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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And what exactly do you think I'm "proposing" in terms of "DM Power"? Because as near as I can tell, I haven't proposed anything beyond an acknowledgment that "tyranny of fun" players are a problem.

As I say I have regularly run and played at open tables. They are not a significant problem in my experience and the ones I have seen that are reactions to toxic DMing (or young teenagers).

I'm quite curious to find out what you misread as "encouraging DMs to be more toxic," if only to clear up your misunderstanding.

That group fun isn't the goal and that all powerful DMs are a good thing.

And I'm honestly envious that you've managed to just find good players in your local area.

Find? I've regularly managed to make good players and to encourage good play. Give me a table full of five interested newbies (again who aren't young teenagers) and I'd expect to get one potential new DM and 2-3 other good players out of it with the other 1-2 realising it isn't for them but not being toxic players unless they were toxic people.

I'm trying to think of any of the toxic players I've had the misfortune of playing with who weren't veteran players.

And no I don't consider myself some sort of DMing paragon.

But the rest of us aren't so privileged, and so having someone come in and say "I haven't seen this be a problem (very much), so therefore it's not a problem (very much)" isn't helpful.

But what I'm saying isn't that. It's "Every time I've become aware of this problem in real life it is as a reaction to specific types of toxic DMing practices causing it. Therefore to fix the problem we need to fix the DMing."

And believe it or not the way you DM is something you do have control over.

I'll point out that you're the only person here who's brought this up as an edition-specific issue. Maybe you should take some time to think about that.

Google tells me I'm wrong. That it was RPGSite nonsense from 2006 that I became aware of thanks to edition warriors and that is an incredibly niche term with almost no traction. It's certainly an unwelcome blast from the past.

 

[Alzrius]

As I say I have regularly run and played at open tables. They are not a significant problem in my experience and the ones I have seen that are reactions to toxic DMing (or young teenagers).

I'll refer you to my previous statement about how it's nice that you've been so lucky, but not to mistake your luck for how things actually are.

That group fun isn't the goal and that all powerful DMs are a good thing.

Please quote the post where I said either of those things.

Find? I've regularly managed to make good players and to encourage good play. Give me a table full of five interested newbies (again who aren't young teenagers) and I'd expect to get one potential new DM and 2-3 other good players out of it with the other 1-2 realising it isn't for them but not being toxic players unless they were toxic people.

Which suggests that you haven't been around very many toxic people (and have been around a bunch of newbies). Which again, is very nice for you, but I'm not sure where you get this idea that your lived experiences are in any way representative of anything. Honestly, this entire idea smacks of you looking to dismiss the entire idea of problem players (at least in regards to "tyranny of fun" problem players) rather than talking about what to do about them. It might not be a problem for you, but other people have said it's a problem for them; dismissing their lived experiences isn't a constructive response on your part.

I'm trying to think of any of the toxic players I've had the misfortune of playing with who weren't veteran players.

I don't think that newbie versus veteran players is much of a factor, in all honesty. Regardless of how they became a problem, problem players are still a problem.

And no I don't consider myself some sort of DMing paragon.

Oh, I completely agree that you're not.

But what I'm saying isn't that. It's "Every time I've become aware of this problem in real life it is as a reaction to specific types of toxic DMing practices causing it. Therefore to fix the problem we need to fix the DMing."

And I'm saying that your premise is flawed. Because every time I've seen this problem in real life it hasn't been a reaction to toxic DMing practices. Therefore, fixing this problem will not involve "fixing" the DM.

And believe it or not the way you DM is something you do have control over.

True, but irrelevant, since the idea that players are only bad if their DM is bad is a premise which denies player agency, and so seems like it borders on being a toxic idea.

Google tells me I'm wrong.

They're not the only ones.

That it was RPGSite nonsense from 2006 that I became aware of thanks to edition warriors and that is an incredibly niche term with almost no traction. It's certainly an unwelcome blast from the past.

So we can nicely dismiss with your claiming this is an edition war thing, in other words. Glad we've established that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nope, toxic players will be toxic no matter what the rules say.

This in my experience is simply false. Toxic people will be toxic, granted.

But toxic players who aren't otherwise toxic people? That comes either from a clash of the player with the game (until recently I was running for two groups which had only two players between them I might consider flexing into the other group). Or it comes from something that has embedded itself and been allowed and possibly encouraged to fester - and a good way of doing that is viking hat DMs trampling over everyone.

And the DM is in a natural position of leadership, no matter what the rules say.

Absolutely.

In addition, the relative scarcity of DMs competed to players gives them more leverage, no matter what the rules say.

Agreed. An important note here is that the relative scarcity of DMs is both game specific and group specific.

Rules never made anyone a nicer person.

Rules however have frequently made people nastier people. And people with authority being nastier people have made the people they are nasty to nastier.

It is my position that a lot of the DM Authority rules, such as Paladins Falling and gods denying spells as well as others encourages DMs to be nastier.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't believe in rules designed to prevent toxic behaviour, be that on part the GM or the player. It will never work, and the process of attempting that might make the rules more unwieldy to people playing in good faith. Also most cases of "toxic" are not actually that, it is just people having different preferences, and then it is for the best to people just to part ways to find groups that share their tastes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'll refer you to my previous statement about how it's nice that you've been so lucky, but not to mistake your luck for how things actually are.

And if I run regular open tables and pickup groups currently in three different clubs where I'm the only common member and with new DMs and don't get these problems at what point does it cease to be luck? I don't believe myself to be that consistently lucky.

Given this I have only two possibilities. Firstly that it's not luck but environment and that you are in the middle of a foetid swamp. Secondly that it's not luck but skill.

Which suggests that you haven't been around very many toxic people (and have been around a bunch of newbies).

I've been around a lot more veterans than newbies. And I've been around more toxic people than I'd like.

Which again, is very nice for you, but I'm not sure where you get this idea that your lived experiences are in any way representative of anything.

I'm just wondering where you get the idea that your lived experiences are representative of anything other than your environment and the way people respond to the way you do things.

At this point the questions are "why are our environments so different?", "what are we doing differently?" and "what can you learn from me to have an experience more like mine?"

Honestly, this entire idea smacks of you looking to dismiss the entire idea of problem players (at least in regards to "tyranny of fun" problem players) rather than talking about what to do about them.

Honestly this response smacks of you being in denial. I am not dismissing the idea of them. I am suggesting that they are a predictable consequence of bad, overbearing DMing. And that we should treat the cause (bad DMing) not the symptom (players fighting for breathing room).

It might not be a problem for you, but other people have said it's a problem for them; dismissing their lived experiences isn't a constructive response on your part.

I'm not dismissing their lived experiences. I'm saying their lived experiences are at least in part a consequence of their actions.

As I have said, I've seen about as many toxic DMs as toxic players in absolute terms so think the proportion is way higher

And I'm saying that your premise is flawed. Because every time I've seen this problem in real life it hasn't been a reaction to toxic DMing practices.

Or it has been a reaction to DMing practices you do not consider toxic that actually are. Remember that it's much harder to fire a DM for toxicity than it is a player

True, but irrelevant, since the idea that players are only bad if their DM is bad is a premise which denies player agency, and so seems like it borders on being a toxic idea.

I haven't said that. Especially as bad and toxic aren't the same thing. But part of the DM's job is helping players grow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't believe in rules designed to prevent toxic behaviour, be that on part the GM or the player.

Agreed. But I believe that there can be rules (such as classic Paladin Falling rules) that encourage toxic behaviour. And these should be weeded out ruthlessly.

Also most cases of "toxic" are not actually that, it is just people having different preferences, and then it is for the best to people just to part ways to find groups that share their tastes.

Also agreed.

 

[Alzrius]

And if I run regular open tables and pickup groups currently in three different clubs where I'm the only common member and with new DMs and don't get these problems at what point does it cease to be luck? I don't believe myself to be that consistently lucky.

Certainly that doesn't approach anywhere near the point where it ceases to be luck. I mean, I suppose you can consider yourself representative of the state of things for everyone, everywhere, but given that it's incredibly unlikely that you've come anywhere close to interacting with even 0.1% of players (new or established), then I think you're going to have to resign yourself to the idea that you're not emblematic of anything about the hobby as a whole, and so can't hold yourself up as any sort of example.

Given this I have only two possibilities. Firstly that it's not luck but environment and that you are in the middle of a foetid swamp. Secondly that it's not luck but skill.

The problem, of course, is that it's not "given this," as noted above. Since you yourself said that you're not any sort of paragon, we can discount skill on your part. Likewise, since you're the only one claiming that your experiences represent the state of things, whereas more than one person has said you're wrong, we can likewise dismiss any idea of there being a "swamp" which no one else dwells in.

I've been around a lot more veterans than newbies. And I've been around more toxic people than I'd like.

Which is again you making this about you. It's not. Try to keep that in mind going forward.

I'm just wondering where you get the idea that your lived experiences are representative of anything other than your environment and the way people respond to the way you do things.

Unlike you, I never held up my experiences as being representative of anything except myself. Maybe you should take a lesson from that?

At this point the questions are "why are our environments so different?", "what are we doing differently?" and "what can you learn from me to have an experience more like mine?"

No, because that's not the discussion we're having. The discussion we're having is "what to do about 'tyranny of fun' players." If you have nothing substantive to add to that discussion, which you don't seem to, then maybe the best thing for you to do is bow out. Simply saying "there are no bad players, only bad DMs" isn't any kind of helpful contribution, and instead simply derails things for those of us who're trying to actually have a discourse.

Honestly this response smacks of you being in denial.

Oh, the irony here...

I am not dismissing the idea of them. I am suggesting that they are a predictable consequence of bad, overbearing DMing. And that we should treat the cause (bad DMing) not the symptom (players fighting for breathing room).

And I am suggesting that this is a deflection of the problem, by saying that it's not actually the players at all, despite that being what's under discussion. Personally, I believe in player agency, and that if someone is acting toxic, that's on them, rather than it not being their fault because someone else is necessarily having a power trip.

I'm not dismissing their lived experiences. I'm saying their lived experiences are at least in part a consequence of their actions.

And given that other people are a better judge of their own actions than some rando on the Internet, I don't think this idea of yours holds up.

As I have said, I've seen about as many toxic DMs as toxic players in absolute terms so think the proportion is way higher

That's nice for you, but again, stop thinking that your experiences are any indicator of anything except your personal circumstances and situation. "I've never seen a bad player who wasn't just reacting to a bad DM" is a statement about yourself, not the wider hobby.

Or it has been a reaction to DMing practices you do not consider toxic that actually are. Remember that it's much harder to fire a DM for toxicity than it is a player

This is another deflection on your part. No one is denying that there are bad DMs, but that's not the subject under discussion. If you think that there are no bad players, only reactions to bad DMs, that's your opinion, but it means you're not able to participate meaningfully in a discussion which doesn't come from that premise (as this one doesn't).

I haven't said that. Especially as bad and toxic aren't the same thing. But part of the DM's job is helping players grow.

Leaving aside the quibbling over definitions, the idea that the DM has a responsibility to help players "grow" strikes me as imbuing DMs with a great deal of moral authority, and so is prime to create the bad DMs you claim to despise. (And, of course, it's also yet another separate discussion.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Certainly that doesn't approach anywhere near the point where it ceases to be luck. I mean, I suppose you can consider yourself representative of the state of things for everyone, everywhere, but given that it's incredibly unlikely that you've come anywhere close to interacting with even 0.1% of players (new or established), then I think you're going to have to resign yourself to the idea that you're not emblematic of anything about the hobby as a whole, and so can't hold yourself up as any sort of example.

Believe it or not 0.1% of the entire population is not any sort of statistical threshold. If we assume the playerbase to be uniform I'm waaaay past a 99% threshold for it being just luck. Which means that either the local environment is very different (which is possible) or that skill matters (again possible).

The problem, of course, is that it's not "given this," as noted above. Since you yourself said that you're not any sort of paragon, we can discount skill on your part.

This doesn't follow. I'm good and know I'm good. I'm just not some sort of paragon, just someone still learning.

Likewise, since you're the only one claiming that your experiences represent the state of things, whereas more than one person has said you're wrong, we can likewise dismiss any idea of there being a "swamp" which no one else dwells in.

This doesn't follow either.

Which is again you making this about you. It's not. Try to keep that in mind going forward.

It's not about me - but I do have fairly wide ranging experience.

Unlike you, I never held up my experiences as being representative of anything except myself. Maybe you should take a lesson from that?

Spoing! My irony meter just exploded after your last comment. You're explicitly saying that your experience is irrelevant to anyone else.

The only conclusion therefore is that what you point out is nothing to do with anyone else.

No, because that's not the discussion we're having. The discussion we're having is "what to do about 'tyranny of fun' players."

And I am answering that. Fix it at source - with the DMing problems that lead to it. And then I am suggesting how.

You simply don't like this answer.

If you have nothing substantive to add to that discussion, which you don't seem to, then maybe the best thing for you to do is bow out. Simply saying "there are no bad players, only bad DMs" isn't any kind of helpful contribution, and instead simply derails things for those of us who're trying to actually have a discourse.

And this is a strawman. I have never said there are no bad players. I have simply said that complaints about this specific problem flows from the DM.

I have never seen a non-DM make this complaint about their fellow players; it is a problem that 100% exists on the Player/DM interaction axis and that means that there are always two people involved of which one is always the DM.

Oh, the irony here...

What? That you're commenting on irony?

And I am suggesting that this is a deflection of the problem, by saying that it's not actually the players at all, despite that being what's under discussion.

What's under discussion is an interaciton problem. It's simply that you are sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming how it must be the other guy, not even considering that it takes two people to have a problem.

That's nice for you, but again, stop thinking that your experiences are any indicator of anything except your personal circumstances and situation. "I've never seen a bad player who wasn't just reacting to a bad DM" is a statement about yourself, not the wider hobby.

You literally quoted me pointing out that bad and toxic are not the same thing in the exact same post you are replying to. You can't even claim you didn't read that sentence in my reply. You are just lashing out here.

Which means that no further conversation can be productive.

This is another deflection on your part. No one is denying that there are bad DMs, but that's not the subject under discussion.

This is just you attempting to deflect. "Tyrrany of fun" players are a problem with the player/DM interaction. I've pointed out where I believe it lies - with DMing practice. This is entirely in line with the conversation. And believe it or not fixing DMing practice is something you have much more control over than the player side of the interaction.

Deflection is right - but it's not mine.

If you think that there are no bad players, only reactions to bad DMs, that's your opinion, but it means you're not able to participate meaningfully in a discussion which doesn't come from that premise (as this one doesn't).

The very next sentence you quoted after this one was "I haven't said that. Especially as bad and toxic aren't the same thing. But part of the DM's job is helping players grow."

You know perfectly well that I don't think that there are no bad players and I have mentioned that I have had to remove toxic players. You are just throwing as much chaff as you can here to avoid the question as to where the actual problem lies.

Leaving aside the quibbling over definitions, the idea that the DM has a responsibility to help players "grow" strikes me as imbuing DMs with a great deal of moral authority, and so is prime to create the bad DMs you claim to despise. (And, of course, it's also yet another separate discussion.)

I'm imbuing DMs with responsibility. And it's not a separate discussion; it's part of the same one.

But it's clear that you are trying to shout me down and are either not reading what I am writing or you are intentionally strawmanning it. There is no point in continuing this further.

Goodbye

 

[abirdcall]

I've tried out too many players who gave off yellow flags when discussing the game with them that now I just tell them they won't be right for the game.

Just better that way because once they are in the game they can just ruin the vibe even when ejected.

So in that way it sort of is on the DM. It is tougher when it is a friend of one of the players.

I actually can't remember a time when I was unsure about a player and then they ended up working out well.

Some things I look out for:

- not engaging in discussion of whether the game will be right for them including familiarizing themselves with the basic idea of the game. This often takes the form of not putting effort in which will be seen in the game as never learning the rules.

- having an initial character concept that is far from what would fit in well with the game. This is a red flag if they pushback at all on the DM when they let them know that character won't work.

- starting off with asking about rules exploits or having a character concept that screams "I found this on the internet" and/or is presented as a collection of mechanical combos rather than a narrative concept.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Don’t give me responsibility without giving me power.