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

​

 

[Kurotowa]

This could be - is that how MotM or Giant book monsters are designed? Or is this entirely theoretical (but quite possibly correct)?

I know that's how the preview Time Dragon from Planescape works, and I think I saw an statblock or comment that Bibgy's done similar. So yes, that definitely looks to be the new design direction.

 

[Remathilis]

Interesting that they don't feel the Bard needs another playtest even though one of their major features, picking from Divine, Primal and Arcane magic is going away. Wonder if they are confident enough that replacing that with Cleric, Druid, and Wizard (Sorcerer?) lists will be enough for the class or if they still plan on giving Bards access to the three types.

I think they feel that returning to the bard spell list and having magic secrets like 2014 will be sufficient.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I know that's how the preview Time Dragon from Planescape works, and I think I saw an statblock or comment that Bibgy's done similar. So yes, that definitely looks to be the new design direction.

Interesting - does seem like kind of a better design concept.

 

[Yaarel]

It's very hard to give that with the system for feedback they have, though.

Because like, how am I supposed to rate it? I don't want to give it like "I hate this", because they'll count that as "purely negative" just add it to the pile for deleting Bastions entirely. I don't want to give it a high rating because it's rubbish, as is, just a good idea, and giving it a middle rating isn't very helpful either, because again it makes it seem like I'm "meh" on the idea.

I guess maybe I give the Bastions overall like, maximum score and then minimum score to every single element inside it?

The surveys would help to distinguish between
• I like the concept
• I like the narrative
• I like the mechanics

 

[Maxperson]

A few things.

1. I like the concept of the bastions.
2. I agree with @Ruin Explorer that the design shouldn't punish those who don't want one.
3. 25 gold to get advantage on the bastion roll is waaaaaay too low given the amounts of gold that goes out in the game. 25g per level seems more reasonable to me.
4. The auto rez for 100 bastion points is going to be chopped by me if they don't chop it first. Coming back from the dead is already way too easy.
5. The bastion events table seems light.


@Ruin Explorer, I see this which effectively makes it 1 base with different sections depending on the PC, so the wizard would have a section with an alchemy lab and library, while the fighter has a training room and war room, etc.

"COMBINING BASTIONS
Two or more players have the option of combining their characters’ Bastions into a single structure..."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Bastions are interesting, and show yes, WotC have listened some feedback, but it's pretty damn silly that they're designed so each PC has their own separate Bastion. They openly acknowledge some PCs might not want them, then they go ahead and yes absolutely penalize those PCs for not engaging with them. Sigh.

This is really bizarrely perverse design.

If you know some players won't want to engage with it, you can't penalize them for not engaging with it! That's silly thing to do! Why?

Secondly, I've never come across a group of PCs who wanted multiple bases. This is whole things seems to be founded on the idea that each PC will have a separate base. 34 years of D&D tells me, no, they will not want that. At most one PC played by a "difficult" or "special" player (usually a Rogue or Wizard) will have a separate base. Yet, again, unless I missed something (and maybe I did), there's no way to have a shared base.

The system is also frankly overcomplicated and fiddlesome in a way that will drive away maybe the majority of less "rules serious" players, which is ironic, because it has huge conceptual appeal to the most "rules casual" and RP-centric players.

Cubicle 7 will be happy to sell you A Life Well Lived, which will have its own rules for creating home bases.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

This could be - is that how MotM or Giant book monsters are designed? Or is this entirely theoretical (but quite possibly correct)?

Either way I think a better redesign would be to have it delete one Reaction rather than only hit OAs. If they're super-concerned they could make it non-stacking so no matter how many times it was cast only one Reaction was deleted.

Apologies, this is speculation some of us have based on the fact that monsters in Bigby’s, the 4th Monstrous Compendium, and Planescape (from what we have seen so far from read thrus and previews so I might be mistaken here) don’t have any legendary actions, and instead higher CR monsters are given multiple reactions a round instead with two or three unique reaction options.

The Time Dragon is the big stand out because all dragons of Adult category and higher have had legendary actions, but the Time Dragon doesn’t.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah I just think the odds of my comment actually being read are tiny.

My assumption is, when the designers have a clear vision to do something they tend to ignore comments.

But if they are mulling over something, they look thru the comments carefully to help best go about it.

Meanwhile, every comments does get read by someone, and if something happens to strike them as a good idea, they mention it to the designers.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I blame @Snarf Zagyg. Apparently he's influenced them to the point where they feel the bard is hopeless and their time is better spent elsewhere.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to build on my own comment here, if they think UK D&D players are going to find it acceptable that they have to wait to level 13 (!!!!!!!!!!!) to own a pub, WotC are going to be VERY surprised lol. That is 100% the first thing most players will want to build.

The old school in me wants to make PCs wait until level 9 to get a bastion at all. But then I also allow the players to just open up a tavern in town if they have the money and desire. For that I don't care if they are level 1 or level 20. They just need the means to do it.