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]

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?

Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make. The argument from the initial post was that when you start deviating from the base rules/rules as presented/whatever you want to call it, you start losing folks. The idea being that having these variants is unnecessary and offputting complexity, as minor as that complexity might seem to someone willing to embrace it. It's not about what you, personally, are okay with; it's about whether these variants are a good design decision for the audience being targeted.

The Oberoni Fallacy is close, but not the best description of this phenomenon... forget I brought it up.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I thought they'd removed it as a spelled out option thus forcing the DM to remove it by rule 0. If it is one official choice then what I mentioned is satisfied.

 

[Hatmatter]

Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make. The argument from the initial post was that when you start deviating from the base rules/rules as presented/whatever you want to call it, you start losing folks. The idea being that having these variants is unnecessary and offputting complexity, as minor as that complexity might seem to someone willing to embrace it. It's not about what you, personally, are okay with; it's about whether these variants are a good design decision for the audience being targeted.

The Oberoni Fallacy is close, but not the best description of this phenomenon... forget I brought it up.

I'm a bit of a johnny-come-lately to this conversation, although I have been reading the thread from the beginning for the past month or two. In all honesty, Ulorian, I am not sure I understand this. For the past fifty years, people have houseruled D&D and have even been encouraged to do so. Unless you are referring to something like Adventurers League, what do you mean by "start losing folks?" Level Up are a set of commercially released houserules and it actually attracts some members here. I mean, as the DM, I've never had a house rule that cause me to "lose folks" from my table. I really do not follow what you are getting at?

Maybe this kind of concern happens when people are playing with others online who they do not know in person? I could imagine that situation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm a bit of a johnny-come-lately to this conversation, although I have been reading the thread from the beginning for the past month or two. In all honesty, Ulorian, I am not sure I understand this. For the past fifty years, people have houseruled D&D and have even been encouraged to do so. Unless you are referring to something like Adventurers League, what do you mean by "start losing folks?" Level Up are a set of commercially released houserules and it actually attracts some members here. I mean, as the DM, I've never had a house rule that cause me to "lose folks" from my table. I really do not follow what you are getting at?

Maybe this kind of concern happens when people are playing with others online who they do not know in person? I could imagine that situation.

I would argue that house rules cease to be such when they are commercially published, but otherwise I agree.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Right, but at that point we are having a VERY different conversation. The difference between "Myself and my entire group do not like feats and therefore do not like them no longer being explicitly labeled as optional" and "I do not like feats, but some people in my group do and will be more vocal about wanting to use them because they are no longer explicitly optional" is pretty stark.

Especially since, as both anecdotal and data evidence has shown... the vast majority of people use feats.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Also, to follow along with this. The design team explicitly stated early on that the ASI feat was included specifically for groups that did not want to use feats and just wanted ASIs. That was the design intention for those groups. And even origin feats can be made far less impactful by saying that everyone needs to only take Tough or Skilled, to limit the extra rules and keep them purely as character boons.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

This feels a bit odd of a take to me. If I was to point to a "generation" of DnD that had a heavy reliance on feats... it would be 3rd edition created almost 25 years ago. Not 5th edition in either 2014 or 2024.

5th edition, even 2024, has had feats as an optional boon that you could use to elevate your character. 3rd edition had it as a mandatory sub-system you had to master or your character would be rendered useless.

 

[Laurefindel]

With D&D accommodating more and more playstyles, giving legitimate options to represent more and more aspects of fantasy, I believe it is natural for a DM to restrict content toward a proposed vision of a campaign.

Call that content «focus» or «banning», to me it doesn’t sound unreasonable for a DM to say «D&D can do it all, but all of it won’t be done in this campaign», because I’m aiming for these themes/feel; or this level of complexity; or this range of character levels; or this setting; or whatever.

So whether it’s about feats or firearms or levels 11+ or character races/species or class features or masteries, at this point I’m expecting my DM to close some options (but also expect them to guide me through it all).

 

[GreyLord]

Right, but at that point we are having a VERY different conversation. The difference between "Myself and my entire group do not like feats and therefore do not like them no longer being explicitly labeled as optional" and "I do not like feats, but some people in my group do and will be more vocal about wanting to use them because they are no longer explicitly optional" is pretty stark.

Especially since, as both anecdotal and data evidence has shown... the vast majority of people use feats.

I don't know if a majority use feats. I KNOW a minority uses them (obviously, many people on these forums). I know they add complexity (and that along with weapons and other items make the new rendition of D&D more complex), and more complexity adds a layer of headache for many DMs.

I'd have preferred 5e to be more like BX or BECMI with simplified rules where you can add complexity as you want, rather than having complexity and having to use rule 0 to reduce it.

In my experience (which may obviously not be that of others here), the former is easier to do than the latter.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I'm a bit of a johnny-come-lately to this conversation, although I have been reading the thread from the beginning for the past month or two. In all honesty, Ulorian, I am not sure I understand this. For the past fifty years, people have houseruled D&D and have even been encouraged to do so. Unless you are referring to something like Adventurers League, what do you mean by "start losing folks?" Level Up are a set of commercially released houserules and it actually attracts some members here. I mean, as the DM, I've never had a house rule that cause me to "lose folks" from my table. I really do not follow what you are getting at?

Maybe this kind of concern happens when people are playing with others online who they do not know in person? I could imagine that situation.

Things are a bit different than when you and I started playing! At this point, D&D is attempting to court a larger audience. House ruling may be fine for diehards (e.g. the population of these boards!), but for folks looking for a way to kill a few hours once in a while (i.e. the wider audience that Hasbro is pursuing), this is a turn off. Even for the tinkerers amongst potential new players, there's an argument to be made that the expectation of tighter rulesets created by the wave of more sophisticated/clean/streamlined boardgames of the last couple of decades forces the design team's hand when it comes to creating game rules.