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

​

 

[dave2008]

That depends what level you are at. The DMG is at its absolute worst at low level where a CR 1/8 monster is supposed to have about 21 hit points (which is going to lead to a boring slog) and a CR 1/2 monster is supposed to have about 60hp.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CR guidelines work. No wonder you think they don't work!

Think of HP as a point buy system. You send HP on AC, saving throws, resistances, traits, etc. So as you spend those HP on other things, your actual HP comes down. DPR acts similarly on the offense side.

That being said it is trickier at lower levels for sure. However, as I pointed our the CR 22 green dragon in the MM was wrong, and the CR 22 sapphire dragon in Fizban's is correct (both according to the DMG). So it is not a level thing, it is an error of execution in the MM, not the DMG guidelines.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's organized play, i.e. Adventurers League.

And he wasn't wrong there either, with Eberron and Ravenloft both having AL series.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CR guidelines work. No wonder you think they don't work!

Think of HP as a point buy system. You send HP on AC, saving throws, resistances, traits, etc. So as you spend those HP on other things, your actual HP comes down. DPR acts similarly on the offense side.

But the "default" CR 1/2 monster has AC of 13, 60hp, +3 to attack, and does 7 damage per round. Sure doesn't look like any CR 1/2 monster I've ever seen and would be entirely tedious to play with. This, regrettably, is using the quick monster creation table - and that doesn't actually include the saving throws. And most monsters of that level don't actually have resistances or major traits.

The math might work - but the guidance that made that the default stat array is truly dreadful. It might only need two things:

• Costs for half a dozen traits as examples
• Sliding the offensive and defensive halves of the stat block a couple of rows each at low levels so the low level monsters aren't toothless bullet sponges but instead have fewer hp and more damage

Even then I'd argue that what you'd have would be way worse than 4e because the 4e monster roles inherently make for tactical situations.

That being said it is trickier at lower levels for sure.

Which is where it's most important. First impressions matter more and that the tools lead to good results is most important for the least experienced DMs. I don't care that the math "works" at high levels, I care that following the math leads to bad results for the most inexperienced DMs (and ones like me are going to just drop it in the bin if it fails where it's most important that it doesn't).

 

[dave2008]

But the "default" CR 1/2 monster has AC of 13, 60hp, +3 to attack, and does 7 damage per round. Sure doesn't look like any CR 1/2 monster I've ever seen and would be entirely tedious to play with. This, regrettably, is using the quick monster creation table - and that doesn't actually include the saving throws. And most monsters of that level don't actually have resistances or major traits..

It is clear you don't understand how it works and that it does in fact work for published monsters. I have made hundreds, if not thousands of 5e monsters. I have checked the CR on probably an equal number of monsters in the published books by WotC and 3PP and fan creations. I know what I am talking about. I've done it, I've used it, and it works. I will have to agree to disagree with you at this point.

I will say I've started a spreadsheet comparing MM CR with DMG CR. When I makes some progress I will share my work. People talk about how awful the MM CR is compared to the DMG, but they rarely do the work to prove it.

The math might work - but the guidance that made that the default stat array is truly dreadful. It might only need two things:

• Costs for half a dozen traits as examples

There is a two-page lists of traits and their cost in the DMG as part of the monster building guidelines. Again, if you didn't realize that I am not surprised you think they don't work!

• Sliding the offensive and defensive halves of the stat block a couple of rows each at low levels so the low level monsters aren't toothless bullet sponges but instead have fewer hp and more damage

You can get that with the monster guidelines as is. Just trade those massive hit points for more damage. Again, it seems you fundamentally don't understand how it works.

Even then I'd argue that what you'd have would be way worse than 4e because the 4e monster roles inherently make for tactical situations.

I'm strictly talking about the guidelines not the monster design itself. The 4e monster guidelines gave no guidance on how traits, conditions, etc. effect the level of the monster. That was very frustrating. I made a lot of 4e monsters with the monster builder and the books. I know what I am talking about.

Which is where it's most important. First impressions matter more and that the tools lead to good results is most important for the least experienced DMs. I don't care that the math "works" at high levels, I care that following the math leads to bad results for the most inexperienced DMs (and ones like me are going to just drop it in the bin if it fails where it's most important that it doesn't).

Why I said it is trickier at lower CR it is because you are dealing with fractions (1/8, 1/4, & 1/2 CR) and people have a hard time with fractions. They still work when used properly. I will say the monster guidelines are very robust and do take some time to understand so I agree that can be difficult for new DMs.

 

[darjr]

huh?

OK I just pick the Giant Canary.

It has a HP of 26 that's 1/8 CR.
It does 7 HP a round that's 1/2 CR.
AC 12 which doesn't budge it.
To Hit +4 which also doesn't budge it, but would, by itself put it at CR 3.

So (5/8)/2 rounded up is 1/2. Which it is?

I do vote that I don't want to do that. But it did seem to work. What did I mess up?

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is clear you don't understand how it works and that it does in fact work for published monsters. I have made hundreds, if not thousands of 5e monsters. I have checked the CR on probably an equal number of monsters in the published books by WotC and 3PP and fan creations. I know what I am talking about. I've done it, I've used it, and it works. I will have to agree to disagree with you at this point.

It is clear you don't understand the problems. That they are a miserable failure for new DMs - and that new DMs are the people who most need tools.

There is a two-page lists of traits and their cost in the DMG as part of the monster building guidelines. Again, if you didn't realize that I am not surprised you think they don't work!

I'd forgotten that but this is correct. As is the fact that about half of these traits don't adjust the CR. And also (as a pet hate) these aren't actually traits - these are pointers to traits that mean you need to cross-reference the monster manual.

You can get that with the monster guidelines as is. Just trade those massive hit points for more damage. Again, it seems you fundamentally don't understand how it works.

And this is the basic problem. If you have already mastered the system you can get good results. If you just read the system and try and do the obvious things it gives you complete crap. They are not user friendly and do not work out of the box for the most basic examples.

A system that gives you terrible monsters unless you actively master and push the system is terrible when it comes to the single most important thing - making things easy for newbies to learn to DM because there is a lot to learn.

I'm strictly talking about the guidelines not the monster design itself. The 4e monster guidelines gave no guidance on how traits, conditions, etc. effect the level of the monster. That was very frustrating. I made a lot of 4e monsters with the monster builder and the books. I know what I am talking about.

Meanwhile every single monster you made in 4e both had a role and had at least a decent balance once they fixed the maths in the MM3. There was no equivalent to the awful CR 1/2 monster I posted that is not just RAW but actively using the default options.

Why I said it is trickier at lower CR it is because you are dealing with fractions (1/8, 1/4, & 1/2 CR) and people have a hard time with fractions.

Which means that it is absolutely necessary that they should work when the offence and the defence are both kept in balance. They don't. They fail hard.

They still work when used properly. I will say the monster guidelines are very robust and do take some time to understand so I agree that can be difficult for new DMs.

They only work properly when you push the systems far away from the default at low levels. They actively give you a strongly negative play experience if you leave the settings anywhere near the defaults at low levels. Which means that for any sort of tentative DM who is trying to run their first campaign they are quite literally worse than useless, actively leading to bad games. Even the 3.X monster design rules did a better job at teaching newbies and making it easy for them to give good results.

Now it might be that all that needs fixing is rebalancing the offence and defence below about CR 2. But this is the single most important section of these rules for the single most important function of the DMG. And that the rules are a completely miserable failure at the most basic and most important functions means that yes I haven't delved into them more deeply.

 

[dave2008]

It is clear you don't understand the problems. That they are a miserable failure for new DMs - and that new DMs are the people who most need tools.

I'd forgotten that but this is correct. As is the fact that about half of these traits don't adjust the CR. And also (as a pet hate) these aren't actually traits - these are pointers to traits that mean you need to cross-reference the monster manual.

And this is the basic problem. If you have already mastered the system you can get good results. If you just read the system and try and do the obvious things it gives you complete crap. They are not user friendly and do not work out of the box for the most basic examples.

A system that gives you terrible monsters unless you actively master and push the system is terrible when it comes to the single most important thing - making things easy for newbies to learn to DM because there is a lot to learn.

Meanwhile every single monster you made in 4e both had a role and had at least a decent balance once they fixed the maths in the MM3. There was no equivalent to the awful CR 1/2 monster I posted that is not just RAW but actively using the default options.

Which means that it is absolutely necessary that they should work when the offence and the defence are both kept in balance. They don't. They fail hard.

They only work properly when you push the systems far away from the default at low levels. They actively give you a strongly negative play experience if you leave the settings anywhere near the defaults at low levels. Which means that for any sort of tentative DM who is trying to run their first campaign they are quite literally worse than useless, actively leading to bad games. Even the 3.X monster design rules did a better job at teaching newbies and making it easy for them to give good results.

Now it might be that all that needs fixing is rebalancing the offence and defence below about CR 2. But this is the single most important section of these rules for the single most important function of the DMG. And that the rules are a completely miserable failure at the most basic and most important functions means that yes I haven't delved into them more deeply.

Like I said I will agree to disagree on almost all of your points. And I hope they don't change much for the 2024 DMG.

The one point I will agree with you is that they take some time to learn and that makes them not friendly to new DMs. However, personally I would rather have a robust system than an overly simplified one.

Actually 2nd point I will agree with is monsters be level instead of CR is better IMO. However, that is not an issue of the monster building guidelines, but design choice further up the chain. Although being new to CR (I didn't play 3e) I have become quite fond of it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Ever since it was first mentioned, the Bastion system is the UA that I was most looking forward to.

I am absolutely FOR the concept.

Unfortunately, I'm really let down by the execution. It's just kinda... meh.

 

[darjr]

Check out Let's Look at D&D Bastions! from Alphastream1 on www.twitch.tv

 

[dave2008]

Ever since it was first mentioned, the Bastion system is the UA that I was most looking forward to.

I am absolutely FOR the concept.

Unfortunately, I'm really let down by the execution. It's just kinda... meh.

While I generally agree, I see some decent ideas that could become something interesting. I don't know that WotC will do it, but it has given me some ideas to explore.