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.

 

[Xamnam]

Strong disagree. Experienced players, in person or through something like a training video, is IMO the best way to teach new players, and I think the book should be encouraging this.

I really hate watching video tutorials for anything, every person I've watched teach the game has brought their personal biases into the process (which is inevitable, and not inherently bad, but wildly variable), and I taught myself to play by reading through the PHB, so I'm going to advocate for the experience that worked well for me. Some DMs, if they had been the first person I'd played for, would have either turned me off of the game, or given me bad habits. I much prefer having the consistent starting point of text, so at least folks meet on a level ground and have a shared background.

I do want to say, I acknowledge that it can be nigh impossible to capture the full breadth of what is possible from a TTRPG, depending on the game, in a reasonably sized book.

What do you think a game designer's job is? Actually curious.

Off the cuff, to craft mechanics, rules, and boundaries/restrictions that convey their desired experience to the players of their game as consistently and effectively as possible?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

1) Subclasses are refinements of the Class. At level 1 you pick your class, and then you get that and level 2 to figure out how you want to take it. A Feylock with their teleportation style is going to play very differently than a celestial warlock with their healing. Taking that mechanical angle and pushing it back does give newer players a chance to evaluate the class and see what their options are.

2) Level 1 dips are a bit of a menace. In that specific case of the warlock, this change is pretty darn important in preventing level 1 dips from being absolutely insane. A Level 1 2024 Warlock who could get their fiend abilities at level 1 would be able to, with a single level: learn four 1st level spells, learn two cantrips, gain a spell slot that refreshes on a short rest, gain an eldritch invocation, gain regenerating temporary hp from dropping enemies.

That is A LOT from a single class dip.

2a) You also do far more damage to a playstyle concept by moving the former pact boons to 3rd level. A Pact of the Blade warlock is going to spend those first two levels relying on Eldritch Blast, then suddenly swap to fighting in melee? We saw how that worked out previously, and it wasn't good for the class.

3) It opens up narrative space, as I've said.

4) It does homogenize things a bit, and that is actually potentially important. Not only does "every class gets a refinement and more unique path at level 3" help people learn the game better, but it also gives signals to the DM. If they are playing from level 1, then they know that level 3 is going to be a big deal. They can work that into the narrative. But if they have the previous version, then some classes get it at level 1, some at level 2, and some at level 3.... and then we move into the more traditional break points of 5, 11, 17 and 20.

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.

Why do you find mechanical reasons bad for a game? Role-playing games do need to consider narrative elements, I won't deny that, but they are also games with mechanics that need to be considered. Again, prioritizing one over the other is a choice, not an objective moral game design standard.

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'.

Disagree

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.

See, again, this is where I think you are misunderstanding. You can absolutely have the contract signed at level 0. You keep equating "pick the Fiend Subclass" to "sign the pact with a fiendish entity" but NOTHING says that has to be the case. The flavor text of the mysterious voice is for level 1 pact magic, not the class as a whole. You are taking them having some fun with the flavor text as an iron-clad rule, and it is not. You CAN do it that way, but you are not REQUIRED to do it that way.

 

[Imaro]

I'm glad you like the change, then... but it's still a bad design decision. It still splits the narrative element that defines warlocks in a way that seriously undermines them in relation to the narratives that inspired and defined the class.

But you're picking and choosing the narrative you like and claiming it's the one that defines the class... but honestly the one true way Warlock you are advocating for is an old interpretation and misses the mark on much more recent and more creative versions.

Furthermore the Warlock gains power from an entity at 1st lvl... Invocations this is comparable to a barbarians rage that you speak of below

Like moving Rage to 3rd level. The Barbarian intro is 5 lines about their rage and 3 lines about them being leaders and adventurers. And then give them, like, Brutal Critical options at level 1, instead, or something. The narrative importance of the rage is there from level 1, but the actual function of it isn't. It'd suck.

But in 5e Barbarians are primal powered warriors not just raging berserker but
... we don't get that till 3rd level.

It's not about the power. It's about the narrative. It's why I think if they'd just full sent it into 6e and turned the Patron into a ribbon or minor abilities and made Pact Boons into Archetypes it'd have worked better.

Again you're only concerned with 1 type of narrative, telling one type Warlock story... and that's where I feel your design focus is bad compared to the 2024 PHB

As a designer it's my job to get across the core identity of a character class at level 1. To encapsulate in the ruleset what it is that separates that class from every other class.

Why if one of your mandates is that 1st level is the beginning of the apprentice tier for the game you are designing for. I would think better design would be for the earlier levels to represent the act of you growing into your defining power/abilities/etc... you know like an... apprentice.

It's why the Champion starts out with a Righteous Cause. The Gunslinger starts out with Grit. The Sentinel starts with their Companion. The Warcaster starts out with a Casting Style and Initiation.

Yes and starting one with power (aka not in the apprentice tier narratively) is a valid option... itseasy enough to do by starting at 3rd lvl in 5e 2024 but it does miss on actually playing out what many would consider ⁷the apprentice tier narratively.

Each of these elements are meant to deliver the class fantasy right out of the gate. They're core, tangible, elements of the class that define them.

So are invocations, rage, lay on hands, etc... what they dont give you right out of the gate is the main or majority of the classes core abilities out of the gate because we are in apprentice tier...

Meanwhile of the 11 sentences introducing Warlocks, 8 are focused on their Patrons and their relationships with their patrons. Not their Invocations. Not their spellcasting. Patrons. Patrons they don't get 'til 3rd level.

It's bad design.

Nah it's different. It fully works for the overall design of 5e (better in fact than 2014 when tiers of play are used as actual guidelines for narrative progression)... question does A5e have tiers of play and if so... what are they?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

You can't change a subclass choice after you make it.

You can change cantrips and Eldritch evocations at every level up.

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.

Then play the character knowing who they dealt with. It is literally as simple as that. The rules "don't support it" because the rules don't care who you made a deal with. "The Fiend" covers: Abishai, Alkilith, Amnizu, Arcanaloth, Armanite, Baernaloth, Balor, Barlgura, Chain devil, Chasme, Cornugon, Devourer, Dhergoloth, Draegloth, Erinyes, Fang of Yeenoghu, Farastu, Gelugon, Glabrezu, Goristro, Hamatula, Hezrou, Hydroloth, Succubus/Incubus, Kelubar, Maelephant, Marilith, Maurezhi, Mezzoloth, Molydeus, Night hag, Nabassu, Nalfeshnee, Nycaloth, Oinoloth, Orthon, Osyluth, Pit fiend, Rakshasa, Shator, Shoosuva, Sibriex, Ultroloth, Vrock, Wastrilith, Yochlol, Yagnoloth

And that is BEFORE getting into the named Dukes, Duchesses, Archdukes, Archduchesses, Princes, Princesses, Obryths, ect.

Making a deal with a Succubus is a very different thing than making a deal with an Oinoloth is a very different thing than making a deal with a Rakshasa... and those story elements are not present here. Because that is handled by the story. Not the mechanics.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

It is odd to me how many of these arguments for paladin start with "But if my character doesn't have the moral fiber to be a paladin..." like someone forcing them to take an oath or lose entire class levels will somehow make the problem go away if they choose to play someone who is incapable of following the morality they designed them around.

 

[Imaro]

It is odd to me how many of these arguments for paladin start with "But if my character doesn't have the moral fiber to be a paladin..." like someone forcing them to take an oath or lose entire class levels will somehow make the problem go away if they choose to play someone who is incapable of following the morality they designed them around.

Truth be told I'm much more baffled by the arguments that seem to want to narrow pretty broad archetypes into one true way of play paths both narratively and mechanically in a game of imagnation.

 

[Maxperson]

Who said you get them that way... you're creating your own narrative and then claiming it doesn't make sense. Nowhere does it say devotion to an oath grants a paladins lower lvl powers.

It says straight out that they get their power from the oath, and that breaking the oath causes them to lose that power. Devotion to the oath is built into that.

 

[Imaro]

It says straight out that they get their power from the oath, and that breaking the oath causes them to lose that power.

Neither of these is true

Devotion to the oath is built into that.

So we are just making stuff up now...

 

[SkidAce]

The most important thing is to make the game accessible to new players, so D&D players don’t become a dying elite.

I agree accessibility is important.

As far as dying out? we've survived ups and down in popularity, and through it current players brought in new players in a continuous cycle.

(side effect, I've got newbie players who are dm ing old school "DnD is a tool kit style", so I'm confident it will carry on.

 

[Maxperson]

They get a limited subset of a priest’s powers during training.

There's no training required. If you look at the creating a paladin section it ranges from training under another paladin to stumbling into somewhere and being called to defend it.

Sure, it can be fluffed differently, that’s a matter for players and DMs. But it still doesn’t matter what level they get oath-specific abilities.

For any class, experienced players probably know what subclass they are going to choose from the start, but it doesn’t matter if they only have general abilities in the first session. The most important thing is to make the game accessible to new players, so D&D players don’t become a dying elite.

If one extra ability is going to make the game inaccessible and turn us into a dying elite, humanity is doomed. Divine Sense, Lay on Hands and Sacred Oath is only a hair more complex than Divine Sense and Lay on Hands.