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

​

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

The problem here is it also doesn't mention negative side-effects NOT occurring. Given the tradition that they do, more clarity is needed, or we'll get a super-annoying situation where like 50% of DMs think it does have negative side-effects, and 50% don't.

I am at a catch-22 here. I feel like the game rules shouldn't have to add words to tell you that you can't do something, if the description literally doesn't let you in the first place. However I agree that many DMs and Players will transitioning from old, familiar rules and may still hold on to them.

It seems the only way to put safety rails is to actually provide a sidebar that says "Some spells/rules have changed since 2014, so maybe don't use older rules," or provide clunky reminder text in any spell that changed?

After further thought, I think there should not be reminder text like that, muddling up the wordcount/pagecount, because the DM is going to do what they want, no matter the reminder. Wizards of the Coast isn't the boss of them.

New players won't have the baggage, and veteran players already know they have to read the literal words, discuss their discoveries at the table and online, and they will have to make their house rules so that it makes sense for them. Maybe Wizards can create videos, providing context for major changes, so tables can make up their own minds?

 

[Dausuul]

Thoughts on the cantrip changes:

Acid splash: I like this change. You still won't often get more than two targets, but once in a while you'll be able to blast three or even four. It's now high on my list.

Blade ward: This seems a smidge too good. Disadvantage on a melee attack as a reaction, for free, at will? Obviously the old blade ward needed fixing, but given that spellcasters don't use their reactions nearly as much as melee warriors, this feels like too much of a "must-have."

Chill touch: The boost to 1d10 was needed. Getting rid of the debuff to undead... don't agree with that change. This ties into a broader problem I have with D&D (all editions, not just this one): If you specialize in something, damage types often mean you're at your weakest when dealing with creatures matching your specialty. The pyromancer struggles against a red dragon. The necromancer's array of necrotic and fear spells come up short against many undead. Etc. I liked that chill touch gave the necromancer a way to mess with undead even if they were necrotic resistant.

Friends: Got rid of the automatic hostility on expiration, which is a good thing, but the resulting spell seems very strong at first glance. I'd have to see it in play to be sure, though.

Poison spray: Giving the spell a 30-foot range brings it up a lot. If it were any other damage type, I'd think this was now a solid contender. Unfortunately, poison damage is unbelievably weak -- about 20% of the monsters in the MM are flat-out immune to poison, and this is true even if you limit yourself to monsters with CR 5 or less. (For comparison, about 10% of monsters are fire immune, and 6% at CR 5 or less.) If you make this your attack cantrip of choice, be sure to have a backup.

Produce flame: All good changes, nothing drastic. Purely as a combat option, it remains inferior to fire bolt, but the combination of light source and attack spell in a single cantrip somewhat makes up for that, and now you don't lose your light source when using it to attack.

Shillelagh: Definitely a worthy improvement for the characters who are meant to be using it. However, it is now even more attractive to monks via feats.

Shocking grasp: This needed a nerf...? Really? At least give it d10 damage, guys, it's a freakin' touch spell.

Spare the dying: Making this a ranged spell was desperately needed. Scaling the range as a function of level is an interesting approach. I'd still struggle to justify picking it, but at least it isn't total crap now.

True strike: Hey, they fixed it! Good deal. I love the new version, it's perfect for when you want to play a caster who isn't slinging obvious magic every round. Radiant damage is weird though, I'd have expected force, or just more of the weapon's regular damage type. Also, Eldritch Knights are gonna be all over this spell with the "use a cantrip in place of an attack" option. Though I guess using their casting stat to attack is actually a debuff for them... hmm. Maybe not.

 

[OB1]

Love the revisions to the cantrips. Home runs all around.

I like the concept of bastions (I've typically provided some sort of home base in my campaigns in Tier II), but the execution is such that I can't imagine running it outside of a fully integrated VTT...

 

[TwoSix]

which one is that?

Necromancer | Base Class - Middle Finger of Vecna

Command the undead with the Necromancer base class. Bend death to your will and raise an army of the dead!

magehandpress.com

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am at a catch-22 here. I feel like the game rules shouldn't have to add words to tell you that you can't do something, if the description literally doesn't let you in the first place. However I agree that many DMs and Players will transitioning from old, familiar rules and may still hold on to them.

It seems the only way to put safety rails is to actually provide a sidebar that says "Some spells/rules have changed since 2014, so maybe don't use older rules," or provide clunky reminder text in any spell that changed?

After further thought, I think there should not be reminder text like that, muddling up the wordcount/pagecount, because the DM is going to do what they want, no matter the reminder. Wizards of the Coast isn't the boss of them.

New players won't have the baggage, and veteran players already know they have to read the literal words, discuss their discoveries at the table and online, and they will have to make their house rules so that it makes sense for them. Maybe Wizards can create videos, providing context for major changes, so tables can make up their own minds?

This is D&D. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. "New players won't have the same baggage" is absolutely not true, because new players mostly learn from existing players, rather than just buying the books and coming out of nowhere, and even if they use videos or whatever, rather than actual humans, you can bet your bottom dollar that some of those videos will say that when this wears off, there's a problem. Especially as in stuff like BG3, there is a penalty (even if a weaksauce one).

I'd say put in a sidebar and call out Friends (and Charm Person if changed likewise) EXPLICITLY BY NAME as having changed and there not being a downside. It's not a lot of text to do, and it really helps in the longer-term.

I totally disagree with the "DMs will do what they want". That's a terrible, cynical attitude and not even a realistic one. If you just put in the sidebar, 95% of DMs will swap to the new approach, and the few who don't will signpost it to players. You won't have the same mess that saying nothing does.

Of course, we're assuming the Charmed effect doesn't say something itself - it might now call out the negative side effects there.

 

[Parmandur]

I am at a catch-22 here. I feel like the game rules shouldn't have to add words to tell you that you can't do something, if the description literally doesn't let you in the first place. However I agree that many DMs and Players will transitioning from old, familiar rules and may still hold on to them.

It seems the only way to put safety rails is to actually provide a sidebar that says "Some spells/rules have changed since 2014, so maybe don't use older rules," or provide clunky reminder text in any spell that changed?

After further thought, I think there should not be reminder text like that, muddling up the wordcount/pagecount, because the DM is going to do what they want, no matter the reminder. Wizards of the Coast isn't the boss of them.

New players won't have the baggage, and veteran players already know they have to read the literal words, discuss their discoveries at the table and online, and they will have to make their house rules so that it makes sense for them. Maybe Wizards can create videos, providing context for major changes, so tables can make up their own minds?

Those are quick summaries so people know what has changed. Which is important since if not stated, then the 2014 rules are the assumption.

 

[Parmandur]

Love the revisions to the cantrips. Home runs all around.

I like the concept of bastions (I've typically provided some sort of home base in my campaigns in Tier II), but the execution is such that I can't imagine running it outside of a fully integrated VTT...

This seems fine for paperwork by hand. Heck, I can already imagine my wife getting hours of entertainment drsftijg floor plans by hand.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Well will a ranger normally have a higher Wis than Dex Bonus. Cause one of the main features is turning the weapon into one that uses spell casting to hit and damage.

Well, it lets the caster choose, so it puts Str, Dex, and Wis-focused characters on the same page, melee-wise. They can all still use their preferred ability score with Shillelagh. (But a Ranger or other Extra Attack-haver who opted into the cantrip would get more out of it.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Like I literally know, that the first thing I would be asked by not just my main group, but literally any British or Aussie group I've DM'd for, would be, when they got to level 5 and looked at the Bastion rules "Why the hell can't we open a pub until level 13 mate?!".

Americans and their drinking age!

 

[mamba]

He specifically mentioned gold prices...

Haven't listened to it yet, so this goes into more detail than the ranges per category from the DMG?