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.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Six seconds if you still want to attack, apparently.

6 seconds is an arbitrary number that Wizards pulled out of their ass. It has little bearing on anything real but it is a useful clock. I tend to regard that number a a guideline.

 

[Micah Sweet]

6 seconds is an arbitrary number that Wizards pulled out of their ass. It has little bearing on anything real but it is a useful clock. I tend to regard that number a a guideline.

I vastly prefer the 1 minute rounds of TSR, but even there it's an abstraction that can easily be a little more or less as needed. The six second thing always bugged me, because people take it as a hard limit.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, it's pretty clearly "an average of six seconds, with some rounds being longer and others being shorter" - it's pretty clear that some rounds have A LOT of stuff happen, and others do not.

My only issue with the "gamist vs simulationist" argument, and I'm not saying that you do this per se, @Micah Sweet, is that those of us who are more okay with gamist elements are often characterized by those who prefer tighter simultation, as allowing more nonsense or illogic in the stories of our games. (I can't tell if I worded that in a way that makes sense).

For example - I don't mind most gamist elements because there are already so many of them (HP, AC, on and on) that I've long-since learned to separate the mechanical consistencies from the story. I can (and do) describe an internally logical narrative even when the game appears to be trying to do otherwise. It's all about interpretation.

I don't have any problem with people that want the mechanics to be more simulationist - I just take issue with their mischaracterization of my approach. (This happened a LOT, of course, in the 4e Edition Wars, for example).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, it's pretty clearly "an average of six seconds, with some rounds being longer and others being shorter" - it's pretty clear that some rounds have A LOT of stuff happen, and others do not.

My only issue with the "gamist vs simulationist" argument, and I'm not saying that you do this per se, @Micah Sweet, is that those of us who are more okay with gamist elements are often characterized by those who prefer tighter simultation, as allowing more nonsense or illogic in the stories of our games. (I can't tell if I worded that in a way that makes sense).

For example - I don't mind most gamist elements because there are already so many of them (HP, AC, on and on) that I've long-since learned to separate the mechanical consistencies from the story. I can (and do) describe an internally logical narrative even when the game appears to be trying to do otherwise. It's all about interpretation.

I don't have any problem with people that want the mechanics to be more simulationist - I just take issue with their mischaracterization of my approach. (This happened a LOT, of course, in the 4e Edition Wars, for example).

Fair enough. I'm not trying to mischaracterize anyone, and I apologize if what I say comes off like that. Preferring or at least being good with more gamist elements is no less viable a playstyle than one with a more simulationist bent. Like you, what I don't like is the impression that those who don't agree with one's preference don't take the game seriously or are playing wrong.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Fair enough. I'm not trying to mischaracterize anyone, and I apologize if what I say comes off like that. Preferring or at least being good with more gamist elements is no less viable a playstyle than one with a more simulationist bent. Like you, what I don't like is the impression that those who don't agree with one's preference don't take the game seriously or are playing wrong.

Yeah, that can definitely go both ways. It's one of the big drawbacks to online discussions - it gets exhausting to type "IMO" and "YMMV" with every post (and can come off as strangely insincere if you overdo it, too). So we often post our opinions like they're facts, even when we don't mean to, and we get each other's backs up.

And then, of course, there are the occasional posters who (maybe) DO think that they way they play is superior to all others. I think that they're the rarity, though - I think it's more likely to be (more often) miscommunications that are down to the limitations of posting our thoughts.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Fair enough. I'm not trying to.mischaracterize anyone, and I apologize if what I say cones off like that. Preferring or at least being good with more gamist elements is no less viable a playstyle than one with a more dimulationist bent. Like you, what I don't like is the impression that those who don't agree with one's preference don't take the game seriously or are playing wrong.

What am I missing? Because I don't see the functional difference here. You are trading one issue for another. It's a zero sum argument.

Bob the world builder on youtube did a video on movement speed in a 6 second time frame. You can, with a brisk walk, move 30 feet in 6 seconds. He demonstrates this in the video. But this is just to illustrate the issue with the discussion. Changing that 6 second time frame just trades one issue for another. Cleans up some things to make others weird. Extend the time to 12 seconds and now we walk too slow. Extend it to a minute, and it gets worse. He, also. has a video that shows him having trouble chugging a potion in the time allotted. So if you want to "fix" that issue, you end up with a slow walking speed. If you speed it up to 3 seconds to make walking speed quicker, potions become undrinkable. Where is the net gain?

This is all to say that the "simulationist" arguments are awkward, when you aren't actually moving closer to that goal. They come off as "laboratory analysis" instead of anything relevant to game play, or even something productive in pursuit of "realism." It would take a reconstruction of the system from the ground up to achieve what is argued here. Anything short of that is just hot swapping issues based on personal preference. I don't care about walking speed simlation, but I do care about potions.

So it all seems like a pointless argument about personal preference of where the "simulation" falls apart. And would end in meaningless rules changes that don't actually do anything. Lets close one plot hole, and open another.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

What am I missing? Because I don't see the functional difference here. You are trading one issue for another. It's a zero sum argument.

Bob the world builder on youtube did a video on movement speed in a 6 second time frame. You can, with a brisk walk, move 30 feet in 6 seconds. He demonstrates this in the video. But this is just to illustrate the issue with the discussion. Changing that 6 second time frame just trades one issue for another. Cleans up some things to make others weird. Extend the time to 12 seconds and now we walk too slow. Extend it to a minute, and it gets worse. He, also. has a video that shows him having trouble chugging a potion in the time allotted. So if you want to "fix" that issue, you end up with a slow walking speed. If you speed it up to 3 seconds to make walking speed quicker, potions become undrinkable. Where is the net gain?

This is all to say that the "simulationist" arguments are awkward, when you aren't actually moving closer to that goal. They come off as "laboratory analysis" instead of anything relevant to game play, or even something productive in pursuit of "realism." It would take a reconstruction of the system from the ground up to achieve what is argued here. Anything short of that is just hot swapping issues based on personal preference. I don't care about walking speed simlation, but I do care about potions.

So it all seems like a pointless argument about personal preference of where the "simulation" falls apart. And would end in meaningless rules changes that don't actually do anything. Lets close one plot hole, and open another.

I think it's true that a LOT of simulationist arguments are undermined by the inconsistency - there's just no way to avoid gamist elements in a GAME - but I think that it's fair to say that there are spots that bother some people, and others that don't bother them, and this is true for everyone.

It's definitely pointless to argue about it, as it's all about preference. Discussing it to understand each other's reasoning, logic, and work-arounds has merit, though. It just doesn't usually happen that way!

 

[Micah Sweet]

What am I missing? Because I don't see the functional difference here. You are trading one issue for another. It's a zero sum argument.

Bob the world builder on youtube did a video on movement speed in a 6 second time frame. You can, with a brisk walk, move 30 feet in 6 seconds. He demonstrates this in the video. But this is just to illustrate the issue with the discussion. Changing that 6 second time frame just trades one issue for another. Cleans up some things to make others weird. Extend the time to 12 seconds and now we walk too slow. Extend it to a minute, and it gets worse. He, also. has a video that shows him having trouble chugging a potion in the time allotted. So if you want to "fix" that issue, you end up with a slow walking speed. If you speed it up to 3 seconds to make walking speed quicker, potions become undrinkable. Where is the net gain?

This is all to say that the "simulationist" arguments are awkward, when you aren't actually moving closer to that goal. They come off as "laboratory analysis" instead of anything relevant to game play, or even something productive in pursuit of "realism." It would take a reconstruction of the system from the ground up to achieve what is argued here. Anything short of that is just hot swapping issues based on personal preference. I don't care about walking speed simlation, but I do care about potions.

So it all seems like a pointless argument about personal preference of where the "simulation" falls apart. And would end in meaningless rules changes that don't actually do anything. Lets close one plot hole, and open another.

What this sounds like is my preference not lining up with yours, leading you to try to "disprove" my subjective opinion. Now that's a pointless discussion.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

What this sounds like is my preference not lining up with yours, leading you to try to "disprove" my subjective opinion. Now that's a pointless discussion.

This is not what I said. I said I think the whole discussion is weird and all time frames have the same core issues. I literally could care less what time is ascribed to a round. It could be an hour and my life doesn't change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is not what I said. I said I think the whole discussion is weird and all time frames have the same core issues. I literally could care less what time is ascribed to a round. It could be an hour and my life doesn't change.

I like roughly a minute because it gives a good balance of different actions that can place in about that time. It works better for me than six seconds.