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]

But it is not unnecessary, as it actually helps to avoid potential problems. In this instance trying to do things in the way the new rules suggest, leads to weird places and is liable to cause issues. That experienced people might foresee this and thus do things differently is no defence for the rule being bad in the first place; that's Oberoni fallacy stuff. Just write the bloody rules so that they actually work, and do not expect the players to fix them! Doing otherwise is just unfriendly to newbies.

1) Because not forcing the patron to be chosen at level 1 allows for more narrative options

2) Because forcing the patron choice at level 1 was viewed as adding undue complexity for little to no gain

3) Because having level 1 dips into powerful abilities is bad for multiclassing

Why do we keep acting like they just threw things at a dartboard, or had some shadowy plan handed down from a faceless cabal instead of.... the reasons they told us for why they did the thing.

 

[Azzy]

I've been spending some time lackadaisically taking in the PHB over the course of the past week and a half (and I still haven't read the entire thing!). Some things I like. Some I don't like. It's kinda a mixed bag, but I'm planning to adopt it in spite of that because it does have some improvements that I rather like.

One thing that's really disappointing is the sheer brevity of flavor text throughout the book.

The art is pretty hit and miss, too—the warlock splash image annoys me and I believe it doesn't convey "cool" at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And one of them was even made with the 2024 rules, despite the iron chains of those rules forbidding any consideration of taking that route for any person who plays the game.

No, not any person. But new players who only have the book to guide them are just going to see that default and likely assume that's the rule they have to follow.

 

[pemerton]

See, you wrote "Flavor Preference" where the more appropriate term would be "Game Design Failure".

But whether you wanna call it a rule or not, the same ultimate behavior has presented:

"There is no problem. You can solve the problem by X."

First statement denies a problem exists, second statement offers a solution to the denied problem.

Pick a path. Either there's a problem and a solution or there's no problem and there's no solution, needed. Much less a solution wielded as a cudgel and insult against others.

There's no problem. The reason there's no problem is because any given table is likely to take one of the following three approaches, none of which creates a problem:

* The player and GM are both ignorant of who the patron is, and the GM plays the patron "vaguely and sparingly" (to borrow @Imaro's language) until the PC reaches level 3;

* The player tells the GM who their patron is, and the GM players the patron accordingly;

* The GM forms their own view of who the patron is, and plays the patron accordingly. When the PC reaches 3rd level, the relationship between the PC build choice the player wants to make, and the GM's view of who the patron is, can then resolve itself. There are many ways this could happen, depending on the details of the fiction as well as they way the table in question distributes authority between player and GM over PC build elements.​

If there's some other approach that you think will cause problems, it's not at all clear to me what that is.

The issue is that I'm looking at it from the perspective of a game designer who creates classes. Someone who has to build a class so that the rules support the fiction that I need to get across to the players and readers. If I fail to do that, the book won't sell and the class won't see use.

By all accounts the book is selling, and I'm fairly confident the class in question will see use.

The Warlock entry discusses the Warlock's Patron for 8 sentences out of the 11 sentences presented. They don't get their patron 'til level 3 even though it's the iconic feature of the class, the thing that makes them who they are.

For a new player this is going to set up a split expectation. They came in looking to make a deal with the devil and have that be the main thrust of their story and instead they get Pact Magic and Invocations and are told to wait for their Patron 'til level 3.

This is an empirical conjecture. Is there any evidence that it's true? I don't see it.

At 3rd level the player makes a mechanical choice, about PC build, that is connected to their warlock patron. Nothing about the mechanical structure of PC build precludes the player and/or GM making decisions, from 1st level if they like, about who the patron is.

 

[pemerton]

I think "there is no problem, as you can narratively choose it at level one," that certainly was uttered in this thread many times, is a clear example of Oberoni fallacy.

Why?

In original D&D, and B/X D&D, all clerics are identical at 1st level (their only special ability is turning undead). The player may have a view about who their god is, but they don't get to manifest that view about who their god is, in mechanical terms, until they choose to memorise a spell at 2nd level.

Why does the mechanical design of the class, which gives the patron a mechanical significance at 3rd level, stop anyone making a choice about the fiction at 1st level? And why is it a design problem that a choice about the fiction that is made at 1st level doesn't have mechanical significance until 3rd level.

I mean, I can choose that my PC is an orphan at 1st level, and in standard D&D that choice won't have any mechanical significance ever. Does that mean it's an Oberoni fallacy to point out that nothing in the D&D rules stops me from choosing to have my PC be an orphan?

 

[pemerton]

No, not any person. But new players who only have the book to guide them are just going to see that default and likely assume that's the rule they have to follow.

(1) This is an empirical conjecture. What's your evidence that it's true?

(2) Suppose that it is true. What problem will that cause? How will it make those players' play not work, or work out poorly?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know others may run it differently, but I as a DM know exactly who the patron is at Level 1. In a recent campaign, so did the warlock player. My players and I have conversations about their character's background and choices, and they either already know who they worship (if a cleric or other religious character), who they make a pact with (if they want their PC to know and don't want it to be a surprise), and the nature of their sorcerous spark (again, unless they don't want their PC to know). Either way, they players have already planned their choices for their Level 3 subclasses, because levels 1 and 2 go by so quickly. Even if the player doesn't want their PC to know for roleplay purposes, the player knows.

I honestly don't understand a strict adherence to the concept of "you don't know until level 3 or later" unless the player really wants that kind of story.

Agreed. This is not only a perfectly fine thing to fix by letting the player decide, and additionally it is impossible for the DM to enforce the player not knowing whether they made a deal with a Fey, Fiend, Celestial, or ect but also... it is until level 3. That's two to three sessions? Two to three sessions of not perfectly portraying the perfect patron perfectly in the worst case scenario? It just seems... so easy to "fix" this if you truly feel it is a dire problem.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Me neither. That's why I don't like not knowing being the default.

This isn't a personal issue for me or my table, it's a discussion about what I see as a fault in the default narrative and rules. Those shiny new players people worry about so much have no reason not to do what the books say.

The "rules" do not say this. It is a single line of flavor text for Warlock spellcasting and Pact magic. NOWHERE does it say "while making your warlock's background you are forbidden from deciding who your patron is unless you are starting at level 3 or higher". That rule does not exist. You are making it up to have something to complain about.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The more I think about it, the more I appreciate the Oberoni fallacy and how well it describes this kinda stuff.

I'm not sure the Oberoni Fallacy covers people insisting that flavor text is an unbreakable rule.

Seriously, insisting that the text "Through occult ceremony, you have formed a pact with a mysterious entity to gain magical powers. The entity is a voice in the shadows—its identity unclear—" is a rule you absolutely must follow is just absurd. Does this mean my patron can't talk to me in a well-lit room full of plants? Or from a sentient magical item? Or in Dreams? They MUST speak with me through shadows and something else?

Obviously not!

 

[Chaosmancer]

The Barbarian entry discusses the Barbarian's Rage for 5 sentences out of the 8 sentences presented. They get it at level 1 because it is the iconic feature of the class, the thing that makes them who they are.

You keep mentioning the Barbarian, but since you keep using it as an example that supports you, you don't seem to understand how Barbarians work.

Yes, Barbarians get Rage at level 1... which Rage?

Is it just pure Rage with no additional flavor, like a battle frenzy?
Is it a pure rage that utilizes training with special armor?
Is it a primal rage that calls on animal spirits?
Is it a primal Rage that calls on Elemental powers?
Is it a Magical rage that calls on wild magic?
Is it a Primal rage that calls on the Beast within?
Is it a Spiritual rage which calls on the might of their ancestors?
Is it a Divine Rage that is fueled by the Gods?
Is it an Elemental Rage that calls upon the Might of Giants?
Is it a Multiversal Rage calling on the power of a Mutliversal tree?
Is it a Magical Rage that calls on the Power of Blood?
Is it a Magical Rage that calls on Witch Magic and Spirits?

Every single one of these is an actual 5e Barbarian subclass, and they change the type of character and flavor of the Barbarian just as much as a Warlock patron does. A Barbarian who has a soul that burns with the power of the elemental plane of fire has a very different story than one who calls upon the spirits of their ancestors to fight beside them, is very different than one that connects to the Spirit of the Wolf.

And yet. Somehow! We've never had anyone propose this is a problem... until I point this out in this thread. Because somehow we figure that people can make coherent characters and character decisions in this case, but that they can't with Paladins and Warlocks.