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.

 

[Imaro]

See, you wrote "Flavor Preference" where the more appropriate term would be "Game Design Failure".

But whether you wanna call it a rule or not, the same ultimate behavior has presented:

"There is no problem. You can solve the problem by X."

First statement denies a problem exists, second statement offers a solution to the denied problem.

Pick a path. Either there's a problem and a solution or there's no problem and there's no solution, needed. Much less a solution wielded as a cudgel and insult against others.

Lol... this ain't it.

 

[Imaro]

The issue is that I'm looking at it from the perspective of a game designer who creates classes. Someone who has to build a class so that the rules support the fiction that I need to get across to the players and readers. If I fail to do that, the book won't sell and the class won't see use.

The Barbarian entry discusses the Barbarian's Rage for 5 sentences out of the 8 sentences presented. They get it at level 1 because it is the iconic feature of the class, the thing that makes them who they are.

The Warlock entry discusses the Warlock's Patron for 8 sentences out of the 11 sentences presented. They don't get their patron 'til level 3 even though it's the iconic feature of the class, the thing that makes them who they are.

For a new player this is going to set up a split expectation. They came in looking to make a deal with the devil and have that be the main thrust of their story and instead they get Pact Magic and Invocations and are told to wait for their Patron 'til level 3.

It's the old "Show, don't Tell" maxim of writing.

Others are largely looking at it from the same angle you are. "It'll play fine at my table so it's okay." Occasionally with a flair for "Actually it's better this way because it allows more of this single specific narrative to be presented." ladled 9n.

But I'm only a real fighter if I can use all fighting styles... I mean fighting is discussed more than anything else about my class and I need it realized by having level 1 access to all maneuvers, fighting styles, armor, weapons, and unarmed styles of fighting.

Well you'll have to start at a higher lvl and multiclass monk. Oh no... Oberoni fallacy

No...just how the game works.

This is the absurdity conflating preference with an actual rules problem creates.

 

[Corinnguard]

There's no actual objective problem... only preference about when certain mechanical/narrative elements should be available to a class.

If there was no problem about which certain mechanical/narrative elements should be available to a class, then WoTC would have left the acquisition of when you got a subclass untouched. And we wouldn't have diverged from the original topic of this forum thread. Maybe it's best we all agree to disagree?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think "there is no problem, as you can narratively choose it at level one," that certainly was uttered in this thread many times, is a clear example of Oberoni fallacy.

 

[Imaro]

If there was no problem about which certain mechanical/narrative elements should be available to a class, then WoTC would have left the acquisition of when you got a subclass untouched. And we wouldn't have diverged from the original topic of this forum thread. Maybe it's best we all agree to disagree?

No WotC for whatever reason also had a preference and since it's their rules to revise in a way they feel are best... they went with it. The d2signers of A5e went in a different direction but neither is an inherent "problem" that needs to be solved

 

[Imaro]

I think "there is no problem, as you can narratively choose it at level one," that certainly was uttered in this thread many times, is a clear example of Oberoni fallacy.

Planning out a build is not an example of an Oberoni Fallacy.

Adding flavor is not an example of an Oberoni Fallacy.

Reskining is not an example of an Oberoni Fallacy.

 

[Steampunkette]

This all sprang out of me clarifying a statement I made on an interview coming out next month. It's definitely an aside of the thread.

That said, it's not my job to convince other people of my critiques, and I didn't intend to give the impression I desired people to convince me that I was wrong about those critiques.

I apologize for belaboring the point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

And one of them was even made with the 2024 rules, despite the iron chains of those rules forbidding any consideration of taking that route for any person who plays the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

You asked why doesn't everyone who believes in a cause a magical warrior of divine might.

I asked why every Catholic Nun isn't a famous embodiment of kindness, piety and virtue like we conceive of Mother Teresa. Because if all it takes is to hold the beliefs of a Catholic Nun.... well, there are a lot of Catholic Nuns in the world, but very few to none have that distinction.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Bunch of cool examples, none of which seem to follow the 5.5 approach of the warlock not knowing the nature of their patron from the get go. So yeah, this clearly illustrates the issue you for some reason seem to be arguing against.

They also don't follow the 5e approach according to the 2014 PHB. For example, none of them studied occult lore. According to the 2014 PHB (as per the logic being applied to the 2024 PHB) all warlocks are required to have made a study of occult lore. I'm supposed to have given "Loyal Service" to my patron and get bestowed a gift, how does that work if you are your own patron? And if I could bestow myself a gift, why did I wait til level 3?

My point being, that despite those facts... I could make those warlock characters, and no one thought it was unusual or breaking any rules. Note that you didn't say "but that is illegal under the 2014 PHB rules for how a warlock works!" when I put in a Warlock who is their own patron. So why would we go "but that is illegal under the 2024 PHB rules for how a warlock works!" if someone wanted to decide that they know who their patron is at level 1?