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.

 

[Steampunkette]

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.

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.

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 the defining mechanical trait, and I would say that invocations/spell casting is the corollary here. I do hear your points though, and I understand why you disagree.

What separates a Fighter from a Barbarian isn't their weapon proficiencies. It's the Fighting Style versus the Rage. The Rage defines the Barbarian.

What separates the Warlock from the Wizard isn't their spell availability. It's the Patron vs the Spellbook. The Warlock is defined by their patron and their relationship (adversarial, antagonistic, or even supportive and happy).

A5e is a great point of contrast and comparison to why the choice to move the Patron to 3rd level is a bad design decision. And it's that great point of contrast by essentially giving every class "Invocations" in the form of tricks and traits that allow them more interactions with the second and third pillar.

Patrons define Warlocks, Bloodlines define Sorcerers, and Oaths define Paladins. Not just mechanically but narratively.

I recognize you're comfortable with the changes to D&D24, but it's still a bad design change. Especially for something that's meant to be a continuation of 5e rather than 6th edition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

All of this stuff works great narratively for the religious-branded Oaths. But that's not how they all work. If you're working toward Oath of Vengeance, where are your powers coming from before your parents are murdered and you swear to rid Gotham City of crime and avenge their death? And there are other examples where the religious-type story doesn't work. But mechanically it's all the same, so once again the narrative twists to service the mechanics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

O

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.

That's how I've always done it. Master and apprentice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What separates a Fighter from a Barbarian isn't their weapon proficiencies. It's the Fighting Style versus the Rage. The Rage defines the Barbarian.

What separates the Warlock from the Wizard isn't their spell availability. It's the Patron vs the Spellbook.

A5e is a great point of contrast and comparison to why the choice to move the Patron to 3rd level is a bad design decision. And it's that great point of contrast by essentially giving every class "Invocations" in the form of tricks and traits that allow them more interactions with the second and third pillar.

Patrons define Warlocks, Bloodlines define Sorcerers, and Oaths define Paladins. Not just mechanically but narratively.

I recognize you're comfortable with the changes to D&D24, but it's still a bad design change. Especially for something that's meant to be a continuation of 5e rather than 6th edition.

All of this would IMO work so much better if WotC had just bitten the bullet and made 6e. The cracks were apparent almost as soon as 5.5 was announced, and they grown wider over time, especially so now that it's out in the wild and we can see just how much of the "it's still 5e" narrative was marketing, IMO.

 

[Steampunkette]

All of this would IMO work so much better if WotC had just bitten the bullet and made 6e. The cracks were apparent almost as soon as 5.5 was announced, and they grown wider over time, especially so now that it's out in the wild and we can see just how much of the "it's still 5e" narrative was marketing, IMO.

If they'd done 6e they could've completely redone the archetypes which would've been infinitely better! Make the Patron a level 1 choice that gives you a spell list and a couple cute options, then make the 3rd level archetype be HOW you serve your Patron. Pact of the Blade, Chain, Tome, Star, Etc as archetypes would be way more appropriate, in my opinion. Could've also added in some "Patron Upgrade" levels here and there where you get something else ribbonish from your patron like new languages, skill bonuses, or something similar.

That would've been vastly better, I think, for the health of the Warlock in the long run.

Same sort of thing could've been done for the Sorcerer and Paladin if they'd just committed and full sent it.

 

[Xamnam]

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.

Sure! That's just not anything the books can rely on, or do anything about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure! That's just not anything the books can rely on, or do anything about.

The books and marketing could have (and did in the past I think) encouraged this though, and it was the way learning about the game was handled for a long time for a lot of players. Now, I'm not saying the idea can't be modernized. WotC could easily have put out training videos for D&D on their own, and used the books and marketing to direct new players to them. But they didn't because...wait, why exactly didn't they do that?

 

[Corinnguard]

All of this would IMO work so much better if WotC had just bitten the bullet and made 6e. The cracks were apparent almost as soon as 5.5 was announced, and they grown wider over time, especially so now that it's out in the wild and we can see just how much of the "it's still 5e" narrative was marketing, IMO.

While marketing is necessary to sell a product like 5.5, designing an RPG like 5.5 requires a good design team that knows what they are doing regardless of which way the wind is blowing in sales.

 

[Xamnam]

What separates a Fighter from a Barbarian isn't their weapon proficiencies. It's the Fighting Style versus the Rage. The Rage defines the Barbarian.

What separates the Warlock from the Wizard isn't their spell availability. It's the Patron vs the Spellbook. The Warlock is defined by their patron and their relationship (adversarial, antagonistic, or even supportive and happy).

A5e is a great point of contrast and comparison to why the choice to move the Patron to 3rd level is a bad design decision. And it's that great point of contrast by essentially giving every class "Invocations" in the form of tricks and traits that allow them more interactions with the second and third pillar.

Patrons define Warlocks, Bloodlines define Sorcerers, and Oaths define Paladins. Not just mechanically but narratively.

I recognize you're comfortable with the changes to D&D24, but it's still a bad design change. Especially for something that's meant to be a continuation of 5e rather than 6th edition.

Well hey, glad you've got A5e to design for, sincerely! From what I heard described, it sounds like it does a lot that I personally don't care for. Because I see positives to the decision, it's not a matter of comfort, I actively like the change. Calling the '24 design just straight up bad doesn't track for me. It has tradeoffs, and they'll hit differently for different people.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep, and you get ZERO magical powers along the way. Prep is fine, but it makes no narrative sense to require magical powers before you take the oath.

What's more, there's nothing that says any prep is necessary at all. I can have my paladins backstory that I took up a sword to go right the injustice done to my town. Bam! 1st level paladin with powers in 2.4 seconds. Then the first two levels come very quickly. It can happen in less than a day in game time. Where's the long time of prayer and prep there before I take the oath of vengeance? Heck, I just started smiting with magical powers with zero prayer and prep time and violated no RAW.