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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but its a factor in what kind of fiction you want to see.

Do you want to see the heroics of Gimli and Aragorn holding the gate from a tide of Orcs, or do you want to see them fall because its simply not realistic for 2 beings to beat 20?

I want to set up a logical scenario, taking into account as many factors as possible (including how impressive the both sides are in combat prowess and ingenuity) and see how it goes. I'm not interested in generating any particular fiction, I want to see what fiction results from the intersection of setting logic and PC action.

 

[Greg Benage]

Why the heck would anyone make melee combat more powerful than ranged?

I, personally, don't want melee to be more powerful than ranged, but I also don't want the hand crossbow to be the superior weapon of war from melee to 120 feet (inclusive).

From a game design perspective, at least with D&D, it seems a balance was typically sought between ranged and melee combat. In B/X, for example, one couldn't use a ranged weapon against a target within 5 feet or less, and while Dexterity provided a "to hit" modifier to missile attacks, as Strength did for melee attacks, there was no modifier to damage (unlike Strength for melee attacks). If the variable weapon damage rules were used, a sword would also do more damage than an arrow, even setting the damage bonus aside. On the other hand, missile fire was resolved before melee attacks in the combat sequence.

This seems reasonably well balanced--both ranged and melee weapons have advantages and disadvantages in different situations. In 5e, a CBE/SS/Archery character will deal the most damage in melee or at range, ignoring cover and range penalties. Even if you're not especially concerned about "game balance," this is just goofy, and the fact that a hand crossbow is the tool of choice is just salt in the wound.

 

[Scribe]

I want to set up a logical scenario, taking into account as many factors as possible (including how impressive the both sides are in combat prowess and ingenuity) and see how it goes. I'm not interested in generating any particular fiction, I want to see what fiction results from the intersection of setting logic and PC action.

Fair. I just want to see some action and good times at this point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fair. I just want to see some action and good times at this point.

Also fair. And Shadowdark is awesome.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It makes perfect sense for ranged to be stronger as a tactic, because that's the way weapons work. Your logic is gamist. Why should you get a mechanical reward for doing something just because it's more dangerous? I can see the PC maybe getting something like hazard pay, but that's it.

Because despite the fact that you hate it with every fiber of your being, DnD is a game, not a reality simulator.

Secondly, nothing we talked about whatsoever was about TACTICS. It was about damage. That was what "more powerful" meant. Tactics are an entirely different beast to tackle and require much more nuance.

 

[ECMO3]

I, personally, don't want melee to be more powerful than ranged, but I also don't want the hand crossbow to be the superior weapon of war from melee to 120 feet (inclusive).

IMO spells should be the superior "weapon" of war.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because despite the fact that you hate it with every fiber of your being, DnD is a game, not a reality simulator.

Secondly, nothing we talked about whatsoever was about TACTICS. It was about damage. That was what "more powerful" meant. Tactics are an entirely different beast to tackle and require much more nuance.

D&D is a game and a reality simulator. It always has been, to varying degrees and with different levels of priority. You and I have very different opinions on those levels, and we're not going to agree.

 

[vagabundo]

D&D is a game and a reality simulator. It always has been, to varying degrees and with different levels of priority. You and I have very different opinions on those levels, and we're not going to agree.

Not our reality though, its own DND reality. Nothing in DND stands up to any scrutiny.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not our reality though, its own DND reality. Nothing in DND stands up to any scrutiny.

Not true. People choose to play that way because they want to, not because they have no choice. Outside of supernatural elements, there's nothing that demands the game not make logical, real world sense.

 

[Bluenose]

Why the heck would anyone make melee combat more powerful than ranged?

Because, demonstrably, before gunpowder, it was?

It seems quite reasonable that fighting in a way that was more lethal would be, wel more lethal.