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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then why doesn't everyone with those qualities get super-powers?

Why isn't every Catholic Mother Teresa?

 

[Maxperson]

Neither of these is true

I mean...

"...a paladin's oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion."

I don't see how you can argue that it doesn't say that they get their power from their oath.

Breaking their oath can result in the forced abandonment of the paladin class. They are no longer a paladin, which means loss of all paladin abilities.

So I don't see how you can argue that it doesn't say that they lose their powers via breaking their oath.

So we are just making stuff up now...

No. What I said is true and it builds devotion into it. To keep the oath you have to be devoted to it.

 

[Imaro]

I mean...

"...a paladin's oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion."

I don't see how you can argue that it doesn't say that they get their power from their oath.

It says it is a source of power not their only source of power... it does grant oath specific abilities... which don't include 1st or 2nd lvl abilities.

Breaking their oath can result in the forced abandonment of the paladin class. They are no longer a paladin, which means loss of all paladin abilities.

Are we talking about 2024... also the key word is can... as in it can happen but may not.

So I don't see how you can argue that it doesn't say that they lose their powers via breaking their oath.

Because it doesnt, see above.

No. What I said is true and it builds devotion into it. To keep the oath you have to be devoted to it.

No you're giving us your interpretation... as opposed to what it actually says.

 

[pemerton]

Does being driven by your need for revenge give you super-powers?

Then why doesn't everyone with those qualities get super-powers?

You describe yourself as an "OSR enthusiast". So presumably you're familiar with this, from Gygax's DMG (p 38):

It is then assumed that prior to becoming a first level cleric, the player character received a course of instruction, served a novitiate, and has thoroughly read and committed to memory the teachings of and prayers to his or her chosen deity, so that the character is dedicated to this deity and is able to perform as a cleric thereof. It is this background which enables the cleric character to use first level spells.

Furthermore, continued service and activity on behalf of the player character's deity empower him or her to use second level spells as well . . .​

So why can't anyone just decide that their character has received instruction and memorised teachings and prayers, as part of their PC background.

The PHB says this about druids (p 21):

They hold trees (particularly oak and ash), the sun, and the moon as deities. Mistletoe is the holy symbol of druids, and it gives power to their spells.​

Why can't anyone who reveres nature and has some mistletoe ready to hand cast druid spells?

When it comes to paladins, all the PHB gives us about their source of power is that "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins" (p 22). Why does not every character who pursues law and good deeds get the abilities of a paladin?

D&D has also rested on an assumption that some people are special, and that as a result their devotion, reverence, dedication etc grants them supernatural powers that other people do not, even if they are - at least from their subjective perspective - just as devout, reverent, dedicated etc.

 

[pemerton]

Excellent. Then the breaking your oath section kicks in at 1st level regardless. It happens when a paladin violates a vow or his oath. They use vow and oath interchangeably in that section.

So just to be clear, you've changed your mind on this issue?

 

[Mecheon]

But not goliaths and firbolg. Speaking of which, those two are much closer together than half-elf and elf. Talk about conflicting design space!

Firbolg aren't in the PHB?

That's basically my argument. Half elves conflict too much on the elf design space so they're best left for other books. Just like Firbolgs are in another book, that's where Half Elves should be

I mean, if you want to view right this second half-elves are very popular as history, I guess. I really don't see how half-giants or half-angels can be more distinct than half-elves. They are all literally half the race and half human.

Angels and giants aren't playable. Elves are. Aasimar adiditonally function as anti-tieflings which, y'know. Kinda popular

That's the long and short of it. As long as elves and humans are playable (which, they both are), half elves feel incredibly unnecessary as a base race. They're not as bad as like, Aquatic Elf That Turns Into Otters As Distinct from Dolphins, but they're a variant on elves at their heart, and as long as elves are playable? They're going to seem "Why is this a distinct option?", especially when the other options are as varied as dwarves, orcs and dragonborn

I disagree very much. The core book is exactly where you put the most popular races.

Githyanki are more popular than ever due to BG3, yet they're not in the PHB and I don't see anyone arguing for it

You can't use stat bonus to say half-elves are powerful, though. Other races get it as well. Or at least they did until 5.5e. Didn't they move stat bonuses away from race?

They did, but the layout they have means you get +2, +1, +1, which is a dang useful spread. In addition their overall abilities tend to function well with everything

They're the second most powerful base race in 5E, only behind Variant Human due to the feat. This isn't just me saying it, this is a widespread thing among the community who do character builds.

They've never been watered down elves. Not in any edition. Since the beginning they have been a race distinct from elves. That's why both elves and half-elves are popular to play. If half-elves were just watered down elves, you'd not see many people playing them. You don't generally choose the watered down versions of things.

The only edition they haven't been watere down elves in is 4E, where they got the diplomacy thing.

AD&D has the 30% charm resist (down from 90% charm) and the concealed door thing that elves had, with looser class restrictions (though not as loose as human)
3E's are so close the SRD includes Half Elf under Elf. They have the immune to Sleep spells, +2 bonus against enchantments, a weakened version of the Listen/Search/Spot bonus (that doesn't let them see secret doors this time around), Low Light vision, and the "For effects related to race, a half elf is considered an elf" part

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point is for someone to have the drive, resolve and will to become a Paladin of Vengeance they would be dedicated enough to discard these things (which you've already admitted majority of normal people don't do) as well as numerous other reasons. In other words that type of dedication, circumstances, etc all lining up would be rare in most campaign settings.

Still have a hard time believing you get super-powers, no strings attached, just from wanting something hard enough, but fair enough.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me, at least from what I've garnered from both you and Steampunkette, there seems to be a disconnect between the narrative of tier 0 adventurers and how at least some of them have been implemented mechanically.... and narratively in A5e.



Edit: Which is to say...a Warlock who is... just beginning to learn how dangerous the world around them can really be...but is summoning and making pacts with named entities, has access to invocations, spells and secrets of arcana... just seems like there is a narrative/mechanical disconnect. You don't think so?

I think making a pact with something, with the quid pro quo that implies, is what makes a Warlock a Warlock, and you should do that at level 1 (when you take the warlock class).

 

[Micah Sweet]

None of this is an ad hoc ergo propter hoc. None of it. We aren't saying that the narrative exists because of the mechanics, or that the mechanics exist because of the narrative. That sort of information flow in a single direction doesn't even make sense in this context.

What we are saying is that the narrative can be whatever you want it to be.

I mean, I've made these examples a few times, but I think you aren't quite grasping them. The classical warlock story is the story of Dr. Faust, we both agree with that. Or the story of Robert Johnson. In both these cases, the Devil or Fiend comes to someone and offers them skill and power in exchange for their soul.

- One of the first warlocks I made was Natalie Dumein, a peasant girl who was married into a noble family, so that she qualified to be sacrificed to a demon to continue that noble family's power. She fought back, accidentally freed the demon, who after slaughtering the family forced her into service in exchange for him not slaughtering the rest of her village. This is not a Robert Johnson or Dr. Faust story.

- Another favorite warlock of mine was Corvin. Corvin found a dying, sealed demon, who offered him a deal for power. However, instead of taking the deal, Corvin devoured the Demon and became his own patron, planning on making a cult to empower himself to a full acension into Demon Prince status. This is not a Robert Johnson or Dr. Faust story.

- A great warlock I played was Syreth. On a post-apocalyptic Earth, with magic killing everyone around him, the man who would become Syreth was offered a deal by the Fey. Become the Fiance to a Fey Lady, marry her, and bring the Fey into this new world. His pact was a marriage contract, and his personality and identity were slowly being overwritten to become the Fey Lord of the Crossroads. This is the closest I've gotten to a Dr. Faust or Robert Johnson story, but isn't quite there. Notably, "becoming a Fey Lord" isn't a Warlock ability or mechanic, yet it fit perfectly with that character.

- My most recent warlock was Endymion Lynhart, who was a Celestial Warlock. He had been a theif, and tried to steal a tome from a temple to a Giant Goddess. He was struck dead, but she found him cute and amusing, so she offered him a deal. She'd bring him back from the dead, and he would do as she said. He agreed. This is again, not a Dr. Faust or Robert Johnson story, in fact, raising the dead, post-homous deals, and being an undead are not part of the Warlock story traditionally speaking. But being a Reborn Warlock, I felt it all flowed together quite nicely.

Yes, the root origin mythos is important. But we can play Robert Johnson who made a deal with the Devil at the Crossroads with the 2024 rules. The narrative of that deal still works, even if we don't have Fiendish Vigor as an ability at level 1. Those abilities can inform the narrative, but also.... you can alter them. I could tell a Paladin story, and use the Celestial Warlock to tell it. Because the two aspects have an intentional gap in them. And that gap exists, because all of those characters I've played as Warlocks? None of them were Dr. Faust making a deal for knowledge and magic in exchange for his soul. In fact, I have rarely if ever done the "and in exchange I get your soul" because I find that doesn't have enough narrative impact on the story.

I believe in all your examples the patron was not a 5.5 "mysterious voice". Is that correct?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why isn't every Catholic Mother Teresa?

Not sure I see your point, but it sure sounds pithy.