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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Could people drop "but not all warlocks" thing that makes the discussion to go into circles? It doesn't matter.

a) Making deals for power with questionable entities is the core for warlock identity. This is relationship that is liable to produce more conflict, than say, a cleric deciding to worship a god whose tenets they agree with. And the text recognises this too and mentions warlocks working against the patron. That this is not the only way warlock/patron relationship can work, is is besides the point. This is a common way to play warlocks, so it will come up.

b) Even if the patron was perfectly friendly, the expectation would still be that the GM plays them like they play every other NPC. You can do it otherwise of course, but there really is not confusion about how D&D expects NPCs to be operated.

c) Even if the GM plays the patron, the player can of course still contribute to brainstorming the patron, as it is part of their character's background. It is just that if they choose the patron at level three like the book suggests, this is a tad more difficult.
It is easier for the GM to incorporate the player's ideas if they know from the get go what they are!

d) If the patron can refuse to teach the warlock further powers or even take away existing ones, this of course is not for the purposes of the GM bullying the player into playing their character in certain way. It is just one possible concrete stake for the pact, which can be used to create dramatic conflict. I think Wyll's story in Baldur's Gate III is a decent example about how this could be utilised.

e) Paladin entry actually explain what happens if there is a conflict with their power source. I think it is weird and inconsistent that other classes do not, especially the warlock, for which potential for such conflict is inbuilt and even offered as an example in the text. This might put inexperienced GMs in situations, where they now have a conflict between the warlock and their supposed power source, but no guidance on how to handle it.

 

[Corinnguard]

Could people drop "but not all warlocks" thing that makes the discussion to go into circles? It doesn't matter.

This topic has been circling the drain for several days (or is it weeks?) now. Isn't it time for it to go down the hole and get back to the original topic of reviewing the 2024 PHB?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This topic has been circling the drain for several days (or is it weeks?) now. Isn't it time for it to go down the hole and get back to the original topic of reviewing the 2024 PHB?

Oh, right! That's what this thread actually was about!

 

[Corinnguard]

Oh, right! That's what this thread actually was about!

Yeah. Out of nowhere this thread somehow turned into a review and a critique of the 2024 Warlock.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure where not binding the PC comes from - the PC is a party to the pact.

But you are correct that my general view is that the player gets to play their PC. It's not the GM's job to tell the player what their PC needs to do to retain their core abilities.

Are you really meaning to imply that the only way to put pressure on a player of a warlock is via their patron? Or that the only way to put pressure on the player of a PC who has a mother is by threatening the PC's mum?

If not, then I don't see where your comment is coming from. I've played cleric and paladin PCs. In so doing, I've been put under pressure, as a player. In this thread I gave an example of a paladin player being put under pressure about his PC's faith. None of this requires the GM to use the character's deity to tell them what they should do or believe, if they are to retain their god-given abilities. Why should a warlock be any different?

You seem to be assuming that the patron can only matter if the GM plays it. But that's not true, just as it is not true that a paladin or cleric's faith and devotion can matter only if the GM plays the deity. I posted some actual play upthread to illustrate this point - D&D (2024) - D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews. You read and "liked" the post.

So given that you have read an actual play account of how faith and devotion can matter without this requiring the GM to play the deity or tell the player what faith and devotion demand of their PC, why would you insist that when it comes to a warlock and their patron matters must be different?

First of all, even under your definitions the patron or god is a separate entity from the PC whether or not the player is roleplaying them both. If gods and warlock patrons are part of the setting, and the DM (or published materials) determine that setting as I prefer and as is often the case, why would the player have control over how the patron or god or clergy conduct their affairs, and thus access to powers granted by said external agent?

Secondly regarding your post that I "liked": as I said at the time, that was a great story and an excellent job of roleplaying by that paladin's player. Clearly the player wanted to portray a crisis of faith realistically and didn't need any DM prompting to do so. That's awesome. But should we expect that level of roleplaying acumen from every cleric, paladin, or warlock player? After all, that could have gone quite badly for the PC, and in my experience many players will not willingly and without tangible reward take on situations that can cause potential harm or hardship for their PC. Should such PCs get to avoid this harm or hardship no matter what they do, because maintaining their mechanical powers in the game overrules setting events? I don't think so.

A person can like a post while not agreeing with the conclusion it is making.

 

[dragoner]

I made a few characters (rogue, fighter, ranger), the book is chunky, and making characters is a page flipping experience.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not really. They could easily just be observing, which only counts as involved if one of the PCs is named Heisenberg.

So, you have a scene where all the players are just observing and the DM talks to themselves, playing out a scene the players are not affecting.

But you can't have a scene where all but one of the players are observing, and the last player talks to themselves, playing out a scene the players are not affecting because.... Reasons?

 

[Chaosmancer]

None of those mean "impossible". They all mean variations on "I wouldn't do it". Your claim that they all mean impossible is more of your hyperbolic style.

Yeah, obviously it isn't actually physically impossible, otherwise I wouldn't be pushing people to admit you can do it. WHich means that you are arguing "I don't want to". Which brings me to "Why don't you want to allow the Warlock to do that" which seems to boil down to either "Because I don't trust my players" or "Because that isn't normal" Neither of which are actually compelling reasons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, you have a scene where all the players are just observing and the DM talks to themselves, playing out a scene the players are not affecting.

But you can't have a scene where all but one of the players are observing, and the last player talks to themselves, playing out a scene the players are not affecting because.... Reasons?

I specifically said I prefer not to talk to myself on-camera. I was fleshing out a scenario in which I might have to, at your request.

These rhetorical traps of yours are getting tiresome. If you think I'm a hypocrite, just say so. I can deny it flatly and we can move on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, obviously it isn't actually physically impossible, otherwise I wouldn't be pushing people to admit you can do it. WHich means that you are arguing "I don't want to". Which brings me to "Why don't you want to allow the Warlock to do that" which seems to boil down to either "Because I don't trust my players" or "Because that isn't normal" Neither of which are actually compelling reasons.

My reasons actually boil down to, "I'm more comfortable and have more fun with the traditional allocation of narrative and worldbuilding power. My players are also comfortable with it to all appearances, so I have no reason to change and therefore won't ". The fact that the texts to which I refer during prep and table play almost universally support my point of view is icing on the cake.

That reason is probably not compelling to you, but I really don't care.