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.

 

[pemerton]

However, when we've been discussing in this thread if there's mechanical support for things like the PC running their patron as a Warlock, there is not.

I just don't think that mechanical support is needed.

DnD Beyond says that

each Warlock is drawn into a binding pact with a powerful patron. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as angels, archfey, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, Warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.

Warlocks view their patrons as resources, as means to the end of achieving magical power. Some Warlocks respect, revere, or even love their patrons; some serve their patrons grudgingly; and some seek to undermine their patrons even as they wield the power their patrons have given them.​

For the Fiend Patron, it also says that

Your pact draws on the Lower Planes, the realms of perdition. You might forge a bargain with a demon lord such as Demogorgon or Orcus; an archdevil such as Asmodeus; or a pit fiend, balor, yugoloth, or night hag that is especially mighty. That patron’s aims are evil—the corruption or destruction of all things, ultimately including you—and your path is defined by the extent to which you strive against those aims.​

If a player, as part of inventing their PC, invents some aims for their patron, what is going to go wrong? What mechanical support would they need? I mean, D&D doesn't even have an "aims" or "beliefs" mechanic!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So the DM is capable of role-playing multiple characters in the same scene, but a player is not capable of the same? Why not?

Because the GM is not trying to immerse to the point of view of the NPC in the same way than the player is trying to immerse to the PC. Having to constantly jump between headspaces of several people is bad for immersion. And if there is a conflict or tension, playing both sides of it is not fun.

Like I don't get what is so controversial about this. RPGs are not solitaire, I'm not there to write fan fiction about my character, I'm there to play with other people, and that requires the GM to portray the NPCs and orchestrate conflict and challenges for the PCs. This is the bloody core structure of RPGs, and now people somehow are not getting it?

 

[pemerton]

Like I don't get what is so controversial about this. RPGs are not solitaire, I'm not there to write fan fiction about my character, I'm there to play with other people, and that requires the GM to portray the NPCs and orchestrate conflict and challenges for the PCs. This is the bloody core structure of RPGs, and now people somehow are not getting it?

No one is not getting it. But not everyone agrees that a PC's family, friends, mentors, patron deity and/or patron entity are part of the conflict and challenge environment.

Heck, Vincent Baker - who designed Apocalypse World - knows more about conflict and its role in RPGs than just about anyone else in the world. And he designed a RPG - Apocalypse World - that makes the typical conflict or challenge in D&D pale in comparison.

And Apocalypse World has the following 12+ result for the advanced seduce/manipulate move (pp 186-7):

you change [the NPC's] nature. Choose one of the following; tell the MC to erase their threat type altogether and write it in instead.

• ally: friend (impulse: to back you up)
• ally: lover (impulse: to give you shelter & comfort)
• ally: right hand (impulse: to follow through on your intentions)
• ally: representative (impulse: to pursue your interests in your absence)
• ally: guardian (impulse: to intercept danger)
• ally: confidante (impulse: to give you advice, perspective, or absolution.)​

This is serious business and don’t risk the players’ trust by [mucking] around with it. Take that NPC out of whatever front
she’s in, list her in a whole new place, home instead of the home front.

Furthermore, stop looking at this NPC through crosshairs. She has been set apart, safe from casual death, to a higher purpose. By now the players are bone weary from knowing that every single NPC is, at her heart, only a potential threat to them. Now, this one person, they can breathe.​

D&D is not a game in which every single NPC is expected, at their heart, to be only a potential threat to the PCs. It is in this respect much less intense than Apocalypse World. It in no way violates the basic tenets, ethos or play dynamics of D&D for the warlock's patron not to be a source of threat to the warlock PC.

Anymore than a PC's mum has to be.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

D&D is not a game in which every single NPC is expected, at their heart, to be only a potential threat to the PCs. It is in this respect much less intense than Apocalypse World. It in no way violates the basic tenets, ethos or play dynamics of D&D for the warlock's patron not to be a source of threat to the warlock PC.

Anymore than a PC's mum has to be.

First, it is disingenuous to say that an otherworldly entity you sell your soul for power or something like that is not a likely source of conflict. The basic archetype of Warlock definitely implies some tension there. And that's a good thing, as conflict is actually interesting.

And second, even if that was not the case, the GM will still play the patron, just like they would play the character's dear old mum!

 

[Corinnguard]

But even if that was not the case, the GM will still play the patron, just like they would play the character's loving mum!

Or in the case of a Sorcerer/Warlock, your not-so distant ancestor on your mum's side.

 

[pemerton]

First, it is disingenuous to say that an otherworldly entity you sell your soul for power or something like that is not a likely source of conflict.

First, "disingenuous" means not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does (from Oxford Languages via Google).

So you're accusing me of not being candid or sincere - ie of lying or deceiving. (Or, alternatively, you don't know what the word means?) The accusation is rude and unwarranted.

Second, what is a source of conflict is up for the participants in a game to decide. I decide that my PC is an orphan - is my parentage a source of conflict and drama? or a non-issue? Neither answer is compelled. Either is open.

To me, it seems pretty likely that if a player wants to exercise control over the disposition of their PC's patron, it probably means they don't want that PC-patron relationship to be a source of drama or conflict. And that wouldn't surprise me - why would a player want to build a PC who is mechanically more-or-less on a par with everyone else's, but who is liable to have all their abilities taken away as a result of unilateral GM decision-making.

(There's also a question about the fiction - why is the patron not bound by the pact? - but that's a separate thing.)

The basic archetype of Warlock definitely implies some tension there. And that's a good thing, as conflict is actually interesting.

And DnD Beyond addresses that tension like this:

Some Warlocks respect, revere, or even love their patrons; some serve their patrons grudgingly; and some seek to undermine their patrons even as they wield the power their patrons have given them.​

That seems to put the player, not the GM, in the controlling seat as far as the existence and character of any tension is concerned.

 

[Mecheon]

And second, even if that was not the case, the GM will still play the patron, just like they would play the character's dear old mum!

Unless of course the mum is the player's former character

In which case they then get the enjoyment of getting to RP both their mum bothering their kid, and their adventurer being upset their mum is like this. As it should be.

 

[Corinnguard]

Unless of course the mum is the player's former character

In which case they then get the enjoyment of getting to RP both their mum bothering their kid, and their adventurer being upset their mum is like this. As it should be.

One of the players in my group likes playing members of the same family. In the last adventure we participated in, he was playing a Bladesinger Wizard who happened to be the granddaughter of the character he's playing in our current adventure.

That said, if I was the kid in your example, I would be using Nondetection a lot. "If you haven't guessed by now, my mom is a spellcaster. Always scrying or levitating behind me as if I don't know how to take care of myself."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

First, "disingenuous" means not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does (from Oxford Languages via Google).

So you're accusing me of not being candid or sincere - ie of lying or deceiving. (Or, alternatively, you don't know what the word means?) The accusation is rude and unwarranted.

Don't be patronising.

I know you're smart enough to understand that deals with devils are associated with more conflict than relationship with one's mother, even though we can imagine nice devils and difficult mothers. Pretending that this difference in implication doesn't exist is weird.

Second, what is a source of conflict is up for the participants in a game to decide. I decide that my PC is an orphan - is my parentage a source of conflict and drama? or a non-issue? Neither answer is compelled. Either is open.

Sure. But choices have implicit meanings. If I choose in my background that my smuggler owes a huge sum of money to an alien crime lord, that has an implicit meaning that this will be a source of conflict later. Choosing to be a warlock is a bit like that. Though of course it is always good practice to openly discuss these things, so that everyone is on the same page.

To me, it seems pretty likely that if a player wants to exercise control over the disposition of their PC's patron, it probably means they don't want that PC-patron relationship to be a source of drama or conflict. And that wouldn't surprise me - why would a player want to build a PC who is mechanically more-or-less on a par with everyone else's, but who is liable to have all their abilities taken away as a result of unilateral GM decision-making.

Because being beholden to the patron is part of the fiction of the class. Like having to follow the oath is part of paladin's, like upholding the tenets of their faith is cleric's. There can be exceptions, and not every character needs to be like that, but the classes do come with fiction, and that fiction will affect the narrative.

(There's also a question about the fiction - why is the patron not bound by the pact? - but that's a separate thing.)

I'm sure they are. But what exactly was the deal? I think it is weird that the class doesn't address this.

And DnD Beyond addresses that tension like this:

Some Warlocks respect, revere, or even love their patrons; some serve their patrons grudgingly; and some seek to undermine their patrons even as they wield the power their patrons have given them.​

That seems to put the player, not the GM, in the controlling seat as far as the existence and character of any tension is concerned.

I have in no point said that the player couldn't be part of defining the initial parameters of the warlock/patron relationship, merely that it is regardless probably for the best if the GM plays the patron. And like you see here, conflict narrative is offered as an example here, yet there is no guidance of how to actually handle it.

My initial point was that patron and the pact are narratively a huge part of the warlock's story, yet there is next to no advice or guidance on how to actually handle it and what the pact actually means.

 

[Emerikol]

No, I stuck to the five senses. You can absolutely "feel" as in the sense of touch, those sensastions.

Well I won't argue that point in a fantasy role playing discussion. Let's just state that I tell them of external stimuli involving touch and leave it at that.

The Silk Road was over 4,000 miles long. What if the PC wanted to be a stranger in a strange land, who had spent a year traveling thousands of miles for some reason or another? Sure, sure, you "reserve the right" to reject anything. But we never hear "I reserve the right to reject you being a local orphan from temple I told you about" or "I reserve the right to reject you being a local farmer with a heart of gold". I'm sure you do reserve the right to reject those things as well.... but you won't ever reject them. And you didn't even answer the given example, because you didn't explain why you would reject someone writing their backstory to involve their parent's motivations. You just generally would reserve the right to reject any backstory for any reason, just in case a player does something you don't like.

I wouldn't say I never reject anything. I do try to work with a player. Typically, players provide some broad ideas for a backstory and together we write one that fits with the game world. NPCs like parents can of course almost always be how the player wants (perhaps within some VERY broad design guidelines) but the fact they are from this place or that place is not so easy for a new player to know.

So, to get back to the question of why, what sort of criteria do you use to reject player contributions to the plot of your game?

Well if I've banned a particular race, sometimes I will stand firm. In fact most of the time. A player that has not read the intro to the campaign world and has chosen against it's theme is often not a player I want anyway so if they are going to quit over it I'm fine with that outcome. But I have allowed a race but I insisted on a unique backstory explanation because the "race" as a race did not exist. The PC was a one off. It depends on why I banned the race to begin with in this particular campaign.

But the item is the source of their powers. It is WHY they became a warlock. You may as well say you need to approve the Player deciding that they studied swordsmanship and became a fighter, or that they found religion and became a cleric.

No the equivalent would be a fighter wanting to play his intelligent magical sword. And look I'm not there to make life hard for the PC and his or her powers. So I don't play the NPC who provides their powers especially hard though with clerics I do insist on faithfulness to that religions creeds.

Now, I don't disbelieve your answer that you would do something like that "to make the game more fun" but here's a small hint about people. When they come to you with an idea? They think that idea will be fun. Now, I myself have had to stop a player and make sure they understood that their fun can't lead to them ruining the fun of the other four players at the table. I'm not going to say I never check a player and make sure we are working on the same page, but it just seems rather odd to me to see people saying "I need to have the ability to reject the things the players want to do, so that I can make sure the player has the best time possible."

Running a successful campaign is hard. I don't do it lightly. And while players may have fun ideas in general to contribute they are only good ideas for the campaign if they mesh with the campaign. If I am trying to provide a distinct flavor in the campaign the idea jars with that flavor then I will certainly reject it. I'm going to have a fun successful campaign. I'm not rolling the dice, forgive the pun, on some idea that may ruin the campaign.