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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, not just moving the training wheels. Moving the wheels so that the class makes better narrative sense. Right now the paladin through his belief in his oath can get divine abilities and then stop progressing at level two, then betray the oath daily and not lose his abilities. Go to level 3 which just makes the oath official and he would lose those abilities from levels 1-2. Moving the oath to level 1 stops that from happening.

That's a straw man. Losing your abilities is not a rule in 5e, no matter what you do. It's down to DM fiat.

But from a narrative rather than rules perspective, making such an Oath must be magical/holy, or anyone could do it for a quick burst of power when needed, then drop it when it became inconvenient. Ergo in order to make such a powerful oath the novice must already have learned some magic/holy abilities. The magical abilities of a second level paladin do not come from the oath, they come from the study and prayer they have done in order to be able to take the oath.

 

[pemerton]

The specific Oath is of course malleable. The fact that you take take an Oath ar level 3 and that's where your power comes from isn't, but somehow where you power comes from before that is. Why is that?

From here:

The most important aspect of a paladin character is the nature of his or her holy quest. Although the class features related to your oath don’t appear until you reach 3rd level, plan ahead for that choice by reading the oath descriptions at the end of the class. Are you a devoted servant of good, loyal to the gods of justice and honor, a holy knight in shining armor venturing forth to smite evil? Are you a glorious champion of the light, cherishing everything beautiful that stands against the shadow, a knight whose oath descends from traditions older than many of the gods? Or are you an embittered loner sworn to take vengeance on those who have done great evil, sent as an angel of death by the gods or driven by your need for revenge? . . .

How did you experience your call to serve as a paladin? Did you hear a whisper from an unseen god or angel while you were at prayer? Did another paladin sense the potential within you and decide to train you as a squire? Or did some terrible event—the destruction of your home, perhaps—drive you to your quests? Perhaps you stumbled into a sacred grove or a hidden elven enclave and found yourself called to protect all such refuges of goodness and beauty. Or you might have known from your earliest memories that the paladin’s life was your calling, almost as if you had been sent into the world with that purpose stamped on your soul.​

I don't think the answer to your question is being kept secret! The game's rules answer it - the paladin is called by the relevant sort of being from the outset of their paladinhood. The mechanical features associated with their oath come online at 3rd level.

For the Oath of Devotion, those mechanical features are Turn Undead (which also comes online for AD&D paladins at the same level), Sacred Weapon (which is no different from other abilities being level-gated) and access to two additional 1st level spells (which AD&D paladins don't get access to until 9th level).

I'm am 100% missing what you even think the issue is here.

 

[pemerton]

Right now the paladin through his belief in his oath can get divine abilities and then stop progressing at level two, then betray the oath daily and not lose his abilities.

Here is the text on Breaking Your Oath from that same page on D&D Beyond:

A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.

A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.

If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.​

There is nothing there that makes 3rd level of any significance for a paladin's conduct, standards, virtue, or breaking of vows.

And the preceding text, which I've already quoted, tells us that what happens at 3rd level is that the paladin's oath-related abilities come online. Prior to that, all paladin PCs are mechanically the same (as far as class is concerned) regardless of oath. But the player and GM - together, or one of them unilaterally if the table's understanding of authority over the fiction runs that way - can already take the oath to have been committed to, just as the text that I have quoted sets out.

The text for 3rd level itself says the following, under the heading Sacred Oath:

you swear the oath that binds you as a paladin forever. Up to this time you have been in a preparatory stage, committed to the path but not yet sworn to it.​

What does the preparatory stage look like, in the fiction? What oaths and vows does it involve? The preceding text gives us some ideas, and I'm sure creative FRPGers can think of more. The oath that is sworn at 3rd level is the one that binds forever - a type of taking irrevocable holy orders. This implies that a 1st or 2nd level paladin can back out; it certainly does not imply that they can "betray the oath [of devotion, or the ancients, or whatever] daily and not lose their abilities". Quite the opposite - it implies that if they withdraw from the order, and foreswear their abilities, they can lose them without further repercussion - "no harm, no foul". Not that they can withdraw and yet retain them!

 

[Steampunkette]

Sure, you CAN do that. It is an OPTION. But it is not the only way to achieve the same result. I can be a Fiend Warlock with multiple pacts, each pact tied to a different spell or ability RIGHT NOW. Absolutely nothing prevents me from doing this.

This is a flexibility created by the design decision made, a path that was taken. Just because your design sensibilities would cause you to do it differently does not mean it was a mistake to do it the way they did.

Okay...

How does that make moving Patrons to level 3 a good design decision rather than a bad design decision or even a neutral design decision?

From my perspective it's an attempt to homogenize power gain independent of class narrative. It takes something the 5e Warlock gets at level 1 and moves it to level 3 exclusively to make the class' leveling progression line up with the other classes.

There is some effort made to 'fix' the narrative through the "Mysterious Voice" angle, but it's still a major narrative change for purely mechanical reasons.

For a Roleplaying Game I find that to be a bad design decision.

Fighters are good at fighting. That's their narrative. What makes a fighter interesting is deciding -how- and -why- they're good at fighting.

Rogues are good at sneaking around backstabbing people. That's their narrative. What makes a rogue interesting is deciding mostly why but also how they do it. (Insert tragic backstory here)

Rangers are good at not having a solid mechanical basis or narrative core beyond kinda being scouts with a connection to nature magic, I guess, maybe? Depends on the edition and current 'Ranger Rework'.

But for Warlocks the defining feature of their story is who they're connected to and what their deal has gained and cost them. Sorcerers are similar through their bloodlines. Paladins are all about their oaths and the power they draw from it.

Can you claim your Paladin made their oath at level 1 to gain their lay on hands and stuff? Sure. You can do the "Finalize the Oath" thing or whatever. Same with Warlocks getting 2 levels of "Freebie Mode" where they don't -actually- sign their contract 'til level 3.

But it doesn't change the fact that by the changes WotC wrought, and their attempt to make 24D&D into a "Continuation of 5e rather than a new edition" they've dramatically changed the structure of these classes so that the main drive, the main narrative element of the classes, isn't given to you 'til 3rd level.

I don't know who they think they're kidding...

 

[Steampunkette]

Steampunkette's entire thing about warlocks boils down to a single line of flavor text that is trivially altered, because Warlock's can gain their powers in a myriad of ways.

If that's what you have gotten from this, I guess there's no point in further discussion.

 

[Xamnam]

How does that make moving Patrons to level 3 a good design decision rather than a bad design decision or even a neutral design decision?

From my perspective it's an attempt to homogenize power gain independent of class narrative. It takes something the 5e Warlock gets at level 1 and moves it to level 3 exclusively to make the class' leveling progression line up with the other classes.

I see two outcomes that make it an actively positive decision, completely divorced from the homogenization of power:

• Mechanically, it takes away a potentially complicated choice at the point most likely to have someone overwhelmed with choice, or unsure of the impact of what they are doing, and let's them get to play in a simpler and more direct fashion.
• Narratively, it allows for a player to try out their character, and see what direction actual play is driving the character in / what discoveries they are experiencing, which might readily have an impact on what choice they would make for a Patron. Similarly, it reduces the chance of someone making a choice at level one that they realize they actually regret/doesn't fit the character. (If the cleric in one of my campaigns had been able to wait until level 3 to make their choice, they absolutely would have picked Nature over Life. I've offered them the chance to change, no cost, and they like the idea, but are stressed about having to re-learn their character mechanically.)

These benefits do stand in conflict with a character who has a strongly defined backstory and inciting characterization based around their subclass choice, and so I totally understand why some people might not like it overall. But, I personally would say it is completely possible to still play out that story exactly the same even if the specific mechanical "choice" and associated powers don't technically come until level 3, and I would argue it's much easier to do that than the reverse, playing a neophyte with an unsure or open backstory but still having to make a definitional choice at the first level.

 

[SkidAce]

The magical abilities of a second level paladin do not come from the oath, they come from the study and prayer they have done in order to be able to take the oath.

This is what I was going to say, phrased better.

 

[Steampunkette]

I see two outcomes that make it an actively positive decision, completely divorced from the homogenization of power:

• Mechanically, it takes away a potentially complicated choice at the point most likely to have someone overwhelmed with choice, or unsure of the impact of what they are doing, and let's them get to play in a simpler and more direct fashion.

So the homogenization of class complication rather than the homogenization of power?

It would be a stronger argument if the D&D24 Warlock didn't have to choose their Invocations at level 1 instead of their patron. Instead of a list of 4 Patron choices, you get a list of 5 available and 23 that you can't pick. And those 5 available are scattered across the total 28 in alphabetical order rather than being presented by level, so you have to search through the list to find your actual options.

And THEN you also pick your cantrips and spells from an even larger list.

Picking Cantrips/Spells/Patron or picking Cantrips/Spells/Invocations isn't a significant categorical difference, but patron vs invocations is.

• Narratively, it allows for a player to try out their character, and see what direction actual play is driving the character in / what discoveries they are experiencing, which might readily have an impact on what choice they would make for a Patron. Similarly, it reduces the chance of someone making a choice at level one that they realize they actually regret/doesn't fit the character. (If the cleric in one of my campaigns had been able to wait until level 3 to make their choice, they absolutely would have picked Nature over Life. I've offered them the chance to change, no cost, and they like the idea, but are stressed about having to re-learn their character mechanically.)

Except it doesn't change the number of level 1 decision points. If someone at level 3 decides "Pact of the Blade" doesn't fit their character because it turns out Warlocks aren't that good at fighting in melee next to the party's fighter they still made that level 1 choice to pick one of the 5 available options.

And may still feel stuck with their choice because of having to "Relearn their Character" or how deeply narrative they went on their Pact weapon being an important aspect of their character's identity. Like a fencing character, or 'it was my father's axe that my patron returned to me' or something similar.

The choice hasn't changed in a positive manner, the potential pitfalls haven't changed, only the narrative has been split.

These benefits do stand in conflict with a character who has a strongly defined backstory and inciting characterization based around their subclass choice, and so I totally understand why some people might not like it overall. But, I personally would say it is completely possible to still play out that story exactly the same even if the specific mechanical "choice" and associated powers don't technically come until level 3, and I would argue it's much easier to do that than the reverse, playing a neophyte with an unsure or open backstory but still having to make a definitional choice at the first level.

It's definitely harder to pretend to not know who your patron is in 5e than D&D24 because of the structure of the class. But I don't think that's a flaw of the class or the design. In fact it's true to the fiction that inspired the class.

The various characters of literature and media who make the "Deal with the Devil" broadly know who they're dealing with. There are exceptions, of course, with mysterious entities making the deal. But generally speaking you -know- who you're dealing with and why. And that narrative is what drives the core character identity.

Splitting it off this way makes the traditional presentation into the outlier that isn't supported by the ruleset in favor of the nontraditional presentation being shown as default.

It's sort of akin to moving Barbarian Rage to 3rd level. It's the defining characteristic of the concept. Could you do a story about a "Barbarian finding something to be angry about"? Sure.

But it shouldn't be the default.

 

[Corinnguard]

Mechanically, it takes away a potentially complicated choice at the point most likely to have someone overwhelmed with choice, or unsure of the impact of what they are doing, and let's them get to play in a simpler and more direct fashion.

This particular outcome depends on whether or not the player is new to D&D. If they are new to D&D, there are classes that are easy to try out and are not particularly complicated. The Fighter class being one such class. I could see a DM telling such a player to try and role-play the Fighter so that they can gain experience learning D&D before trying on an additional layer of complexity that comes with a class such as the Warlock. I am referring to their spellcasting and invocations.

Similarly, it reduces the chance of someone making a choice at level one that they realize they actually regret/doesn't fit the character.

True. Some players are going to get that feeling and wonder if they might have made the wrong choices when designing and role-playing their character. What they do with that feeling is up to them and the DM. The first character a new player makes for D&D isn't going to be perfect. But they will help the player do better with the characters they later create for future adventures.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a straw man. Losing your abilities is not a rule in 5e, no matter what you do. It's down to DM fiat.

It can't be a strawman since it's my original position(makes better narrative sense) and I didn't attribute anything to you that you didn't post(training wheels).

But from a narrative rather than rules perspective, making such an Oath must be magical/holy, or anyone could do it for a quick burst of power when needed, then drop it when it became inconvenient. Ergo in order to make such a powerful oath the novice must already have learned some magic/holy abilities. The magical abilities of a second level paladin do not come from the oath, they come from the study and prayer they have done in order to be able to take the oath.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't need to have built up any other magical powers for an oath to be serious or take a while. He also could have built up to it for a long time in a non-magical fashion at 0 level. Or, and this is the biggest and hardest part, you need to have absolute and sincere faith in the oath, which almost no one alive has. True faith on that level is exceedingly rare.