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]

By that argument there should be far fewer rules and far more amateur improv in RPGs, because if the player roleplays then it all just works out.

What does that have to do with there being styles of warlock play that are better suited to the player portraying the warlock's patron, rather than the GM? Because I can find a way to show that the GM being in control 100% of the time isn't the absolute best and only way to do something, we no longer need rules for the game?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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".

5e in the last few years left me behind. 3e and 3.5 were fine, even if I preferred TSR's version. 4e was eventually dropped by me after about a year, but I came back for 5e and liked WotC's version fine until Tasha's, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer.

Splat bloat was never an issue for me. I loved all of it, and am very happy that we got so much content before 5e slowed everything down.

 

[Corinnguard]

What is more capable of expressing and more fun for a player wanting to explore themes of madness and warped perception? The DM occassionally taking an aside to tell them that their character hears their dagger telling them to slaughter people, or the player with no input from the DM, describing their character stroking the blade and whispering to it, or arguing with it? If the other players do not know if the Dagger is truly sentient, it is much creepier in my experience, than if the DM lampshades it by acting the role of patron.

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?

This is what you wanted me to remember? I'll admit that role-playing an insane character has some merit if they are role-played well. But I was more interested, at the time, in citing how I would explore the warlock/patron relationship if I was to role-play as one.

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?

You do realize my question was a rhetorical one, right? Your follow-up questions are just as rhetorical and can only be answered with a 'I don't know'. I don't think anyone really can know the answer to them.

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.

I am aware that you think that a player ought to be the one role-playing both the warlock and their patron instead of letting the DM control the patron. I beg to differ and happen to agree with @Micah Sweet and @Crimson Longinus on how the patron/warlock relationship would work at our game tables. If your method works at your table, good for you. But don't assume that it is going to work at every table.

 

[Emerikol]

What does that have to do with there being styles of warlock play that are better suited to the player portraying the warlock's patron, rather than the GM? Because I can find a way to show that the GM being in control 100% of the time isn't the absolute best and only way to do something, we no longer need rules for the game?

I've always viewed "the rules" as a guideline to help the DM keep the game consistent. I've always been 100% in control of the game to the degree I feel necessary. Why? Because I am the senses of the PCs.

A PC once said they did X and I told them what happened. They responded that they didn't think that was matching the rules. I responded "Are you going to believe what you read in some musty tomes or what you are actually seeing happen with your eyes?"

Now having said that, of course you want a consistent believable world and rules help you achieve that. And if the patron has it's own will and is an independent entity, then of course the DM controls that being. If the player sees the relationship a certain way then he should broach that outside the game one on one with the DM and suggest this is the angle they want to take. If the DM thinks that is reasonable then they run with it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You do realize my question was a rhetorical one, right? Your follow-up questions are just as rhetorical and can only be answered with a 'I don't know'. I don't think anyone really can know the answer to them.


I am aware that you think that a player ought to be the one role-playing both the warlock and their patron instead of letting the DM control the patron. I beg to differ and happen to agree with @Micah Sweet and @Crimson Longinus on how the patron/warlock relationship would work at our game tables. If your method works at your table, good for you. But don't assume that it is going to work at every table.

Glad to hear you are well aware of the lie you made up about my beliefs. I certainly didn't know that was what I believed. I thought I believed it was POSSIBLE to do and thus shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as being bad, impossible, or not worth exploring.

Silly me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've always viewed "the rules" as a guideline to help the DM keep the game consistent. I've always been 100% in control of the game to the degree I feel necessary. Why? Because I am the senses of the PCs.

A PC once said they did X and I told them what happened. They responded that they didn't think that was matching the rules. I responded "Are you going to believe what you read in some musty tomes or what you are actually seeing happen with your eyes?"

Now having said that, of course you want a consistent believable world and rules help you achieve that. And if the patron has it's own will and is an independent entity, then of course the DM controls that being. If the player sees the relationship a certain way then he should broach that outside the game one on one with the DM and suggest this is the angle they want to take. If the DM thinks that is reasonable then they run with it.

You realize telling the player "well are you going to believe the rules of the game or what I am telling you" doesn't make you come across in the best light, correct?

But I want to focus on the last paragraph. Particularly where you say "then of course the DM controls that being". Why? Why is that an "of course" like it is clearly self-evident? Why is it not possible, or even worth considering that the Player may have control over their PC's patron's messages, motivations, and goals? You even feel the need to leave an escape hatch here, saying that "if the DM thinks it is reasonable" they can follow the player's idea. But... why wouldn't you follow it?

Sure, get a toxic enough player who goes "And then I become a GAWD" that's obviously not going to fly. But I have played two warlocks at least where, as the player, I determined a LOT of the Patron. Heck, in one instance I came up with the pact, the patron, the patrons' close advisors and family, their goals, their personalities, all of it. And my DM loved it. So I have first hand evidence that this is POSSIBLE to do. And do well. But the very idea of it seems to baffle you, because "of course" this should all be 100% the DMs decision and call... for some reason. But that reason largely seems to be "because that is the DMs call, just look at tradition" instead of any actual reason why it cannot be done.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But I want to focus on the last paragraph. Particularly where you say "then of course the DM controls that being". Why? Why is that an "of course" like it is clearly self-evident? Why is it not possible, or even worth considering that the Player may have control over their PC's patron's messages, motivations, and goals? You even feel the need to leave an escape hatch here, saying that "if the DM thinks it is reasonable" they can follow the player's idea. But... why wouldn't you follow it?

Because that's the way D&D is designed. Other games are designed differently, and DMs can play differently in their own games, but in D&D (and a lot of other games) players control PCs, and the DM controls everyone else, sometimes with player input, sometimes without. Changing that in the rules is going to raise some eyebrows, and probably some hackles as well.

 

[Distracted DM]

Because that's the way D&D is designed. Other games are designed differently, and DMs can play differently in their own games, but in D&D (and a lot of other games) players control PCs, and the DM controls everyone else, sometimes with player input, sometimes without. Changing that in the rules is going to raise some eyebrows, and probably some hackles as well.

Yeah there are lots of other games out there that have collaborative worldbuilding built in from the start. You can certainly adapt that to DnD, some would argue it's better for everyone and/or easier on the DM, but per the game itself it's not the default method of play. There might even be collaborative optional rules in 5e DMG... I think I remember "hot seat DMing" being one of them? But again, not the core mode of play.

 

[pemerton]

Because that's the way D&D is designed.

<snip>

but in D&D (and a lot of other games) players control PCs, and the DM controls everyone else

When I GMed AD&D in the mid-1980s, the players controlled their PCs' henchmen most of the time. And I don't think that was an unusual practice.

There's also the issue of rules.

Gygax's DMG has rules for calculating NPC loyalty to PCs. When those rules are applied in the context of henchmen, it's easy for the loyalty to come out at 100%+ (base 50%, +35% for henchman status, +25% or more for expenditure of magic on the NPC, + any CHA adjustment) which means fanatical - will serve unquestioningly and lay down own life if necessary without hesitation. This is the rule that justifies the player controlling the henchman.

And the flipside is that the GM is not just at liberty to decide that the henchman doesn't like or abandons their PC leader. There are rules that govern this too, including possible reductions in the loyalty% if the PC does something that the henchman thinks is unreasonable.

What rules tell the GM what decisions they are able to make about the warlock PC's patron? Well, one rule is that the player is entitled to play their PC having the benefit of their class abilities. So whatever the patron - as played by the GM - says or does, it is far from clear to me that (eg) the GM is entitled to just decide, unilaterally, that the patron strips the PC of power.

This feature of the rules in itself seems to me to provide a good reason for the GM, at least by default, to defer to the player as to what the patron wants and expects from the warlock PC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because that's the way D&D is designed. Other games are designed differently, and DMs can play differently in their own games, but in D&D (and a lot of other games) players control PCs, and the DM controls everyone else, sometimes with player input, sometimes without. Changing that in the rules is going to raise some eyebrows, and probably some hackles as well.

And yet despite DnD being designed that way (Supposedly) I have seen and played where the DM did NOT have 100% complete control over every single aspect of the world that was not the character sheet.

So how could that happen in a game "designed" to make it impossible to happen?