D&D (2024) DMs what do you think of the new PHB?

[Micah Sweet]

Is it just assumed that, so long as it is a good jumping-off point for new players (which is what most seem to be saying), and it has fancy art and a good layout, no other metric by which one might judge the most-used (by everyone), most central book of a game matters nearly as much? Do we really only care about new players now?

 

[the Jester]

I don't have it yet, so I can't give it a fair review.

From all accounts, there is an awful lot of power creep, which is the opposite direction I'd like to see the game go. There are also a lot of changes that I don't think improve the game in any way, at least not for me.

I think the improvements to the martial classes are probably good in that they bring them closer to parity with casters, but will slow down play and make the game noticeably more fiddly.

I think the buffs to casters (e.g. bigger healing, some spells improved) are unnecessary and ill-conceived.

I'm definitely buying the book- I'm a dnd whore- but I am not sure how much of it I will end up using.

 

[TiQuinn]

Reading reviews and it's a lot of gushing over how many new options and powers the PCs have. Which is grand from a player perspective.

What do my fellow Forever DMs think?

Show me the Monster Manual and I’ll tell you.

 

[Distracted DM]

So since you're asking about it from a GM perspective, I'm gonna say that my initial impression is "meh." They addressed some issues with spells! But not others. They created some issues where there weren't any before, but they did make some things that'd confuse players easier to understand- even if I don't like how they did some of it. I see a lot of questions flying around and a lot of the answers are "hopefully it'll be in the DMG," but ... we don't have the DMG, and we have to hope that they're addressed in there.

I'm gonna be negatively biased, because they buffed player characters.. and I don't think that was necessary. I understand that if they make PCs weaker no players would buy the books. But right now, we don't have a new MM to see if the monsters are going to be stronger to offset the more powerful PCs... or is it just supposed to be a feel-good stompfest? I think there's a misalignment in my expectations of how strong, for example, an ogre should be in relation to a PC, versus how strong they actually are. And that's definitely more of a personal preference thing formed by previous editions and other systems, but it does affect my opinion of the book as a GM.

And if monsters ARE made stronger to offset the more powerful PCs... now we're just dealing with higher numbers vs higher numbers? Blech.

So I guess it depends on what you value as a GM. A lot of people seem very focused on the idea of making the game as approachable as possible so new players can join the hobby... I think that's super great for WotC's bottom line.. but for a GM that has already cultivated a group of great players? It's really not a big concern.
I love the hobby and think that more folks getting into TTRPGs is a positive, but while the format is better for teaching players how to play the game.. how is giving characters more and more things to do each turn in aid of helping new players learn the game? It seems like it'll slow play, and make the game less fun.. even as each character has more powerful/cool stuff to do in that turn.

 

[JEB]

Is it just assumed that, so long as it is a good jumping-off point for new players (which is what most seem to be saying), and it has fancy art and a good layout, no other metric by which one might judge the most-used (by everyone), most central book of a game matters nearly as much? Do we really only care about new players now?

To be fair, this is a player's handbook. So it being aimed at players over DMs makes sense.

Now, if the new DMG doesn't do for DMs what this book does for players, and therefore the PHB winds up having to also do the heavy lifting for DM support, then we'd have a problem. But we haven't seen the new DMG yet.

 

[Zardnaar]

Have to read it but from the sounds of it power creep and complexity.

It's probably better than 2014 in a vacuum. But I've had 10 years to get sick of 5E.

Some of the players don't seem super keen due to more money and they haven't had 10 years of 5E.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair, this is a player's handbook. So it being aimed at players over DMs makes sense.

Now, if the new DMG doesn't do for DMs what this book does for players, and therefore the PHB winds up having to also do the heavy lifting for DM support, then we'd have a problem. But we haven't seen the new DMG yet.

I guess I see nothing in this new book that makes official D&D a better game, and without that I see no reason to give WotC money for it. As has been suggested above, the changes made may keep PH sales at or above current levels for a while, but that's good for WotC, not it's customers.

 

[Argyle King]

Do you feel that the 2024 PHB leans toward a different playstyle (or worldbuilding style) as a default than the 2014 PHB?

 

[MockingBird]

We have our game session scheduled for this coming weekend (not the current weekend) and we will officially give it a spin. I will have a couple of characters upgrading to 2024 versions and a couple sticking with 2014. I'm excited about it.

 

[JEB]

Some of the players don't seem super keen due to more money and they haven't had 10 years of 5E.

Co-worker of mine had a similar response. They were fairly new to D&D and 5e (only played for a few years), and had zero interest in re-learning rules they only just became familiar with.