New Details Revealed: 2024 Player's Handbook D&D 5e 

Incorporating the Thief/Champion/Berserker/Open Hand into their respective classes always seemed like a winner to me.

Finally, we will get to see everyone's favourite character: Melf.

I really don't mind if multiclassing is "overcomplicated" as long as it is clear under the rules.

Probably the soulknife rogue and psi warrior will have their dice tied to their rogue/fighter level instead of proficiency to avoid multiclassing

If they kept the Halfling art from 2014, I am hunting someone down.

Preparing to use the term “Rules as Illustrated”

That Guardian of Faith spell art looks like it was meant for Shield of Faith. Like someone got the naming mixed up.

Spell art is not only a supplementary thing, it gives a nice pointer to how the spell is cast, which gives you information how you can bend the rules in your favor, use it correctly, how apparent or obvious the spell looks and sounds for stealth and deception purposes.. And of course the roleplay purposes for them are great

Curious and worried about 'undesirable' multiclasses. I'm guessing small dips into Warlock for Eldritch Blast or Cha to weapons may be what they were talking about.

It does look like one thing: though the game may be backwards compatible, its certainly going to be an examined option. If the new Spiritual Weapon is concentration, I'm not going to let a player "choose" to use the old one. If a tamed version of Peace or Twilight Cleric is released, I'm not going to allow the older ones. I'm thinking what's best will be a complete blank slate start, with no grandfathered in subclasses. not to be mean, but also, to lessen confusion over learning new features. I think backwards compatibility is way more important to me, as a DM, for adventures.

5e is a fantastic system and I’m hoping/expecting this new version to be significantly better. It’s so sad that much of the goodwill for DnD was eroded by Hasboro at least it feels that way to me. The momentum going into the 50th anniversary could have been so much greater.

They better have visual examples of equipment and armor - like a Gambison - you know - to give some art to Martials! Perhaps a layer description of armor- what's under the plate? What is padding? Is Padded armor the same as Gambison? I don't know.

My guess for the Rogue is also Swashbuckler. Dropping Thief instead doesn't seem likely since Thief is the other quintessentially iconic Rogue archetype alongside Assassin. Thief was literally the name of the Rogue class in 1st and 2nd edition. Dropping Thief would feel like dropping Life Cleric or Devotion Paladin. Plus, Thief fits a bit better into the paired themes people have been noticing about the planned subclasses. You've got Thief vs Assassin as one pair, to represent the Rogue dichotomy of burglar vs killer, and you've got Arcane Trickster and Soulknife as the supernatural Rogues wielding magical power vs psychic power. Swashbuckler, while also an iconic Rogue archetype, doesn't quite slot in as neatly thematically as those four do with each other.

For multiclassing, I hope they finally addressed the awkwardness of multiclassing into two classes with extra attack. I always felt like if you had two classes that get multiattack at 5 and you totaled 5 level of them, you should get extra attack, so you can have more freedom of going back and forth instead of always going 5 on one class first and then never going above 4 another.

I believe the Assassin might be moved to the DMG to join other darker themed subclasses like the Death Domain Cleric and Oath Breaker Paladin. If they might add subclasses again in the DMG.

I see the playtest as a glimpse into their evolving design direction rather than a finalized product. The Monk adjustments seemed to signal a shift in approach. It's likely they've taken the lessons from the Monk and applied them to other areas and I'm eager to see how this approach shapes the upcoming changes to Psi subclasses.

I expect more spells for Sorcerers of all subclasses -- to parity

8:34 My problem with this idea is that, yes, the extra spells from Clockwork and Aberrant did fix an issue with the base class, but it was done so well and added so much variety and flavor to the subclasses that most sorcerer players I know, myself included, see it as the gold standard going forward. The idea of gutting an interesting and long requested feature from Aberrant and Clockwork just to help prop up Draconic and Wild is not good design. What I want to see, and hope to see, is Draconic and Wild get their own lists and have a special way to use those spells just like how Aberrant can silently cast its spell list so long as it uses sorcery points. People can call me a worry wort or whatever, but Sorcerer has famously be considered just a worse Wizard for a long time. I just want one of my favorite classes to get the upgrades it needs. It would be wild for WotC to gut a fan favorite feature in favor of propping up weaker subclasses, but this is WotC and I just do not trust how they have handled the Sorcerer for a while now.

The way you stop op multiclassing is to get rid of frontloading class abilities. However, if you do that people will then complain it takes forever to get to the cool stuff.

It always felt a bit implied that they wouldn't just print the latest iteration of something from UA in the new books (since after all, when have they?), but hearing confirmation that improvements kept coming after those closed is neat. I was kind of glad about some of the Ranger stuff they presented, but by the time they said Rangers weren't going to get another go and a bunch of other classes just kept climbing, it felt like the balance would be off yet again.

Video: "Playtesting and design have continued beyond the public playtests." Bard players who still don't have a UA Bard that's compatible with the playtest material: "Uh, yeah, I sure *hope* they did!"

The art is probably the area I cared least about - it's cool, just not my personal focus. But you make a good point that having more art in the spell section could be really nice!

Can't wait for the reveals and your analysis

My guess on the Rogue is that it is the Thief, as the only options that don't seem bland or just basic enhancements to the base class of Rogue are UMD & Reflexes...which honestly just seem like they should be base rogue features.

I was hoping for this video from you!

I am obsessed with the art!!!

My speculation it's the assassin that got the axe. Due to it being similar thematic to the soul knife. And soul knife is a better assassin than the assassin anyway.

Good almost afternoon Chris! I've made it to the Disney Princess build ready to be my next video in my continued journey to watch EVERY build video you've put out! The session 0 last Saturday unfortunately got delayed until tomorrow, but hopefully things will go well tomorrow! Much love, have a great weekend! 💜 Thank you for being an amazing creator and awesome person! Until next time!

Great editing at the beginning.

I feel like they did a "vibe check" to see what the community would like ( and gave us some subclasses ) then presented the more deep mechanics of the game, and now they're adding stuff based on that "vibe". Also, it sounds like they'll be doing the dragontalk series again, which is awesome.

Still salty about them not putting Artificer in. Overall, still optimistic. Kind of apprehensive about them publishing books with just 'reprints' but yeah, pretty optimistic.

I am excited to see what they decided on honestly

I think one thing that would be awesome are characters that represent the classes that are consistently seen throughout the new PHB. Pathfinder has this with their iconics, and I really enjoy it, it gives clear ideas for what each class can do, and it’s just fun seeing characters you gradually begin to recognize. It’s also very cool seeing the spell art with the iconics. I think one of my favorites in the PF2e Core Rulebook is one of a T-Rex with glowing runes on it (presumably the druid, Lini) fighting a red dragon. There’s a lot of cool art in the Pathfinder 2e books, period. I love the appearance of the alchemist, Fumbus. He repeatedly looks so deranged and it’s the perfect vibe for that kind of class, I feel. I’ve heard this was a thing in D&D 3e but I’m not sure, I’m unfamiliar with the system. If that’s the case, maybe they can bring them back or bring back some “iconics” from other editions… assuming there were any. Again, I don’t know.

I'm so bloody excited about the new books, will be taking a good week to pour over everything.

100% they’re going to use the spell art as the basis for the spell assets in the VTT.

I can’t wait to only use this book and not worry about what my players are combining with a bunch of other books. I have wanted to run just phb for a while but Tasha’s and xanathars seemed like a must to give good player options to all the classes. Then things like fizbans, Scag, strixhaven, etc all add something that balance the game in some ways but break it in others. I guess i can’t wait to be surprised a bit less in my combat encounters

that artwork you showed from the 2014 PHB, before you said what spell it was, I assumed that was a picture of shield of faith taking a blast of lightning

Thanks Chris

Listen, as long as celestial warlock subclass gets a little more love, I'm all for it, I played it during DoA and it was a lot of fun. ((I won't talk about the one lvl dip to cleric))

I wouldn’t be surprised if they are looking at aberrant mind and clockwork soul and seeing them as so much more powerful than the rest because of their expanded spell lists and instead of rebalancing the remaining subclasses by giving them expanded spell lists they just remove the expanded spell lists from them and replace them with nothing.

My honest takeaways are the following: 1. I definitely like that they are attempting to clarify the rules, especially on Illusion spells, as they are areas where players would get into far too many arguments with DMs due to the inability to clarify what illusion spells do. 2. I'm a little nervous about new spells and features/feats, since each one is potentially a new way to break the game, but I'm a little optimistic that they've learned from the past 10 years of designing for 5e to prevent cheese when new features are added. 3. Pushing subclasses back to level 3, while simple and anti-flavorful, is actually really good for the game in regards to multiclassing. There are still problems with certain frontloaded features like Pact of the Blade being able to be taken through a feat, indeed they're more front loaded since you can now get Hexblade-lite at level 1 through Pact of the Blade, and providing almost the same benefits as Hexblade, and stupidly reverting the change that scaled Eldritich Blast out of Warlock levels than total levels, which still means a Warlock dip is stupidly good at 1 level. 4. On multiclassing itself, if I were advising them, I'd probably either junk multiclassing entirely, or clarify that it's a variant rule that the DM has to approve beforehand. At this point, despite 5e being better than most editions on not allowing people to make broken multiclass builds, it still occurs with frightening regularity, and the other outcome is being completely overshadowed. I don't believe they can redesign and fix multiclassing in time to release the PHB without pushing back on the release date, unfortunately.

I really hope they expand on things like group travel/survival mechanics/etc.

I understand it may be giving sorcerers a big lunch, but id much rather see every subclass get a dedicated spell list with some having the option to swap some of them than have sorcerers with no expanded spell list and a new feature. If we're beinf honest it's much easier to balance spells than it is to balance class features, and having dedicated spell list does a lot of the heavy lifting when it come to synergizing flavor and mechanics

I dunno why, but the art for the wizard gives off more holy than arcane vibes. Well, I mean, I guess I know why - cause of the yellow/orange/whatever color. xD

Supreme Sneak and Thief's Reflexes they can just ditch, and make the other three thief features baseline for rogue and that would be fine.

I like the new logo Chris, but also like the old one

Love it. Juicy.

I just want (and have wanted for decades now) the monk to be good. Also, for to have the same amount of care they have with magic with martials. Martials deserve to have interesting options and at-will cool features

One thing I'd like to see addressed with multiclassing is Warlocks being consistently used for 1 level dip power spikes. Things like Pacts being invocations now create this double edged sword. On one hand, you can have multiple pacts now but on the other, bards and paladins can just get the Eldritch Adept feat and grab a pact without messing up any of their class progression. Things like Pact of the Blade,Chain, and Tome should at the least require a warlock level (i'd actually like to see them re-swap the patron/pact features to requiring warlock levels 1 and 3 respectfully) and hopefully Eldritch Blast continues to only scale with warlock levels as opposed to character levels. At least this way, if you want your busted features, you have to commit at least a bit more than a spare feat for it.

I'm not sure if it's in, but I'd like the default to be that everyone starts with a feat.

Since it is backward compatible, I wonder if the "old" subclasses will still function well with the "new" core class leveling features.

It should be the assassin that gets replaced mostly due to me being able build and gain every ability they have if not better. 1. advantage on initiative, a good stealth score can give you this, along with teamwork that gives you this 2. Disguise kit and poisioner kits. All background gives you a tool proficiency, and posioner feat will also give you this proficiency. Plus, all background gives you a feat, and magic initiate is one of them allowing you to talk. Disguise self. 3. Extra damage on the first round. With magic initiate, I actually can surpass this with a booming blade or green flame blade, which every is your fancy or even true strike if you want to be int based. And let's not forget about the posioner feat that can be extra damage or cause an auto crit with the right resources which at a cost of a bonus action does the exact same thing as the 17th level feature at 4th level. 4. The 9th level feature is redundant if you have disguised kit proficiency due to the tool rule. You already have an advantage if you have the tool proficiency and the skill. 5. 13th level ability... the posioner feat does what this does but better and can be acquired at 4th level. You already had 4 chances to take posioner by this time. 6. The crit of they fail a save... carrion crawler Venom also does this, plus rogues get knick out, which can also set this auto crit up. Another useless ability. EVERY ABILITY CAN BE REPLICATED and be out done at earlier levels. It 100% should be the assassin that goes and goes back to the drawing board.

i wonder if they'll actually give the stealth rules

7:44 Problem with that sentiment though is that these fixes are currently coming at the cost of making MORE nerfs to the base metamagic, to the point of completely ruining some of them for the sake of adding the new spells! It doesn't fix the class if you undermine the power it already had to add the new power!

I'm wondering if they will make an official ruling on if a spell scroll can be counterspelled.

I'd be upset if Thief wasn't its own subclass. It holds a special place in my heart.

I just hope strength will be a viable alternative to dexterity in the new edition

For multiclassing, one thing I am curious about is if they did anything with the usage limits of features like Rage, Second Wind, Wild Shape, and Channel Divinity which each restore one use on a short rest, and all usages on a long rest. During UA, my thought was they could make those usages a shared resource when multiclassing, like how spell slots are shared while multiclassing, but I am interested in what they did, if anything, when it comes to those types of features, and multiclassing.

Some great clarifications and additions have been included in the playtest so far, but I fear they didn't streamline and simplify the ruleset enough. Some new options may slowdown gameplay for new or casual players.

Hey TM, I still enjoy and watch everyone one of your videos, but I'm one who left D&D after the WotC scandal last January. I 've checked out the Playtests that D&D released but I honestly felt most of the things were Meh. The company was smart to make 5e Open Source so they'd always be relevant. But, I truly want any new edition of D&D to blow me away and I felt like most of the tweaks weren't about bringing the old subclasses up to the power level of the new concepts. I felt too much old school Microsoft influence with minor tweaks to just Nerf everything. I'm glad to hear about them keeping Multiclass combos because that's always been fun for me. Rule #1: Make the game FUN. I understand that they have a herculean responsibility to make the game fun while maintaining balance... Not just for -Bar-passed-20 years-ago professional Rules Lawyers, Doctors, IT Pros, etc. But, for middle schoolers & any and all Creatives who fear the click-clack Math Dice. :) As someone who's been following your Guides since 3.5, you've done a great job of being one of the Champions of D&D in every edition and I appreciate you keeping us up to date about this new stuff coming out.

I love their art ... Ir was so good

I believe one of the coming surprises will be that artificers will be in it

Hi Chris, big fan. I'm an old-school 1st edition player recently getting into 5e. I'm mostly using DnD & Beyond and I think my campaign plans to stick with 5e rules even after the new books come out. Do you have any idea as to whether WOC will update DnD & Beyond with the new rules? More generally, wondering which of the many 5e rule books will be supplanted by the new books in practice? This might be a good idea for a video/series of videos - sort of "nuts and bolts" guidance as to how handle the transition to the new rules for campaigns that will stay with 5e, those that will shift, and maybe some that become a mix. This all might be premature at this stage. Anyway, keep up the great work.

I would say to them: Please put Backgrounds before Classes this time. In character development you need to pick Background first, because each has specific skills, and then you can select skills from your larger Class list.

Improvement to clock and abberant soul, no more expanded spell list, and kick in the nuts for free

I wonder if this phb will be larger? If it's not then that would mean stuff will be cut, right? I hope it will be larger but I don't know if they have a predefined "size" that the book must be.

This is good and informative. The books sound like they may be nice. That said, WotC and Hasbro do not get any of my money. None. Zero. Ziltch. Yeah, I am there.

The assassin might be the rogue subclass they're getting rid of as they've had design problems with it in the past. I really hope it's not the thief as it's one of my favorite subclasses in all of 5E despite being a bit underpowered.

If you ever feel like you want to create an argument at your gaming table just cast an illusion. I give it 50/50 that your friendship survives.

Great video Treant. Very curious to see what all has been done that they haven't shown us in the UAs. Or what they did but maybe revised (spell creation?) that didn't get revised in the later UAs. Also i think there are a lot of the 2014 classes that had a subclass that should really have some if not most if the features subsumed into the base class, and the that subclass either be completely replaced, if there isn't really much left, or really lean into it. For example, I really believe that the base concept of Battlemaster should be in the base fighter. However, the revamped Battlemaster should then lean into that and give more options, make it even better. As for subclasses all around there is a simple formula i think they could follow. Base class Subclass one - leans hard into the base class (think Champion fighter or Battlemaster) Subclass 2 - Lean into one of the other main class ideas (spell casting, skill monkey, or contact damage style) that the base class doesn't cover Subclass 3 - same as subclass 2 just the ither type (e.g. base class is fighter, subclass 2 is some spell caster -say Eldritch Knight, subclass 3 could then be a subclass that leans into skills, tools, etc.) Subclass 4 - This subclass would be the wild option. Could be a different take on a lean in base class option (say subclass one was a lean in for Champion fighter but this ine would be the lean in for Battlemaster) or something just different (say you wanted two spellcarter subclass but one leans arace and the other divine or nature magic) Further books ciuld then just expand in those. As for multi-classing, I don't do it often, but many of those in my group do, so not sure I want to see it be hobbled too much. Though clearer rules are always appreciated. What I would like to see though is more of the Feats that plucked an element of a class that anyone could take. Which not only opens up options without multiclassing dips, but can be really interesting with subclasses and can compliment those really well. Want to be the fighter's fighter? Take Fighter, the lean in fighter subclass, and the "Fighter feat". Want to be the true 'Jack of all trades"? Take say Bard, a subclass that leans further into that and a class feat to what is missing.

I started playing around when TCoE was released, so I've always been of the opinion that Sorcerer subclasses should come with extra spells known. More spells known as a base clasd feature would also be coolz but that feels like stepping into Wizard territory, whereas giving specific bonus spells to Sorcerer subclasses allows for potentially more powerful options that can't be combined in the most broken ways. Sort of like having one of the Power Nine as an exclusive feature from all the others.

I kind of like the idea that the reason that that particular guardian of faith spell looks the way it does is due to that cleric just so happening to be of the forge domain... and yes I'm aware that the forge domain came out i Xanithars. On a more serious note I think in one of the other interviews they talked about moving a lot of the really juicy subclass features to be level 3 or 6 to remove the ubiquitous one/two level dips. If you do that then you really don't need a redesign for multi-classing so long as one level of hexblade warlock or peace cleric doesn't give you so much right off the bat.

Chris, been loving your coverage of the update but i haven't seen anyone talk about how good or bad archery will be in one dnd. Have you looked at archery in the update yet?

2:25 Maybe the flames are depicting the second part of the spell.

I wonder if we will get rulings on weapons damage of different size categories. I feel like ever since rune knight there hasn't been a consensus on what turning your weapon large is supposed to do in 5e. Unlike 3.5 where it was clearly written etc.

Spot on assessments, people’s assumptions about the updated core books are way too obtuse. As always your acknowledgement of the design teams nuanced approach is more complicated than “old books with UA class changes”

Still no Storm Sorcerer update or word on adding booming/green flame blades?

Awesome video! As long as WotC isn't hiring Treantmonk at least as a consultant, I will be skeptical of the results.

Im liking what im hearing but we will see. I definitely think they still needed some minor tweaks at the last playest documents so hopefully they made the necessary changes. One example was the order options of protector or thurmaturge there really wasnt any benefit to picking thurmaturge so hopefully they made it more interesting and other changes like that. Some of the subclasses needed a bit of work also like war cleric defintely needed another pass.

Goes to show the cynics don't always get it right, and that people can be blinded by their cynicism at times.

If they will improve path of four elements, that will be the most fantastic thing they will do

I just wish they would take the time to update all existing subclasses... which I hope will eventually happen but some really need love... Purple Dragon Knight and Path of the Battlerager to name a few.

I think the wizard art is fantastic. I feel the artwork for classes should show the most idealized versions of those classes to spark the imagination of the players.

Who were those last two spell creators mentioned? Jelarzy and Yoland? (sp?) I didn't recognize those.

I like the video. I think there will be some interesting and decent changes. Though I am a bit worried...They have given precision little information on what if any updates they will make to monsters in the new books is Monsters need some improvements in both what they can do and their power. Otherwise the power up that some classes seem to be getting will make problems with 5e even more pronounced.

I'm glad to see the proliferation of character options, but I still have reservations about the new book, especially with the lackluster track record of the current game design team. Still, I'll reserve judgement until I can see the finished product and rake it over the coals.

I'd love for thief to be integrated into the core of Rogue. That's what I'd do if a player wanted to play a rogue.

one thing I also hope they include with multiclassing and classes in general is a mention of flavor. as sometimes you want to change the flavor of class abilities without changing mechanics" or for multiclassing choosing if instead of 2 seperate classes instead you flavor them both the same to make a more uniform character they put a small section like that in tashas regarding spell flavor. and while some disnt understand the need to have that there I have had DMs that are extremely by the book and if its not there you cant do it. so just adding a small foot note about that will help such DMs be open to players expressing their character abilities differently (as long as the flavor fits the campaign setting obviously)

I hope this means they fixed peace and hex dips, I just wonder how without removing early game viability. I would assume limits that go away further into the subclass.

I hope saving throws are addressed. In my opinion spell casters should make a wisdom or intelligence saves for concentration not constitution. Dex and Wis saves are really all that matter in most cases. Has anyone ever made a charisma save? What is the functional difference (not mechanical difference) between an ability check and a save?

They need to balance feats, concentration on utility and buff spells and remove attunement. Fix those three things and its a win.

Can monks make the most attacks now?

I have a Psi Warrior character I played recently. I’m willing to bet that the Swashbuckler is being replaced with the Soul Knife. It would make sense with both the Fighter and the Rouge to have subclasses that are Normal, Normal, Magic and Psychic.

Also, I'm skeptical with the whole art thing. Half expecting lots of AI with touch ups.

I'm just not excited for this anymore after testing DC20. I created a rogue in DC20 and I'm getting to do things at level one that I would have to wait until level 5 as a NEW rogue in revised 5e. In revised 5e rogue you don't get to put negative conditions on targets until lvl 5 AND AT A COST OF DAMAGE. In DC20 you get to do that at level 1 AND NO DAMAGE LOSS. I'll give the new books a look but pretty sure d&d are stuck in the past and haven't grown enough.

Re: Guardian of Faith - it's clear that the illustrator thought the summoned spirit could actually intercept harm for the caster. Maybe it could, at the time when they were commissioned!

Melf stands for mother everyone would like to…

I think if you multi class you shouldn’t be able to subclass the classes you dip into (besides your starting class). But that’d mean they’d have to make every generic class have its own leveling system.

I love Thief, fast hands is so incredibly great and fun during combat. I hope thief doesn't get the shaft

Another forgotten detail about WOTC products is that you can buy them next year at Ollies for 90% off.