's best interest to CHANGE that fact? And even the rest of us, why would we want a DMG to exist that we don't even need?

On top of that, the designers have said that they wrote the three core books this time like they were one big D&D book, and then split them along logical lines. Seems like a good move to me.

I'll believe it when I see it, to be honest.

And the DMG is a useful book to be sure, and has been in every edition to my mind. But other than the exceptions I noted, it hasn't been necessary since 1e, when it contained the attack tables.

And that's ok. Every DMG is an enriching experience and well worth it for that alone. Besides, it's another $50 a new D&D fan doesn't have to spend to play, at least not right away.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Nah. They should codify all of MY house rules, and make YOU use them!

Don't tease me with a good time.

EDIT: Just so I add something to the conversation. I agree.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is so weird, right? It's almost like people want to be able to point to a book and say, "see you have to play the way I want." Every time I hear this argument, "but now I have to ask the DM," I get that feeling. The feeling that its really about bullying others into playing your way.

Maybe WotC should codify all of my house rules so, that way, other DMs have to use them. It might make no difference in my games, but I'd feel good about myself knowing my vision was enforced. And all those plebs out there would be witness to my genius and would know the error of their ways.

Maybe I'm just cynical at this point. But it really feels weird to me when people complain that they have to ask a DM. So they run off and ask daddy WotC to force the DM to do it their way.

Well, to be fair the internet forums have never really been the place to see diversity of opinion. I think, and I have said this many times before on here, that if we all sat down at each other's tables, the game would run just fine. In fact, we'd probably see a 99% commonality in the game when compared to our own table.

But differences are the focus on forums, not commonalities.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Well, to be fair the internet forums have never really been the place to see diversity of opinion. I think, and I have said this many times before on here, that if we all sat down at each other's tables, the game would run just fine. In fact, we'd probably see a 99% commonality in the game when compared to our own table.

But differences are the focus on forums, not commonalities.

There is a difference between disagreeing on how to interpret a rule, and claiming that it is "bad" that you have to ask a DM.

The former is fine. The latter is driven by a desire to bully people with the rule book.

EDIT: This isnt meant as a commentary on a specific person's motivation. Just on how objectionable I find the wording in general.

 

[pemerton]

Anyone who starts with 2024 isn't going to have an idea that you can customize backgrounds

Really?

I don't think the idea of customising background elements of PC builds is that radical. The early days of The Strategic Review and The Dragon are full of variant or custom classes. I think that new D&D players will be able to work this out.

 

[Parmandur]

Really?

I don't think the idea of customising background elements of PC builds is that radical. The early days of The Strategic Review and The Dragon are full of variant or custom classes. I think that new D&D players will be able to work this out.

Especially since the PHB basically says what the rules for customization are when talking about older 5E book Backgrounds.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Especially since the PHB basically says what the rules for customization are when talking about older 5E book Backgrounds.

Yeah, when I learned that the rules for porting over the old backgrounds were essentially the custom background rules, it made a lot more things click for me about the decision to move the other set to the DMG.

 

[Scott Christian]

There is a difference between disagreeing on how to interpret a rule, and claiming that it is "bad" that you have to ask a DM.

The former is fine. The latter is driven by a desire to bully people with the rule book.

EDIT: This isnt meant as a commentary on a specific person's motivation. Just on how objectionable I find the wording in general.

Like all RPG philosophies, what is espoused is often contradicted by what is in practice.

The "bad" DM May I scenario is only relevant for some when discussing backgrounds or species or point buy. Yet, at other junctions of the game, DM May I is wholly accepted.

I really think it boils down to the way people feel when interpreting the rule from a philosophical point of view as opposed to an actual practice.

 

[ECMO3]

Then shouldn't you say that the feat from the playtest changed, instead of trying to make it sound like everything about dual-wielding changed?

No what my claim was is the 2024 game is different than the game we played in the playtest in many ways. That is what I am articulating.

If something was not covered in the playtest but it changed from the 2014 rules, then it changed from when we were playing the playtest.

But it is under an even stricter limitation that does essentially the same thing.

Stricter ...... as in changed and will be different in play!

And do any of those spell changes make a big difference? As in, more of a difference than when Tasha's added entirely new spells? Again "spells changed" is too vague and broad to be useful. And we saw quite a few spell changes IN the playtest that carried through.

Tasha's new spells made no changes at all when we were playing the playtest because they already existed before the playtest started. When you were playing in the playtest you were using the Tasha's spells (unless the book was not used at your table).

If you were playing the playtest with the rules that existed with the playtest (a combination of UA, 2014 PHB, XGE, TCE, Strixhaven) and you play 2024 now there are many impactful spell changes and yes many of them make a big difference.

So, in the playtest the grappler had the slowed condition and had half speed.
Now the grappler takes double the movement to move... which is effectively half speed. That's not a change.

Not it is not the same thing. If your speed is 40 and you have half speed your speed is 20 while you have half speed. If on top of that it takes 2 feet to move every foot then you can only drag someone 10 feet so it is a difference. And these were technically the rules in place during the Playtest.

That point aside, there is a mathematical difference between 2 foot for every foot of movement and half speed when another effect like rising from prone, jumping, or moving through difficult terrain is in play and those things will come into play often unless you hand waive them.

But it is under an even stricter limitation that does essentially the same thing.

It is not the same thing. There is a mathematical difference between 2 foot for every foot of movement and half speed, particularly with how it plays into mounting, dismounting, jumping, rising from prone or moving through difficult terrain.

They are just mechanically different and those differences will come up often (particularly difficult terrain) unless you hand waive them away.

Arguably a clean up of the languag

Ok they changed it to clean up the language. They still changed it and this is a difference from 2014.

Being different from the playtest is not the same as being harder to understand than in the playtest (although that is an argument of its own).

e, and a stretch for the argument that we can't understand anything about the 2024 rules from the playtest by saying that dual handcrossbows, a thing done in 2014, was made explicitly possible by altering the ammo rules slightly.

I never said I couldn't understand anything about 2024. I understand every single thing I have read about, listened to. Every single thing.

Because I understand also those things I know factually that 2024 is substantially different than the rules we were playing with when we did the playtest.

Also as an aside, to the best of my knowlege, Dual Hand Crossbows never could be used in 2014 because of the ammunition property. RAW all those XBE-Sharpshooter builds used 1 hand crossbow for all 3+ attacks (as this was allowed).

They had minor alterations in specific details, but not in function. True not all of them made it, but neither did Ardlings and that doesn't make 2024 an unknown to us just because the playtest had ardlings and the book doesn't.

There are big changes to the playtest backgrounds, as in most of the mechanics tied to them.

The playtest backgrounds had 5 different mechanics to them; 40% of that is changed in 2024. The ability improvement works differently and languages were completely eliminated.

Then after these changes the backgrounds themselves changed as well.

Ah yes, because clearly whether or not a stunned person can speak makes for radical differences.

Yes it is. If you can speak you can talk to other allies in combat and coordinate. Speaking is huge when it comes to cooperating.

2024 is truly a black box mystery to us now.

Not to me, but it sounds like it is to you as you don't even seem to realize these things have changed.

You are grasping at straws.

You are grasping at straws and claiming - well that change isn't really a change, and that change is actually an error so it doesn't count and backgrounds are the the same when they are not ....