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]

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.

"Not a Core Mode of play" and "not the default method of play" are not "Cannot be done and should never even be considered possible when discussing the game"

Remember, this little tangent started because someone suggested the Warlock player deciding who their patron was, their motivations, and the type of relationship they have with the warlock. All parts of the warlock backstory. And the reaction from a few posters was essentially "what are you talking about, you can't play DnD that way. That isn't how it is done." Which is a very different claim that "well, that would be an unusual approach, most games don't work that way."

 

[pemerton]

Which is a very different claim that "well, that would be an unusual approach, most games don't work that way."

And "unusual" in the sense of statistically atypical doesn't necessarily mean normatively aberrant!

 

[Emerikol]

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?

Not really. I thought it was an amusing anecdote but it does illustrate the point. The game is one where the DM tells the players what they are sensing, the players say what they do, and the DM tells them what they are now sensing. That is the entirety of roleplaying. We create rules so DMs can do that job well and consistently. No one wants to play in a world were things don't have some level of consistency.

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, the player is playing a PC in the world. They are inside that PC's mind. They are not inside the mind of the NPC's of the world. The Patron is an NPC.

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.

My point about working with the player is that players (NOT PC's) often have good ideas that can benefit a DM's game. If a player said "Hey as a cleric I noticed that you haven't designed the regalia of the High Pontifex yet. You care if I take a stab at it. I may be happy to let that PLAYER try and with approval for it to become canon in the game." The problem with the Patron is he is a dynamic NPC with his agenda etc. This is why I said the player could suggest things but ultimately the NPCs are in the domain of the DM.

 

[Emerikol]

"Not a Core Mode of play" and "not the default method of play" are not "Cannot be done and should never even be considered possible when discussing the game"

True. I think we are advocating for or against in the public square. You absolutely can do anything you like in your game just as I can. I'm sure there are things I do that are not mainstream in today's D&D. For one, I don't actually play D&D but some spin off.

My answers have been based on my own approach to roleplaying. Your own experiences and preferences can vary. We were debating the merits of our approaches. This isn't about what is allowed. If the DM allows it then it is allowed.

 

[pemerton]

The game is one where the DM tells the players what they are sensing, the players say what they do, and the DM tells them what they are now sensing. That is the entirety of roleplaying. We create rules so DMs can do that job well and consistently. No one wants to play in a world were things don't have some level of consistency.

The rules are not just so that GMs can tell the players what their PCs sense "well and consistently". The rules also determine - sometimes in part, sometimes almost totally in whole - what the DM is obliged to tell the players that they are sensing.

The rules regulate who gets to add what to the shared fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Who said it was impossible? People play games off-label all the time.

 

[Emerikol]

The rules are not just so that GMs can tell the players what their PCs sense "well and consistently". The rules also determine - sometimes in part, sometimes almost totally in whole - what the DM is obliged to tell the players that they are sensing.

The rules regulate who gets to add what to the shared fiction.

Well we obviously play in different styles of games. I would never use the word obligated with respect to the DM in a game of D&D. Your narrative style is not something I identify with D&D.

 

[SteveC]

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.

I really have to agree here. And this is the point that I think I might upset some people who's gaming style I think is very similar to my own and that I'd enjoy playing in their games. D&D is designed as you say.

That doesn't mean it can't be played in a more collaborative or narrative way. That's the way I run the game. I'm not going to take over a warlock player's character based on their patron, and want to give them the opportunity to shape the game and the game world in ways more common to other game systems.

But I know that I'm not doing something in the norm. I've had some mixed reactions to giving this collaborative or creative energy. I have really solid players who don't want to tell me how their character finishes off an enemy with a particularly effective attack. When I ask some players to tell me about a feature of the game world that their character knows all about, some of them look at me like deer in headlights. Some love it, of course.

I think that each edition of D&D gives the designers more options to make the game more narrative and give more authority to the players. I'm sure the designers have played other games where this is the norm. And yet, they really don't make that part of the rules, do they? I have been reading the new PHB in bits and pieces since I picked it up through Foundry, and there really isn't talk about collaborating with the DM. I think that's a great idea, but apparently, the designers don't want to put that up for player discussion. Maybe there will be something about this in the new DMG.

So, who controls the warlock's patron? By the book, the DM. Who should control it? I think it should be a collaboration between the two. The PHB doesn't give me an indication of how that should work.

 

[pemerton]

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.

D&D is designed as you say.

What do you mean by saying D&D is designed that way?

If a bridge is designed to be a pedestrian footbridge, but not a road traffic bridge, I know what that means (more-or-less): the bridge is not wide enough to take vehicles, the bridge is not strong enough to support the weight of, and forces/vibrations created by, vehicles, etc.

If a game is designed to be played by two people, but not (say) five people, I know what sorts of tings that impllies: there are not five roles for players to occupy in the structure of the game; turns in the game take sufficiently long that, with a large number of players, play will drag out and/or become boring; etc.

In the same vein, I know what it means to say that D&D is not designed for solo play, but rather for play by multiple persons occupying asymmetric role: one who presents the situations of adversity/challenge/opportunity, and at least one who declares actions for a protagonist in that situation.

Likewise I know what it means to say that D&D is designed for party play: the play of the game orbits around certain bundles of abilities (melee fighting, ranged fighting, healing, "exploration"-oriented problem solving like opening locks and sensing hidden things, etc), and (outside, perhaps, or some upper-level spell-casters) it's not normally possible for a single character to exercise all those abilities and perform all those functions.

A bit more controversially, I know what it means to say that 5e D&D is designed around a multi-encounter "adventuring day": this structure of the pacing of obstacles/challenges is what will engage the full range of resource expenditure and recovery rules in a systematic fashion. Without it, perturbances around "nova"-ing, intra-party imbalance, lack of attrition, etc are more likely to occur.

But I don't know what it means to say that D&D is designed for the GM to control the warlock PC's patron. What aspect of game play will misfunction, what perturbances will occur, if the GM offloads this to the player of the warlock?

The fact that a certain approach is statistically typical doesn't, in itself, tell us that such an approach is a design feature of the game.

 

[pemerton]

I would never use the word obligated with respect to the DM in a game of D&D.

I can talk about games of Moldvay Basic played (by me, and I imagine thousands of others) in the early 1980s.

The rules of the game state certain things that the GM must do: for instance, the GM must faithfully describe the dungeon to the players, consistently with the position of the PCs on the map and the light source that they are carrying. Just to give one example, the GM is not at liberty just to decide that the PCs are blind, or hallucinating, or so short-sighted that they can't see clearly to the end of a 30' tunnel. (Assuming they have adequate light.)

Or suppose that the GM rolls the wandering monster die, and it indicates a wanderer, and then the GM rolls on the wandering monster table, and it indicates 3 goblins, and the GM rolls for encounter distance and then narrates the arrival of the goblins on the scene as indicated. And then suppose the players describe their characters shooting arrows at the goblins. The rulebook sets out rules for resolving this declared action: rolling for initiative, rolling to hit, rolling damage on a hit, comparing the rolled damage to the goblins' hp totals, etc. The GM is not just at liberty (for instance) to tell the players whose PCs shoot at the goblins that their arrows miss. Or if the hp roll for a goblin indicates 2 hp, and a player's roll to hit and damage indicate 3 hp of damage to that goblin, the GM is not just at liberty to tell the players that the goblin is unharmed, or is fighting on. The GM is obliged to tell the players that the goblin has been shot dead.

There are many other examples that could be given, of how the rules place obligations on the GM (and the players too) as to what is said about what is happening in the shared fiction.

Your narrative style is not something I identify with D&D.

So-called "narrative style" has nothing to do with it. One of the most recent times that I GMed a game of D&D, we were playing White Plume Mountain using AD&D. In this post, just above, I've given Moldvay Basic as an example, based on my actual play experience that resulted from reading the book and then applying what I read in play. (In the basic structure of play it's very very similar to the AD&D that we used to play WPM: the differences are mostly in the minutiae of the PC build rules, of the combat rules, and of the exploration rules like the precise probability spreads used to resolve looking for traps, listening at doors, etc.)

Both Moldvay's and Gygax's rulebooks are full of statements about what the GM will do - these are not predictions, they are statements of rules for the GM to follow. They are also full of statements of procedures - for preparing a map and key, for resolving exploration, for resolving combat - that allocate tasks to the GM. Again, these are statements of rules for the GM to follow.

The notion that the GM can make up whatever they like at any time - dictate results without regard to action resolution rules, without reference to their map and key, without reference to any procedures of play - is not foundation to D&D. I'm not sure when or where it first emerged. It was known of, but was far from universally accepted, in the late 1970s. It only seems to me to have become ubiquitous in the second half of the 1980s.