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.

 

[Maxperson]

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!

There is no oath for them to break at that point. Being committed to the path is not the same as having taken the oath. If they have not sworn the oath, they quite literally can never be an oath breaker with regard to that oath. Without being an oath breaker, they cannot be made to lose their powers. At least as that is written.

The paladin can do anything or act in any manner without losing the level 1 and 2 abilities. At least not unless he takes the 3rd level of paladin and takes the oath.

 

[Maxperson]

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

They come from the faith and sincere belief in the oath, yet until 3rd level you can violate that faith and belief with no repercussions. Prayer and study can help you achieve that faith and belief, but it's not the oath alone that gives the power.

 

[Maxperson]

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.


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.

I think WotC's entire premise is flawed. 1st level has never been complicated because it had a few more abilities than 5e's level 1. It was complicated because it had many more rules to know. To assume that people would find 5e hard or too complicated if they started at level 3 for their first game is rather insulting to those people.

 

[Imaro]

There is no oath for them to break at that point. Being committed to the path is not the same as having taken the oath. If they have not sworn the oath, they quite literally can never be an oath breaker with regard to that oath. Without being an oath breaker, they cannot be made to lose their powers. At least as that is written.

The paladin can do anything or act in any manner without losing the level 1 and 2 abilities. At least not unless he takes the 3rd level of paladin and takes the oath.

Yep...swearing that oath is him holding himself to a higher standard, which if he betrays or cannot do brings more dire consequences... this is basic narrative structure for this archetype... It's the difference between Lancelot and Galahad. Galahad holds himself to a higher standard than Lancelot and thus is able to find the holy grail... though both were knights of the round table.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep...swearing that oath is him holding himself to a higher standard, which if he betrays or cannot do brings more dire consequences... this is basic narrative structure for this archetype... It's the difference between Lancelot and Galahad. Galahad holds himself to a higher standard than Lancelot and thus is able to find the holy grail... though both were knights of the round table.

But that's bupkis narratively. If you get the abilities through faith and devotion to the oath, even if you haven't taken it, then betraying everything the oath stands for should cost you those abilities, even if you never get to 3rd level to take the oath. Betrayal = no believing and/or having no faith in the oath.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Paladins have magical abilities before they swear the Oath. Where's the lore of where those abilities come from? The Oath concept is pretty specific, and gives you specific abilities depending on the Oath. But you still have power before that, and the source of that power is very vague and, IMO, hand-wavey. Why the different approaches to the class fantasy and lore of the same class?

 

[Xamnam]

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.

Sure, you can phrase it that way. I would probably choose slower/gradual rollout of class complication. Spellcasters are already significantly more complicated to build than other classes, so removing some of the complication from what is already the densest build point is a positive in my eyes.

I'm not going to argue that invocations aren't a pain point of their own, I don't personally like them at level 1, but they are explicitly replaceable, much more so compared to a patron choice.

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.

Like most of this, it's going to come down to personal preference, but as the Patron feels more character defining, I'm much more comfortable with realizing an invocation is a bad fit. Especially given, as mentioned above, there is text calling them out as replaceable. There's certainly still room for regret there, I don't disagree, but that feels more on the level of not liking your spells or weapon choice, as opposed to your Oath, Deity, Monk Path, etc., and therefore not as potentially frustrating, and thus if you're going to give level 1 choices, a better one.

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.

In my personal media consumption, I feel like mysterious entity has been a very prevalent concept, well balanced to the intentional and specific entity seeking. Lots of folks tempted and entranced by the mystery of cosmic entities beyond their understanding, or signing contracts they don't fully grok the implications or authors of. I understand that's anecdotal, though.

I don't want to repeat myself unnecessarily, but I still feel like the current format allows for both stories without hitting mechanical restrictions. Paladin is another class people bring up similar issues with, and under the 14 rules, I never felt like my character was ever not going to swear the Oath of the Ancients. He played that from day one, even though he got nothing mechanically from it. But, if his story had gone a different way before that point, he was much more free to follow that calling.

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.

It's the defining mechanical trait, and I would say that invocations/spell casting is the corollary here. [Edit: I realized this wasn't a strong point, nor the point I really wanted to make, so I'm dropping it fully. What I should have said is that Rage doesn't require a choice, it's an identical fact of all Barbarians at that point, versus having to make an active choice when it comes to Patrons.]

I do hear your points though, and I understand why you disagree.

 

[Xamnam]

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.


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.

Fair points! I just think it's positive design choice to attempt to reduce that frustration and confusion, and make all classes more approachable for new or unconfident players.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

That is what doesn’t make sense. It takes 5-8 years of preparation before you can take your vows as a catholic priest. You cannot just walk in off the street and take your vows.

 

[Corinnguard]

O

Fair points! I just think it's positive design choice to attempt to reduce that frustration and confusion, and make all classes more approachable for new or unconfident players.

One good way to achieve this is by joining a table that has experienced players who are just as knowledgeable about D&D as the DM is.