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.

 

[Mistwell]

Yup. Part of what makes it feel more real is not controlling both sides of a conversation.

For the Warlock I play, I invented the Patron entirely, gave the Patron a personality and some background, and then my DM took over controlling that Patron in play after character creation. So I felt invested in the Patron's creation, but I don't control them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps, but narrativist play and scene-framing are neither of them terms (or even concepts really) that apply to most forms of D&D, or indeed most traditional RPGs, as part of the actual rules. Making them part of your play is a choice some gamers make.

I think, personally, it's a pretty relevant point since we're discussing an element of character related to a PC. Also that thread traces back a couple posts to @pemerton's post D&D (2024) - D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews which I feel fairly confident approaches the topic from a generally Narrativist POV.

IMHO it's perfectly reasonable to consider different aspects of a particular game from various perspectives.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is a situation where I think we're going to have to disagree, even though I appreciate how you're running games. This absolutely was not my experiences in the 70s and into the 80s. I think the first time I even heard some of these ideas expressed was in the Amber Diceless Roleplaying game. And even that had a GM with ultimate authority, but with the consideration that the players had reality-altering powers.

I'm not going to say what you're talking about isn't a great way to play a game. I just finished up a short Monster of the Week game, and there are a lot of those ideas are there. My experiences with Blades in the Dark and Fabula Ultima are similar. It's just not something that's standard in D&D. That's not to say it's something bad (far from it) but those aren't the expectations for a D&D game.

I think back to those early days and we had people coming to gaming from wargaming, where any roleplaying at all was a big deal. I'm sure there were people who played D&D more as a story game from the beginning, but it was very much not the norm. I say that as someone who was getting Zines from the coast shipped to me as a little kid. There was a lot of experimentation going on. It just wasn't the norm in D&D. If you have those expectations in 5E there's nothing wrong with that, it's just that the game is not doing things to support you. And I expect most D&D players would look at you as if you were expecting something the game wasn't designed to do. There are plenty of games that are designed from the ground up to support that style of play. And that's a good thing.

Players authoring stuff has been going on since Dave's Blackmoor game though, in spades. Gygax references it several times in 1e, though somewhat negatively. We know monster PCs and such were definitely part of the game. Players were fully expected to establish fiction related to NPC associates, strongholds, etc.

In the places I played in the '70s players had tons of input. Ironically I found it was later attempts to make D&D a Hickmanesque story game that generated a lot of the "GM absolute authority" thing. In our classic play the GM had the say on 'dungeon stuff' but only partially on 'story stuff'.

 

[Imaro]

Seems pretty obvious to me. There usually is some sort of conflict or tension inherent in the patron/warlock relationship, and it is less fun to play if you're playing both sides of the conflict.

Less fun for who? I think that's a wholly subjective assertion that does nothing but let us know where you're preferences lie.

Personally I would prefer the DM playing my patron but with me deciding type, what the deal was and possibly some of the patrons goals.

Other players might want a full hands off approach... while others might want full control. The great thing is that in avoiding enforcement mechanics ay of these approaches can be accomodated as well as many others.

 

[Imaro]

The patron/warlock relationship is better off if the DM role-plays as the warlock's patron. Especially if the player and the DM are on good terms with one another during their role-playing sessions. Before or during session zero, the two can talk it out on what kind of relationship exists between the warlock and their patron.

Now if the player and the DM aren't on good terms with one another, then someone should be brought into the session who could take up the role of the warlock's patron during those moments when the patron and the warlock are going to interact with one another. If they can't find someone, then maybe they should amicably part ways.

Eh... i think its better off if the player abd DM discuss and agree on an approach.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Less fun for who? I think that's a wholly subjective assertion that does nothing but let us know where you're preferences lie.

I don't think it is purely subjective; the entire core structure of RPGs is built around this assumption and that's why you have the separate GM role for controlling the opposition in the first place.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think it is purely subjective; the entire core structure of RPGs is built around this assumption and that's why you have the separate GM role for controlling the opposition in the first place.

Opposition?? I guess if you view the DM's role as oppositional or antagonistic and you prefer all warlock patrons to be antagonistic or opposing those who they make pacts with... then sure. But I'm also sure that's all subjective too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think, personally, it's a pretty relevant point since we're discussing an element of character related to a PC. Also that thread traces back a couple posts to @pemerton's post D&D (2024) - D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews which I feel fairly confident approaches the topic from a generally Narrativist POV.

IMHO it's perfectly reasonable to consider different aspects of a particular game from various perspectives.

It absolutely is, but I would and have stated my same opinion on this to @pemerton , with whom your opinions often align.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Less fun for who? I think that's a wholly subjective assertion that does nothing but let us know where you're preferences lie.

Personally I would prefer the DM playing my patron but with me deciding type, what the deal was and possibly some of the patrons goals.

Other players might want a full hands off approach... while others might want full control. The great thing is that in avoiding enforcement mechanics ay of these approaches can be accomodated as well as many others.

See, to me the patron is a separate being from the PC, so the DM should have control of them, because the player controls the PC, not anyone else. It is to me that simple. Even as a player myself I don't want to control the world outside my character. It immediately makes the setting feel less real to me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Opposition?? I guess if you view the DM's role as oppositional or antagonistic and you prefer all warlock patrons to be antagonistic or opposing those who they make pacts with... then sure. But I'm also sure that's all subjective too.

GM role is not antagonistic, but they control opposition, because it is not fun to control your own opposition. The GM creates challenges for the players to overcome and dramatic situations that test their characters. You know how RPGs work, right?