D&D (2024) Bastion rules: every pub owner is at least 13th level

[Charlaquin]

We are talking about a game, play preferences and fictional justifications. Any bit of this could be decried as arbitrary.

Most of it is arbitrary. To call it such is not decrying, it’s describing. Again, arbitraity isn’t good or bad, it just is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Name one thing about the game that isn’t arbitrary by that definition…

Why should I?
I never pretended that there is anything.
But here I go: I'd say after having set some arbitrary points, the rest tries to be reasonably balanced for game reasons. Which is why attracting followers at level 9 probably makes sense.
Not some in world justification needed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Name one thing about the game that isn’t arbitrary by that definition…

There is very, very little about the game that isn’t arbitrary. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'd really like these tied to the mundane business or buildings or whatnot rules, with the ability to add cool things as you level, just like a PC. That way you don't just suddenly have this, you build it up as you go. That would be great.

 

[Maxperson]

Arbitrary means “based on whim, preference, or chance.” Plenty of reasons I like are arbitrary and plenty of reasons I dislike are arbitrary. Some people just have this weird aversion to the idea of arbitraity. I think there’s a lot of crossover between those folks and the ones who seem to think “subjective” is a dirty word. Arbitraity and subjectivity are neither good nor bad, they just are.

Reasons can't be arbitrary. There's no whim involved in reason. Reason is not based on preference, that's why it's reasoned and not feelings. And reason is not based on chance, though you can reason that a gamble is worth the risk. When Arbitrary says chance, it's talking about Two Face flipping the coin to make decisions.

That's also not the use of arbitrary that applies here. The definition that applies here is...

"Based on chance rather than being planned or based on reason."

 

[Kinematics]

On Facilities

I don't like the Armory. It's a high cost facility that provides almost no benefit. In the event of an attack, you go from an expected loss of 1.0 defenders to a loss of 0.75 defenders, and have to pay again to have those same benefits in the next attack. It's not worth it in terms of benefits, or in terms of space used.

Instead, I'd integrate it into the Barracks themselves. Something like:

Level 5: As in UA, you can recruit up to 12 guards
Level 9: You've improved the armory for the guards. Roll d8's during an Attack instead of d6's.
Level 13: You can recruit up to 20 guards, as well as a lieutenant commander who reduces the number of dice rolled by 1 during an attack. (size: Vast)
Level 17: You can recruit up to 30 guards, as well as a second lieutenant commander.

Should probably have some benefit other than just guarding during an Attack. Maybe get a +1d4 on any negotiations performed in your Bastion, given the security and authority being displayed?


General tiering ideas

Level progression for all facilities: 5 > 9 > 13 > 17

Higher tier provides more benefits, and is generally larger in size. When combining different facilities from the UA document, lower tier benefits should still be available when upgraded to higher tier facilities.

Generally must buy at the entry level (usually level 5), and then upgrade from there. Limits on how often an upgrade can be done?

Reaching level 17 may allow combining two tiered facilities into a single facility with combined benefits (though the BP return only goes up one die size), giving you room to build another facility. You need to have both base facilities at level 13 to combine them into the level 17 version. These combinations are limited and enumerated.


Pub:

Pub (Cramped) > Bar (Roomy) > Tavern (UA Pub) > Cantina (Vast; combine with Theater)

Leveling benefits: Improved information network; improved magic potions.


Gaming Hall:

Back Room (Cramped; dice games) > Gambling Den (Roomy) > Gaming Hall (Vast) > Casino (Vast; combine with Tavern or Theater)


Theater:

Stage > Playhouse > Theater

Leveling benefits: Incraesed Theater Die size. Reputation and renown.


Library:

Combine Library, Scriptorium, and Archive

Library > Scriptorium > Archive


Garden:

Combine Garden with Greenhouse.

Garden (Roomy) > Greenhouse (Roomy) > Grove (Vast)


Stable:

Combine Stable with Menagerie. Put Stable at level 5.

Stable (Roomy) > Nursury (Roomy) > Menagerie (Vast)

Leveling benefits: Be able to house and take care of more complex and exotic animals and mounts.


Planar:

Combine planar-related facilities.

Teleportation Circle [level 9] > Observatory > Demiplane


Storehouse:

Rename to "Shop". Can be any type of mundane trade. Higher level = increased profits.

 

[bedir than]

Level progression for all facilities: 5 > 9 > 13 > 17

I do wish that the Bastian tiers were not different from the tiers of play

 

[Kurotowa]

I don't like the Armory. It's a high cost facility that provides almost no benefit. In the event of an attack, you go from an expected loss of 1.0 defenders to a loss of 0.75 defenders, and have to pay again to have those same benefits in the next attack. It's not worth it in terms of benefits, or in terms of space used.

Instead, I'd integrate it into the Barracks themselves.

In general, I don't agree with squishing so many Facilities together. Keeping them broken up gives a player the choice to double down on a theme or mix and match as they desire. For this specific one, though, I agree. The Barracks is already a high investment for a Facility that does nothing but protect against a single result on the random event chart. A second Facility that requires having a Barracks and does nothing but slightly improve it at a high cost is entirely unnecessary.

Really, the gap between the amount of options for defending against Attack results and the actual likely hood and downside of an Attack happening makes me think there was a significant change in design at some point. Such that what we see now is a mix of before and after, where some bits are outdated due to the changes.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Do you have any specific reasoning indicating that the newer rules are better/more appropriate to the game as it exists now? I ask only because 'newer' isn't something that has any specific weight for or against in my book. 5e has done a reasonably good job of marrying TSR-era D&Disms with parts of 3e and 4e. I don't specifically see this instance as something where this strategy would be out of place.

This goes back to an older conversation which isn't currently relevant, but since you were curious: I was responding to a series of posts which seemed to be discussing historical precedents for proposed game rules in older editions. In that specific context, the newest rule covering the same thing would be the most valid precedent, because newer precedents overrule older precedents they contradict. Outside of that context, I don't assign any weight to a rule based upon its age.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why should I?
I never pretended that there is anything.
But here I go: I'd say after having set some arbitrary points, the rest tries to be reasonably balanced for game reasons. Which is why attracting followers at level 9 probably makes sense.
Not some in world justification needed.

Just about everything should have in world justification IMO.