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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See @Parmandur's point above. They assume that once a new group has found its groove, it would be natural for the DM to encourage players to make swaps. Before that, it's simpler to get them to pick from a list.

I'm not saying that I would do it that way - but it seems reasonable that it might have been their thinking on the subject, or they wouldn't have been likely to have left the 2014 Custom Background "loophole".

@Parmandur has had me blocked for a while now. Can't see his point. My point is that this isn't the PH for beginners. It's the PH for everyone. For the last several editions, with the exception of magic items (and not even them in 4e) virtually all the non-monster rules you need to play or run D&D, especially if you're using a published adventure, can be found in the PH. You don't really need the DMG to be a DM, so putting character creation stuff in there seems like a bad call to me, since there's no driving need for even the DM to have read it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do too. I actually hope we're wrong, and that it feels different in a good way, but I expect it will be some bits are better, some are not, net... fine?

Honestly, I think it will feel better for everyone, but especially for martials. I've got quite a bit of time with nick and the healing spells in particular, and they feel really good and open options that just didn't practically exist before. About the only common complaint I've gotten are from Paladin nova advocates.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, I think it will feel better for everyone, but especially for martials. I've got quite a bit of time with nick and the healing spells in particular, and they feel really good and open options that just didn't practically exist before. About the only common complaint I've gotten are from Paladin nova advocates.

And now users of D&D Beyond who weren't ready to leap in with both feet quite yet.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's a crude work-around that only highlights how extremely bizarre the decision to delete customization of backgrounds and custom backgrounds from the PHB was. It also requires the DM to agree to allow you to use a 2014 background with a 2024 character.

Playing a wizard also requires the DM to agree to allow you to do so. The rules are in the book, it is just as firm in that case as it would be if they were labeled "custom background creation". You can call it a crude work around if you want, but it does work, per the rules, and since this is the only "change" that seems to be in this discussion...

They literally changed the rules, so I don't know what you think you're talking about here!

The RULES in the PHB 2014 and the Playtest, are that the PLAYER can CUSTOMIZE the backgrounds. Not the DM. The player. No DM permission is needed to do this in either case.

I can't be bothered to dig out the Playtest, but here's the 2014 wording:



Changing it so that you need DM permission to do this is a huge change, especially in the context of backgrounds now locking down what ability scores you're allowed to increase and what Feat you receive.

So you're just literally wrong when you're saying they didn't change the rules. This isn't from "beige to tan", this is literally removing something from player choice, and replacing it with 100% DM control. It's a bizarre move that no-one asked for.

In theory, perhaps it is a monumental shift to have custom backgrounds be DM permission... but they sort of already were? You weren't going to be able to use the 2014 PHB to make a "Time Traveling Archmage" background without DM permission. I don't see the intent in this as telling the player that the GM needs to have 100% control of their background, but more to encourage discussing your background with the DM.

And, it feels like it would be such an arbitrarily cruel thing for a DM to deny someone switching out these features, I just don't see it being a problem.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Now, you're absolutely right if you point out that both groups would be happy with customization being in the PHB. The only group that I can imagine not being happy with it, are DMs with the same animosity issue in reverse - ones that need to keep their players from ruining the game (somehow) when they get to pick from everything. (A group that I'd expect to be, in reality, actually quite small...)

And also, that group is the most likely to declare custom backgrounds off-limits even if they ARE in the PHB, so the net effect is still pretty neutral.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And now users of D&D Beyond who weren't ready to leap in with both feet quite yet.

Has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[Parmandur]

See @Parmandur's point above. They assume that once a new group has found its groove, it would be natural for the DM to encourage players to make swaps. Before that, it's simpler to get them to pick from a list.

I'm not saying that I would do it that way - but it seems reasonable that it might have been their thinking on the subject, or they wouldn't have been likely to have left the 2014 Custom Background "loophole".

Juat about the one and only mechanical doodad WotC has put in books for the past year is...Backgrounds, usually with new Level 1 Feats, which I have zero doubt will be errata'd to count as "Origin Feats".

Two Baclgroujds with two new Feats in Bigby's, two new Baclgrounds with a shared Feat Tree in Planescape, two new Backgrounds in The Deck of Many Things. No doubt in my mind thst WotC intends for people to feel free to use those, and to customize. Probsvly new Backgrounds sprinkled liberally in new books in the future, wirh new Origin Feats.

 

[Scott Christian]

You are technically right that it's a difference, and a difference that could possibly maybe be a big deal to some people - but there are a LOT of us who just don't have that problem.

This would be why they'd see it as barely a change at all, while you see it as a huge change.

Both of these are true. But there are a lot of things in D&D that you can point a finger at that operate under this same premise. DMs allowing Tasha's +2/+1. This was fought by many, and caused enough debate to warrant several hundred page threads on this site. DMs allowing certain races has certainly been highly contentious. I mean there is a 500 page thread (exaggeration) on this site about it. Those are two off the top of my head.

So while it's true that it might be a problem for some tables, and for most of us here, it won't be a problem. That, in no way, cuts the undercurrent of hundreds of Reddit posts that often discuss the "DM may I" paradox.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

@Parmandur has had me blocked for a while now. Can't see his point.

Oh yeah, I knew that at one point, but I forgot about it.

My point is that this isn't the PH for beginners. It's the PH for everyone.

Well... yeah, but it's ALSO the PH for beginners. In the very least, it's something that the designers need to consider.

For the last several editions, with the exception of magic items (and not even them in 4e) virtually all the non-monster rules you need to play or run D&D, especially if you're using a published adventure, can be found in the PH. You don't really need the DMG to be a DM, so putting character creation stuff in there seems like a bad call to me, since there's no driving need for even the DM to have read it.

Don't you think that it would be in WotC's best interest to CHANGE that fact? And even the rest of us, why would we want a DMG to exist that we don't even need?

On top of that, the designers have said that they wrote the three core books this time like they were one big D&D book, and then split them along logical lines. Seems like a good move to me.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Both of these are true. But there are a lot of things in D&D that you can point a finger at that operate under this same premise. DMs allowing Tasha's +2/+1. This was fought by many, and caused enough debate to warrant several hundred page threads on this site. DMs allowing certain races has certainly been highly contentious. I mean there is a 500 page thread (exaggeration) on this site about it. Those are two off the top of my head.

So while it's true that it might be a problem for some tables, and for most of us here, it won't be a problem. That, in no way, cuts the undercurrent of hundreds of Reddit posts that often discuss the "DM may I" paradox.

This is so weird, right? It's almost like people want to be able to point to a book and say, "see you have to play the way I want." Every time I hear this argument, "but now I have to ask the DM," I get that feeling. The feeling that its really about bullying others into playing your way.

Maybe WotC should codify all of my house rules so, that way, other DMs have to use them. It might make no difference in my games, but I'd feel good about myself knowing my vision was enforced. And all those plebs out there would be witness to my genius and would know the error of their ways.

Maybe I'm just cynical at this point. But it really feels weird to me when people complain that they have to ask a DM. So they run off and ask daddy WotC to force the DM to do it their way.