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.

 

[Mistwell]

The issue you really do face with half elves is they're Elves Light. At the moment, in a case where races aren't adding too much to things, it does raise the question of using your limited space for two options that are really similar to each other

I get they have their fans, but that's the problem you have. They're a watered down version of one of the races already around, and if that one is already fairly watered down as designed? You'd start looking at other things to replace it with rather than two things that are fairly identical to each other.

As Fitz says, this could just be they're hot. Folks will make dozens of new race and texture things just for making their character look fancy. Look at Skyrim mods for an example of how far folks will go for that perfect waifu to play as

They've always been popular in all editions of D&D. On D&D Beyond they were also one of the most popular races even before BG3 came out. There is no getting around that people liked the race and it was very popular. MORE popular than many races which did make it into the game, by quite a bit.

 

[Mistwell]

I think he is referring to how 5.5e allows players to create beings of mixed ancestry. A5e's method of creating mixed heritages is much simpler, pick one heritage and then pick a heritage gift from another heritage. Once this is done, it's a matter of which Culture the mixed heritage character is raised in, the culture of one of their parents or something completely different.

There is no 5.5e rule that allows players to create beings of mixed ancestry. A lot of people think the rule they saw floated in the final UA on this made it into the actual rules. It did not. There is no current rule for mixed heritage species in 5.5e, other than you can use an existing race from the 2014 PHB.

 

[Steampunkette]

So I've put a few things out there, and I recently did an interview with the Roll Report where I was directly asked a few questions about D&D 2024. That part of the conversation kept returning and we barely touched on what the episode was supposed to be about, Paranormal Power, Martial Artistry, and how I got into 3rd Party Publishing.

'Cause D&D 2024 is just on EVERYONE'S minds, lately, for obvious reasons.

I specifically call out the Warlock as a bad choice in design but we never took the time to get into why. And while that interview won't air until sometime next month, I'd like to touch on my reason for saying WotC pooped the bed, here:

Genericising the level you gain your Archetype at really messes up the Warlock, badly. And their two reasons for doing it both suck.

They moved all character archetypes to level 3 so that:

1) Every character has the same amount of "Power Gain" to look forward to at level 3
2) Cross-Class Archetypes.

Those are terrible reasons to move the Warlock Patron. Firstly, because the Warlock's Patron is 90% of the character's theme! The difference between a Diabolist using blood to draw pentagrams and sacrifice goats and an Alienist reading a book they REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE resulting in a growing madness and connection to an Old One... that's huge.

Meanwhile 5e's like "You hear a dark whisper which is your patron, but you don't know what it is!"

Come the hell on. I'm playing a mousey New England dwelling student at Innsmouth Academy when the ghosts of the faculty come out of the walls wailing about the ancient occult magics that trapped them there and I'm supposed to wonder whether I'm hearing the whispers of an angel, a devil, an elder thing, a fey entity, a genie, or something else?

(Extra Credit if you get the reference)

"Maybe it's the King of the Faeries!" no. The Flavor of a given warlock is based on their patron and the deal they made. While you can certainly tell the "I don't know who my patron is!" story, it shouldn't be the presumed default for everyone. Nor should it be the way new players are introduced to this core class!

And the Cross-Class Archetypes are going to -utterly- destroy the Warlock's flavor, or co-opt it, there is no middle ground.

Way back in 2016 there was a little bit of a buzz around the idea of making archetypes that would work with multiple classes. It got picked up and discarded, repeatedly, through the years, and discussed on Twitter, Reddit, D&D Beyond's forums and other places. Sometimes WotC employees would also flirt with the idea. In 2021, they bit the bullet and went off with it.

Mages of Strixhaven introduced archetypes for the Bard/Warlock/Wizard, the Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard, and Druid/Warlock. In theory, fine, in practice? It took away some of the innate uniqueness of what a Warlock is in favor of stuffing them into the square hole.


No longer do you have Pact Magic with a powerful being as a Warlock... you're just a really weird Wizard at this Wizard School for Wizards. Instead of casting a bunch of spells over the course of the day, you cast a couple and beg for a break while everyone else is just like "Why? Lunch isn't for two hours and we already went to recess!"

And the new Cross-Class Archetypes they'll be doing for 2024 are going to do the exact same thing.

The thing that gives Warlocks a reason to exist in the world is their patron and the magic of their pacts. And it's going to be completely ignored.

Though, who knows? Maybe they'll allow Wizards to take Warlock Patrons as cross-class archetypes. 'Cause nothing says "Your narrative uniqueness doesn't matter" like stripping it away through cross-class archetypes and -giving- it away to other classes in the same manner.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So I've put a few things out there, and I recently did an interview with the Roll Report where I was directly asked a few questions about D&D 2024. That part of the conversation kept returning and we barely touched on what the episode was supposed to be about, Paranormal Power, Martial Artistry, and how I got into 3rd Party Publishing.

'Cause D&D 2024 is just on EVERYONE'S minds, lately, for obvious reasons.

I specifically call out the Warlock as a bad choice in design but we never took the time to get into why. And while that interview won't air until sometime next month, I'd like to touch on my reason for saying WotC pooped the bed, here:

Genericising the level you gain your Archetype at really messes up the Warlock, badly. And their two reasons for doing it both suck.

They moved all character archetypes to level 3 so that:

1) Every character has the same amount of "Power Gain" to look forward to at level 3
2) Cross-Class Archetypes.

Those are terrible reasons to move the Warlock Patron. Firstly, because the Warlock's Patron is 90% of the character's theme! The difference between a Diabolist using blood to draw pentagrams and sacrifice goats and an Alienist reading a book they REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE resulting in a growing madness and connection to an Old One... that's huge.

Meanwhile 5e's like "You hear a dark whisper which is your patron, but you don't know what it is!"

Come the hell on. I'm playing a mousey New England dwelling student at Innsmouth Academy when the ghosts of the faculty come out of the walls wailing about the ancient occult magics that trapped them there and I'm supposed to wonder whether I'm hearing the whispers of an angel, a devil, an elder thing, a fey entity, a genie, or something else?

View attachment 380970
(Extra Credit if you get the reference)

"Maybe it's the King of the Faeries!" no. The Flavor of a given warlock is based on their patron and the deal they made. While you can certainly tell the "I don't know who my patron is!" story, it shouldn't be the presumed default for everyone. Nor should it be the way new players are introduced to this core class!

And the Cross-Class Archetypes are going to -utterly- destroy the Warlock's flavor, or co-opt it, there is no middle ground.

Way back in 2016 there was a little bit of a buzz around the idea of making archetypes that would work with multiple classes. It got picked up and discarded, repeatedly, through the years, and discussed on Twitter, Reddit, D&D Beyond's forums and other places. Sometimes WotC employees would also flirt with the idea. In 2021, they bit the bullet and went off with it.

Mages of Strixhaven introduced archetypes for the Bard/Warlock/Wizard, the Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard, and Druid/Warlock. In theory, fine, in practice? It took away some of the innate uniqueness of what a Warlock is in favor of stuffing them into the square hole.


No longer do you have Pact Magic with a powerful being as a Warlock... you're just a really weird Wizard at this Wizard School for Wizards. Instead of casting a bunch of spells over the course of the day, you cast a couple and beg for a break while everyone else is just like "Why? Lunch isn't for two hours and we already went to recess!"

And the new Cross-Class Archetypes they'll be doing for 2024 are going to do the exact same thing.

The thing that gives Warlocks a reason to exist in the world is their patron and the magic of their pacts. And it's going to be completely ignored.

Though, who knows? Maybe they'll allow Wizards to take Warlock Patrons as cross-class archetypes. 'Cause nothing says "Your narrative uniqueness doesn't matter" like stripping it away through cross-class archetypes and -giving- it away to other classes in the same manner.

Hard to argue with any of that. The patron angle is the reason the warlock class exists as far as I'm concerned. Weakening the theme helps no one.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Those are terrible reasons to move the Warlock Patron.

Much as I hated that casters got even their subclasses before martials, Warlock is kind of a nonsense of a concept with this mystery patron ooooh who could it be.

 

[Stormonu]

I don't see it as a problem for the Warlock. Like the paladin, the 1st/2nd level Warlock hasn't finalized their pact - just as the Paladin hasn't taken their oath yet. They may very well know who their patron is and what sort of power they can soon expect, but the "deal" hasn't been locked in yet. Consider them Padawan levels.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't see it as a problem for the Warlock. Like the paladin, the 1st/2nd level Warlock hasn't finalized their pact - just as the Paladin hasn't taken their oath yet. They may very well know who their patron is and what sort of power they can soon expect, but the "deal" hasn't been locked in yet. Consider them Padawan levels.

... no. I don't think I will!

When you make a deal with a crossroads demon for power you don't get power before you promise them your soul. Rumpelstiltskin doesn't start spinning gold from straw 'til you've promised him your firstborn child. The only pact where that kinda thing would work is for an Old God 'cause they might not even be -aware- of you taking power from them. But if they're not aware of it, they're definitely not a voice whispering to you how to get and use that power, either.

And if you never take the 3rd level of Warlock you retain the "Free Hit" forever without paying?

The narrative conceits do not line up.

But also... The Pact Magic description kinda shoots that -whole- conceit in the foot. "Through occult ceremony, you have formed a pact with a mysterious entity to gain magical powers."

So you've made the deal. You've got the powers. But you don't know who or what you've made a pact with 'til you pick at level 3. You might've started play wanting to do a Fiend Pact and described a Diabolical ritual but then 3rd level rolls around and, y'know, Fey just seems more fun with how the party dynamic works out. Guess the Fey really love them sacrificed goats and pentagrams!

It's a purely mechanical shift in a way that strips away identity. Your post also doesn't touch on how that "Mysterious Voice" might apparently be the Headmaster of a Magical School for Wizards that you make your Pact with on the first day of school while running late with a piece of toast hanging out of your mouth, I guess.

Because the Cross-Class Archetypes are absolutely going to rear their head, again, after Strixhaven. Someone liked the idea SO MUCH that all the classes got homogenized to better work with it, and so what if the entire narrative core of the Warlock gets torn out when they have pact magic with no patron at 3rd level?

 

[Imaro]

... no. I don't think I will!

When you make a deal with a crossroads demon for power you don't get power before you promise them your soul. Rumpelstiltskin doesn't start spinning gold from straw 'til you've promised him your firstborn child. The only pact where that kinda thing would work is for an Old God 'cause they might not even be -aware- of you taking power from them. But if they're not aware of it, they're definitely not a voice whispering to you how to get and use that power, either.

And if you never take the 3rd level of Warlock you retain the "Free Hit" forever without paying?

The narrative conceits do not line up.

Huh? So we're just ignoring the tempter narrative conceit, the corrupter narrative conceit as well as those folk heroes who actually outsmarted or bested an entity and was able to garner a small part of its power in return...

I just feel like you have a much narrower concept for the Warlock archetype than I'd agree with.

 

[Imaro]

But also... The Pact Magic description kinda shoots that -whole- conceit in the foot. "Through occult ceremony, you have formed a pact with a mysterious entity to gain magical powers."

So you've made the deal. You've got the powers. But you don't know who or what you've made a pact with 'til you pick at level 3. You might've started play wanting to do a Fiend Pact and described a Diabolical ritual but then 3rd level rolls around and, y'know, Fey just seems more fun with how the party dynamic works out. Guess the Fey really love them sacrificed goats and pentagrams!

Yes you foolishly called on/bargained with/summoned something beyond your understanding...

You may eventually discern what it is or maybe you never do... what I do find hard to believe is that beings this powerful would necessarily be so straightforward & obvious that their summoning rituals Are all direct calling cards.

It's a purely mechanical shift in a way that strips away identity. Your post also doesn't touch on how that "Mysterious Voice" might apparently be the Headmaster of a Magical School for Wizards that you make your Pact with on the first day of school while running late with a piece of toast hanging out of your mouth, I guess.

How does it strip away identity... by allowing theDM or PC the freedom to define the type of being you make a pact with... seems to me this would accommodate many more identities using the Warlock class/archetype.

Because the Cross-Class Archetypes are absolutely going to rear their head, again, after Strixhaven. Someone liked the idea SO MUCH that all the classes got homogenized to better work with it, and so what if the entire narrative core of the Warlock gets torn out when they have pact magic with no patron at 3rd level?

is this a general D&D thing or something from a specific D&D setting?

 

[Micah Sweet]

... no. I don't think I will!

When you make a deal with a crossroads demon for power you don't get power before you promise them your soul. Rumpelstiltskin doesn't start spinning gold from straw 'til you've promised him your firstborn child. The only pact where that kinda thing would work is for an Old God 'cause they might not even be -aware- of you taking power from them. But if they're not aware of it, they're definitely not a voice whispering to you how to get and use that power, either.

And if you never take the 3rd level of Warlock you retain the "Free Hit" forever without paying?

The narrative conceits do not line up.

But also... The Pact Magic description kinda shoots that -whole- conceit in the foot. "Through occult ceremony, you have formed a pact with a mysterious entity to gain magical powers."

So you've made the deal. You've got the powers. But you don't know who or what you've made a pact with 'til you pick at level 3. You might've started play wanting to do a Fiend Pact and described a Diabolical ritual but then 3rd level rolls around and, y'know, Fey just seems more fun with how the party dynamic works out. Guess the Fey really love them sacrificed goats and pentagrams!

It's a purely mechanical shift in a way that strips away identity. Your post also doesn't touch on how that "Mysterious Voice" might apparently be the Headmaster of a Magical School for Wizards that you make your Pact with on the first day of school while running late with a piece of toast hanging out of your mouth, I guess.

Because the Cross-Class Archetypes are absolutely going to rear their head, again, after Strixhaven. Someone liked the idea SO MUCH that all the classes got homogenized to better work with it, and so what if the entire narrative core of the Warlock gets torn out when they have pact magic with no patron at 3rd level?

This is why I am so happy A5e went another way.