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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See this is part of the problem... that core archetype has expanded, evolved and even modernized beyond what you and others seem to feel is "The" core archetype.

Then change the class description in the book, and back that up in the mechanics. A name change would also not go amiss.

 

[Imaro]

Then change the class description in the book, and back that up in the mechanics. A name change would also not go amiss.

It would be an entire sourcebook on it's own to try and cover every archetype of the warlock along with individual sets of mechanics to represent them all.... The important thing is to have mechanics flexible enough to cover a wide variety with a little reflavoring and a broad enough narrative that it can cover most concepts but is easily substituted if it doesn't hit the mark for some. I think they did a pretty good job here.

Why should they change the name from warlock? These are literally various archetypes that could all be considered warlocks... just maybe not the warlock you personally like or want to play.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, that's a cool story, but I fail to see the relevance. You made up the demon, you played the demon. I imagine this would have been far less impactful had the player decided that the demon arrives and what the demon does.

That was a great example of player-directed play, but everything that happened in the world except the PCs own actions was still determined and run by you, so while I understand that a player's choices can lead to things in the world that the DM did not originally intend (which I've always understood), I'm not sure how this supports the idea of the player controlling their patron.

The player decided on the nature of, and meaning of, the demon's opposition. And also decided what adherence to faith required. Which is the relevance to the current discussion: the claim that the GM must decide what the patron demands of the character, if those demands are to be understood as a genuine constraint, is false.

 

[Corinnguard]

It would be an entire sourcebook on it's own to try and cover every archetype of the warlock along with individual sets of mechanics to represent them all....

The Complete Guide to Warlocks. Remember when 2e had Complete Guide accessories covering each of the 2e classes? Each accessory book provided additional information on the classes and had their own share of kits (the 2e equivalent of today's subclasses). Maybe somebody could brew up a 5e/5.5e version of these books for today's character classes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The Complete Guide to Warlocks. Remember when 2e had Complete Guide accessories covering each of the 2e classes? Each accessory book provided additional information on the classes and had their own share of kits (the 2e equivalent of today's subclasses). Maybe somebody could brew up a 5e/5.5e version of these books for today's character classes.

I very much miss those days. Even 3e and 4e did similar (though with it was small groups of classes). Not sure why 5e gave up on the concept.

 

[SkidAce]

I very much miss those days. Even 3e and 4e did similar (though with it was small groups of classes). Not sure why 5e gave up on the concept.

I enjoyed those days, can't say that I "miss" them. Talk about uneven power level of books batman!

Oh and splat bloat was a thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I enjoyed those days, can't say that I "miss" them. Talk about uneven power level of books batman!

Oh and splat bloat was a thing.

Don't much care about balance, and don't believe in splat bloat. It was all good from where I'm sitting.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Then change the class description in the book, and back that up in the mechanics. A name change would also not go amiss.

I'm still surprised they didn't change Barbarian to Berserker.

 

[Umbran]

Don't much care about balance, and don't believe in splat bloat. It was all good from where I'm sitting.

Was it?

Not to make this personal, but to take an example - I recall in the past you complaining that WotC D&D left you behind.

The business impact of splat bloat was part of the edition treadmill pattern. They left you, and others who didn't want to change, behind in large part of that thing you claim was "all good".

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're assuming that I would take this approach if I decided to play a warlock character. If I was to do so, I would talk to my DM (who happens to be one of my best friends) about my idea to play one. We would then talk about what kind of warlock I wanted to role-play as and what kind of patron I wanted to make a pact with. It wouldn't be with a GOO or a weapon with a mind of its' own. I probably would go for a Celestial Patron or maybe even an Elemental one (maybe an Elemental Prince of Good?)

Once we hashed out what kind of warlock/patron relationship my character and his patron could have, I would let my DM role-play my patron and then let the fun ensue.

Okay, good for you. Glad you would play the warlock you wanted to play, but do you remember this post from just a page or so ago?

When a player role-plays their character, they have to separate their out-of-character knowledge from their in-character knowledge in order to role-play their character effectively during an adventure. Asking a player to roleplay their warlock character and their warlock's patron adds in an additional level of difficulty. For now, they have to keep in mind their out-of-character knowledge, the knowledge known only to their warlock character and the knowledge known only to their patron. How many players are capable of doing that juggling act while trying to have fun?

How many plyaers do you think are capable of "juggling" a character talking to their dagger, or of describing their strange visions and dreams? How does this in any way affect the meta- and in-game knowledge they have?

Of course you can make a patron that the DM controls, that's obvious. But you seemed to be completely unaware of ways that the player can introduce actions and such on the behalf of the patron, so since I was giving examples, I figured it would be good for you to have them called to your attention.