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.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Its not technically banning, it's restricting. And I don't think any group that wants to play without the complexity of multiple feats would have a problem with it.

You're playing with words a bit here. It is banning: it's disallowing options provided by the core rules. Might want to come up with a different counter-argument?

 

[Emerikol]

You're playing with words a bit here. It is banning: it's disallowing options provided by the core rules. Might want to come up with a different counter-argument?

I get your thinking but it's just never been a way of thinking that I subscribed to myself. I never assumed any DM was going to support 100% of the rules in the book right off. My first question in almost every game is what are the house rules? But sure for those who are seriously affected by something being a rule vs it not being a rule your point stands.

 

[Zardnaar]

I get your thinking but it's just never been a way of thinking that I subscribed to myself. I never assumed any DM was going to support 100% of the rules in the book right off. My first question in almost every game is what are the house rules? But sure for those who are seriously affected by something being a rule vs it not being a rule your point stands.

I think PHB is a reasonable assumption outside of specific campaigns eg drow or all animal folk.

6-12 races is often better than 50.

 

[Emerikol]

I think PHB is a reasonable assumption outside of specific campaigns eg drow or all animal folk.

That may be a "working assumption" but I'd still check with the DM. I wouldn't show up with a premade character without checking first.

6-12 races is often better than 50.

eh, maybe 3-6 races for me.

 

[Zardnaar]

That may be a "working assumption" but I'd still check with the DM. I wouldn't show up with a premade character without checking first.


eh, maybe 3-6 races for me.

Heh can work. It's easier to tie 3-6 to a theme ir whatever you're designing.

Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling I would generally assume are available. DM would generally mention something specific eg reptile world.

 

[Imaro]

You're playing with words a bit here. It is banning: it's disallowing options provided by the core rules. Might want to come up with a different counter-argument?

The counter argument wasn't about the wording... the fact is they gave any group that wants to play a game without feats the same option they had in the 2014 books... so any group that wants to play a game without feats easily can.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Its not technically banning, it's restricting. And I don't think any group that wants to play without the complexity of multiple feats would have a problem with it.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I like feats. If I was asked to play in a game without them, I'd be disappointed, but it likely wouldn't stop me from playing all else being equal. But you either don't want them and don't care if they're in the rules, or you do want them and do care if they're in the rules. Seems odd to split the difference here.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The counter argument wasn't about the wording... the fact is they gave any group that wants to play a game without feats the same option they had in the 2014 books... so any group that wants to play a game without feats easily can.

I understand the counter argument. It feels, though, like we are venturing into Oberoni Fallacy territory here is the point I am trying to make.

 

[Imaro]

I understand the counter argument. It feels, though, like we are venturing into Oberoni Fallacy territory here is the point I am trying to make.

What exactly is the problem being addressed?