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

[pukunui]

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

I dunno. I think the biggest difference for me is the target audience.

The 2014 PHB was written to appeal to existing gamers (mainly Boomers, Gen Xers, and older millennials like myself) and convince the split fanbase to reunite under the D&D banner. It employs heavy doses of nostalgia as well as verbal gymnastics (aka "natural language") designed to avoid referencing the edition that split the fanbase.

The 2024 PHB, however, has been written with new players (mainly the younger millennials, Gen Zers, and older Gen Alphas) in mind. There's less nostalgia in its design, and some of the previously forbidden terminology has returned (e.g. "bloodied"). I think it will serve as an excellent resource for teaching newbies. But will it provide a different playstyle or worldbuilding style?

I'm not sure about playstyle - things like the weapon masteries and the team tactics stuff that's been added in will make the game more tactical but otherwise I think it will mostly play the same.

It's more likely it will change worldbuilding styles, though - especially since there's very little "default" setting material in the 2024 PHB. There was a lot in the 2014 version as part of the nostalgia factor -- it used Bruenor Battlehammer, Drizz't Do'Urden, and Tika Waylan, among others, as examples throughout and had tables of deities from different settings and so forth; the 2024 version has jettisoned a lot of that, and while the book mentions a few settings and setting-specific things here and there, it's mostly neutral on worldbuilding stuff.

That vibe might change once the 2024 DMG is out, since it is going to include a setting primer for Greyhawk specifically (as part of the 50th anniversary celebration). That said, I suspect the 2024 DMG will also provide more guidance on building your own world and setting, so I don't think it will be overtly Greyhawk-centric, like the 3.5e books were (or like how the 2014 PHB is fairly FR-centric). Greyhawk will simply be presented as a sample setting.

 

[Distracted DM]

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.

As others have pointed out, the PHB has the core rules of the game. You don't need other books for it, since people were playing with PHBs for some time before DMGs/MMs became a thing. Just because it says "players handbook" doesn't mean that it's not for GMs... it's what tells you how the game works. The GM will use equipment, spells, system... basically everything in there except character classes- and those character classes have a direct effect on how the GM enjoys the game.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yes, if only because the 2014 PHB was written to appeal to existing (and older) gamers and convince them to come back to D&D. The 2024 PHB is written with brand new (and younger) players in mind.

It's been so long that I totally forgot that this was the case. That's a great point- I can't say whether it's a positive or a negative, but it's very much something to keep in mind!

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

No

I Do we really only care about new players now?

Nah, it’s just that this is one of the most significant improvements from the 2014 PHB to the 2024 PHB, so people are talking about it. Especially in the context of this thread, where the OP was asking how people feel about the book from a DM’s perspective, and the book is primarily player-facing.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Not really… RE: Worldbuilding, I think it’s a bit more explicit about the whole “all D&D settings exist in a shared multiverse” thing than the 2014 rules were. But, it doesn’t get terribly deep into worldbuilding details.

 

[Charlaquin]

As others have pointed out, the PHB has the core rules of the game. You don't need other books for it, since people were playing with PHBs for some time before DMGs/MMs became a thing. Just because it says "players handbook" doesn't mean that it's not for GMs... it's what tells you how the game works. The GM will use equipment, spells, system... basically everything in there except character classes- and those character classes have a direct effect on how the GM enjoys the game.

Sure, but that stuff mostly hasn’t changed much. The most significant changes are in layout, presentation, and player-facing options.

 

[pukunui]

It's been so long that I totally forgot that this was the case. That's a great point- I can't say whether it's a positive or a negative, but it's very much something to keep in mind!

I think it will turn out to be a positive thing in the long term - we need younger players to join games to keep the hobby alive!

Not really… RE: Worldbuilding, I think it’s a bit more explicit about the whole “all D&D settings exist in a shared multiverse” thing than the 2014 rules were. But, it doesn’t get terribly deep into worldbuilding details.

No, it doesn't - which I think is a factor in itself. By being mostly setting neutral, it caters better to all sorts of worldbuilding styles! The 2014 PHB, on the other hand, tried to be all multiversal but still had more FR in it than any other setting.

I think it's a smart move to make the player-facing PHB as setting neutral as possible. That will lessen the potential for conflict / confusion between the default rules and setting-specific exceptions. One of the more irksome things for me as a DM is trying to explain to my more casual players that they need to ignore what their book says because in my game world, X, Y, or Z is different. The less X, Y, or Z there is in the PHB the better - because that way the X, Y, or Z can be added on top of what the PHB says rather than replacing it.

 

[overgeeked]

Reading a bit more. I'm glad BIFTs are gone. Though I'd prefer something more interesting with heroic inspiration. DM Scotty's luck dice comes to mind.

 

[pukunui]

Reading a bit more. I'm glad BIFTs are gone. Though I'd prefer something more interesting with heroic inspiration. DM Scotty's luck dice comes to mind.

I liked them a lot and wish they'd leaned into them more rather than getting rid of them entirely. They were an idea lifted from games like FATE, but they always felt tacked-on in 5e rather than integral to the game like in the latter system.

I tried to make them a bigger part of my games, but it frequently was a struggle. While I am sorry to see them go, I can see why they chose to drop them.

 

[sevenbastard]

Meh. I run a game world that tries to be more on the realistic side. That was hard enough with 5e but I think 5.24 made PC even more magical. Almost every sub class has magic powers. Do I need a bunch of barbarians that can fly? No.

Hopefully they will release more non magical subclasses soon. So I can build a list of options for my PC that is more than 5 subclasses long.