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

​

 

[Parmandur]

True they were playing it fairly neutral back then, but then they released a whole bunch of APs.

EDIT: Although to be fair there are a few MtG settings, Eberron and the Critters universe. So I can see your point. Fair enough.
Ravenloft is a one off and Spelljammer/Planescape are part of the Cosmological Planes so I'm not counting these 3.

The core books do not assume the Forgotten Realms, they assume the common Great Wherl. Big difference.

 

[Parmandur]

@AnotherGuy went back and found these from Jeremy Crawford about how the Forgotten Realms are not the core Settong...in 2016. Time has really born out that the drsign team meant what they said about Settings at the start:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/dnd?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw

https://twitter.com/stout_evan?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

https://twitter.com/gaborcsigas?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[darjr]

@AnotherGuy went back and found these from Jeremy Crawford about how the Forgotten Realms are not the core Settong...in 2016. Time has really born out that the drsign team meant what they said about Settings at the start:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Does the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/dnd?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#dnd</a> tabletop RPG have one official setting? The answer is yes. That setting is the multiverse, which includes all <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/dnd?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#dnd</a> worlds.</p>&mdash; Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) <a href="">January 22, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/stout_evan?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@stout_evan</a> We won&#39;t announce products until they&#39;re ready. We do consider Greyhawk and others to be in 5E; they&#39;re in the core books!</p>&mdash; Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) <a href="">January 23, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/gaborcsigas?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@gaborcsigas</a> The core books intentionally emphasize the multiverse. FR is the focus of OP and our first <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/dnd5e?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#dnd5e</a> adventures. <a href="https://twitter.com/mikemearls?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@mikemearls</a></p>&mdash; Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) <a href="">February 16, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I’d screen capture those if I were you.

 

[Maxperson]

I’d screen capture those if I were you.

Those tweets seem like corporate spin to try and get away from having a specific default setting. "In the beginning FR was the focus and we released adventures for it, and then despite releasing ever more stuff for it and/or with FR names, it really isn't the default setting anymore." Hell, "the multiverse" isn't even a setting. It's many different settings, which invalidates it as a default setting.

Now they have released several books with non FR titles, but there are a LOT of FR named titles and adventures after 2015.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree with flex.
But if every versatile weapon had flex, it would be a non-benefit. You could just roll that into versatile.

Flex in that niche was a bad idea. But something simple that can be rolled into the attack (e.g. a +1 to hit or a stepped up damage die) is wanted.

I disagree with the DM experience. It is better than the 3e DM experience by far. It is just the unhelpful DMG that leaves a bad taste.

Mmm... this depends what stage of DMing the DM in question is at. 3.0 was I agree the worst, with 3.5 little better but where they failed was different from 5e. 3.X was clear what it wanted you to do as DM but it was a huge amount of IMO unnecessary work. 5e gives you very little - and some of what it does give you (especially the monster design tools) is actively broken, leaving new DMs flailing if they don't want pure adventure module railroads.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Putting Cunning Strike in the final book certainly seems like the right call. That said, I think it would very much be worth putting it in another playtest to work out the details. Which of the specific options are people most and least excited about? Should every Rogue have access to all of the options, or should they choose a subset? Cunning Strike is comparable to Weapon Mastery in its novelty, complexity and importance, and I think it merits similarly detailed playtesting to get the details right.

I agree. On the one hand I like the idea of giving rogues some more control options.

On the other hand the 'control skirmisher' niche in 5e has been occupied by the monk and ranger who each have resources they need to expend to achieve that control.

If they give these essentially free options to the rogue class, I'd expect them to take a much much harder look at the expected role of the monk and ranger.

 

[dave2008]

5e gives you very little - and some of what it does give you (especially the monster design tools) is actively broken,...

I love the 5e monster design tools (better than 4e IMO), they work great. That is one of my worries for 2024, that they will mess up the monster design guidelines.

 

[Parmandur]

I love the 5e monster design tools (better than 4e IMO), they work great. That is one of my worries for 2024, that they will mess up the monster design guidelines.

Honestly, I expect the lose will be legitimately improved, whether in math or presentation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I love the 5e monster design tools (better than 4e IMO), they work great.

The 5e monster design tools literally do not work to produce the MM monsters. If you really think that a CR 1/8 monster having 7-36 hp and a CR 1/2 monster having 50-70hp (DMG p274) rather than these numbers being ridiculous I sincerely do not know where to begin.

That is one of my worries for 2024, that they will mess up the monster design guidelines.

I'm not sure how they could.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the UA.... Maybe start a new thread?