D&D (2024) Bonus Unearthed Arcana Reveals The Bastion System

A 'bonus' Unearthed Arcana playtest document has appeared, and it shows off D&D's upcoming Bastion System.

This October, we’re bringing you a special treat. While we’re continuing to develop and revise public playtesting material for the 2024 Player’s Handbook, we’d thought you’d enjoy an early look at what we’re cooking up for the 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide.

The coming Dungeon Master’s Guide will be the biggest of its kind in decades and contain an assortment of new tools for DMs and their tables. In Bastions and Cantrips, we’re showcasing one of these tools, the Bastions subsystem. Dungeon Masters and their parties can use this subsystem to build a home, base of operations, or other significant structure for their characters.

And if you’re raring to test out more character options, we’re also including revisions for 10 cantrips in this playtest packet.

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

​

 

[darjr]

I do admit listening to the show “bastion points?” And thinking can’t we just use gold?

 

[Remathilis]

Oh no, I'm too busy to look.

Summary on the feedback?

Rogue, ranger, bard, cleric and druid all over 70% (rogue 89%, Cunning Strike 94%)
Druid pain point: wild shape and circle of the moon. Going in UA 9 to test moon druids.
Monk in UA 9, lots of revisions. Di points will be looked at to make them feel less restrictive. Features will have either di cost OR uses per day. Costs will be adjusted or even removed. Hand monk the only planned sub going back out.
Way of the elements was 11%, warrior if the elements 70%.
Ranger is done combining elements of UA 4 and 6.

Rogue, paladin, ranger, cleric, bard is done.

Awaiting UA 9 will also have any UA 7 redos.

Necromancer was planned, but dropped due to low play numbers and low satisfaction. Abjurer was higher rated, more played and themed well against evoker. (Diviner/Illusionist were also paired).

Clockwork sorcerer was paired against wild magic. They will go into how each quartet was picked. So it wasn't just popularity.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

They openly acknowledge some PCs might not want them, then they go ahead and yes absolutely penalize those PCs for not engaging with.

This is really bizarrely perverse design.

Thank you, yes! Why is this not a group project?

Speaking of, I thought Bastions would be the gold sinks of the system, but they're not. 'hey man, spend 500 gold for facility once and 25 gp for advantage on its roll thereafter' is the extent of it, so...

 

[Parmandur]

I do admit listening to the show “bastion points?” And thinking can’t we just use gold?

Reading the document, it makes sense. Gold and time goes in, Bastion Points come out and allow the player to do things gold normally cannot

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I really like the change to True Strike. My first idea was a Divine themed Assassin (Rogue) with this cantrip who strikes at the enemies of his Deity with radiant vengeance.

 

[Remathilis]

Interesting bard isn't getting a revision. Guess we're getting 2014 spellcasting and magic secrets verbatim.

 

[Reynard]

I know it feels like the Bastion should inherently be a group effort, but not all players like this kind of book keeping. it is better if they CAN join their efforts, but not be required to.

 

[Parmandur]

It seems the point of Bastion Points is to create a metacurrency that gives players agency over the Setting but is still a module that can be used or not used. A party that foes all in on Bastiona gets stuff that tables that ignore them won't get, byt it won real the game either way, much like magic items.

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting bard isn't getting a revision. Guess we're getting 2014 spellcasting and magic secrets verbatim.

If it ain't broke...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Speaking of, I thought Bastions would be the gold sinks of the system, but they're not. 'hey man, spend 500 gold for facility once and 25 gp for advantage on its roll thereafter' is the extent of it, so...

Yeah, unless they've vastly redesigned gold rewards (which they won't have done, it wouldn't be "backwards compatible"), you're still basically going to have the problem of no gold sinks, and this was an... well a golden opportunity to have a gold sink. And they ignored it.

This cuts to the heart of my problems with 5E's design, honestly - it's so thoughtless, so failing to understand their own game and own players. Like, they've read enough feedback to know people want a fortress system, but instead of looking at how to build that in a way that across-the-board enhances 5E, and solves other problems, they've just made it this weird, overcomplicated floating system that feels like something straight out of a late-3.5E book, except 3.5E would totally have understood how to build a gold sink, it was full of them.