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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, I don't get this combo of "my group has absolutely no interest in feats as part of the game" and "My group will throw a fit if I ban/restrict feats in my game because now they are part of the rules"

One of those two statements simply has to be false to my mind. Or your group has one of the most bizarre relationship with the rules I've seen.

If the players don’t like feats, then why ban them? If they are aware of the ASI option they will choose that option in any case. It’s like banning a party of vegetarians from choosing steak from the menu.

 

[Emerikol]

If the players don’t like feats, then why ban them? If they are aware of the ASI option they will choose that option in any case. It’s like banning a party of vegetarians from choosing steak from the menu.

I think it is a case that the DM dislikes feats but if he leaves it up to the players individually at least some of them would choose something else. I would recommend even in an isolated setting that they alternate DM (and each DM has his OWN campaign world) and let the DM decide a lot of these issues.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

What exactly is the problem being addressed?

This post is what's being discussed. The point being that when you have to start messing with the default rules to get a satisfactory result, you lose a percentage of your audience. The argument made in that post is that a significant portion is being lost; whether that's true or not is what's up for debate.

 

[SteveC]

If I'm understanding things correctly, we're discussing whether Feats should be the default option or not. It seems to me that since you have ASIs as a feat, the DM could simply say "that's the only feat you can choose." If I remember correctly, the previous edition said you either take an ASI or a feat, if the DM has approved feats. We really are having a very small and seemingly semantic discussion.

What we're really talking about it whether a campaign will use feats in it. And that's within the purview of the DM like any other character or rule option. I strongly suggest using feats, since not having them would be a stop sign for me for joining the game. I don't think I'm alone in that.

The issue really is that there are the feats for first level, and using them has made feats more or less the default rule. If that's important to you to not do, you're going to have to make a ruling as the DM. Whether that's okay with your players will be up to them.

 

[Imaro]

This post is what's being discussed. The point being that when you have to start messing with the default rules to get a satisfactory result, you lose a percentage of your audience. The argument made in that post is that a significant portion is being lost; whether that's true or not is what's up for debate.

Yes and I'm saying if the group wants to play with or without feats the tools are there to do so... they can choose and it's simple. Where exactly is the Oberoni fallacy creeping in?

 

[Emerikol]

If I'm understanding things correctly, we're discussing whether Feats should be the default option or not. It seems to me that since you have ASIs as a feat, the DM could simply say "that's the only feat you can choose." If I remember correctly, the previous edition said you either take an ASI or a feat, if the DM has approved feats. We really are having a very small and seemingly semantic discussion.

What we're really talking about it whether a campaign will use feats in it. And that's within the purview of the DM like any other character or rule option. I strongly suggest using feats, since not having them would be a stop sign for me for joining the game. I don't think I'm alone in that.

The issue really is that there are the feats for first level, and using them has made feats more or less the default rule. If that's important to you to not do, you're going to have to make a ruling as the DM. Whether that's okay with your players will be up to them.

I agree and that is true in general for most cases. I think when you are a great DM you can get away with more eccentricities when it comes to the rules. As long as your upfront and you are presenting an intriguing idea.

 

[Emerikol]

Yes and I'm saying if the group wants to play with or without feats the tools are there to do so... they can choose and it's simple. Where exactly is the Oberoni fallacy creeping in?

I think some people want their playstyle vindicated as a valid option. I really don't care. I know my playstyle has been rejected by WOTC many times over. Fortunately there are a lot of third party companies creating things to support my style so to me that is fine.

 

[Emerikol]

I won't muddy this forum with the details but there is also the idea that every generation has a different gaming culture so some of the changes are D&D trying to hit the new target. I need to remind myself that often it is a quest for profit and not outright malice towards a particular older style.

 

[Imaro]

I think some people want their playstyle vindicated as a valid option. I really don't care. I know my playstyle has been rejected by WOTC many times over. Fortunately there are a lot of third party companies creating things to support my style so to me that is fine.

But... it is a valid option. It's one of the advantages of having a traditionally run game. The DM can decide they don't want to use feats (except for the ASI increase) and the players decide whether that's the type of game they are looking for. Is it that it needs to be the official default? Because well it was for 10 + years... Why wouldn't they try it the other way now.

 

[SteveC]

agree and that is true in general for most cases. I think when you are a great DM you can get away with more eccentricities when it comes to the rules. As long as your upfront and you are presenting an intriguing idea.

That has been my experience as well. I find that I play RPGs for two different reasons depending on the system and the GM. If the GM is great, I enjoy the experience: playing to explore the world and find out what's going to happen next! If the GM is just average, I play to engage with the game part. Combat and exploration can be a fun minigame to challenge your brains and that can be fun too. The very best GM provides both.