D&D (2024) Dungeon Master's Guide Bastion System Lets You Build A Stronghold

The Dungeon Master's Guide's brand new Bastion System has been previewed in a new video from Wizards of the Coast.

Characters can acquire a bastion at 5th-level. Each week, the bastion takes a turn, with actions including crafting, recruiting, research, trade, and more.

A bastion also contains a number of special facilties, starting with two at 5th-level up to 6 at 17th-level. These facilities include things like armories, workshops, laboratories, stables, menageries, and more. In total there are nearly thirty such facilities to choose from.

 

[Arilyn]

I can readily accept the Bastion workers being under control of the PCs, or not, depending on the table. The system however, is not set up for any investment in them as people. It's all too random and abstract.

 

[James Gasik]

It might almost come down to "make something up yourself" if they're going for a house or something else on the small side. Figure out a price for the house, figure out with the players what they want to put in there for staffing and-or defenders, and take it case-by-case if and when they want to make renovations or expansions etc.

If they were going for a castle or keep or something else big then I'd point you to the 1e DMG which has pretty good rules for such.

Well, I'm sure they'll want more in the future. A system where I can get them excited about spending money to pimp out their base sounds good. I had one keep in my AD&D days and pretty quickly I noted that my "standing army" wasn't really good for much more than taking on bandits- there wasn't enough men to really think about conquering anyplace, and of course, if I moved them out, the threat of the place being attacked (it was the Keep in the Kryptgarden Forest from the excellent "The Inheritance" adventure in Dungeon #26) and my mandate from the Lords of Waterdeep to "keep the forest clear of threats"- imagine my surprise when I learned about "Old Gnawbones", a green dragon who made her lair in the same forest!

And I rarely had opportunity to actually return there between adventures, so in the end, it wasn't of much benefit to me.

Now part of that was the campaign didn't really give me opportunities to flex the fact I was a landed noble, nor involve me in Waterdhavian politics- I can see how in some games having a keep and men-at-arms could be a big deal, but in most of the ones I've played in, it feels like it's a big waste of time, like when I had another character win a bar in an adventure, sunk a lot of coin into it, and never saw it again before the campaign ended.

So the Bastion system intrigues me with the idea of letting my players sink a lot of gold into minor benefits. I just was hoping I wouldn't have to do all the work myself, lol.

 

[Hussar]

Followers can betray you, intentionally or otherwise. Pets can run off. Patrons and deities are fully DM-side independent entities who each have their own agendae; though it's up to the player to play out the manner of worship etc. if so desired, it's on the DM to determine what makes the deity tick and how it might react (if at all) to those particular ways of worship.

And, this is why we don't have follower rules in the game anymore.

I much prefer player facing rules to be actually player facing. Then again, if I'm worried about my players suddenly becoming mass murderers for no reason, maybe it would be more of a concern. Since I don't play with dicks, it's not a concern.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I much prefer player facing rules to be actually player facing. Then again, if I'm worried about my players suddenly becoming mass murderers for no reason, maybe it would be more of a concern. Since I don't play with dicks, it's not a concern.

If you want to adress my point, have a) actual argument and b) actually respond to my post instead of vague references because you cannot solve the examples I provided. Relying on casual "I don't play with mass murderers" is reductionist and another attempt at being a smartass, isntead of actually being smart. Mechanics you present in the game determine what kind of behavior they encourage. If you slam a player-facing mechanic without rhyme or reason, it can, like the bastion does, encourage horrible behavior. Even the nicest players may become murderhobos if they see this is the behavior the game rewards and encourages. Consequences of your actions and making players invested in the world are common tools to avoid it. Bastion rules, by being a) a safe heaven DM cannot touch, thus allowing a place to escape consequences of your actions b) populated by quasi-npcs who do not act like actual living beings in the world, but immersion-breaking set of mechanical bonuses, thus taking player away from the world and reminding them this is just a game...both of these seem to prevent use of best methods to cull murderhoboing and instead encourage it.

Also, to have proper player-facing game, it has to be integrated into the entiriety of the game, not just slapped awkwardly in one place because it's what other games have so D&D has to have it too.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If it's an individual PC's stronghold, it shouldn't be messed with too much.

But if it's a stronghold or base for the whole party (which IMO is by far the better way to go with these things) then the players/PCs should have to give a thought to its defense as - being powerful hero types - they're going to have enemies and they're collectively giving those enemies a perfect target.

A really clever party could even use this to their advantage: build a very public and well-defended - and fake! - stronghold here while also building a second, much more secret, stronghold somewhere else which becomes their real base. Then they sit back, see who attacks the fake one, and take 'em out.

In the rules, it’s a single pc’s stronghold near as I can tell.

But advising dms not to mess with it is going to ruin dnd forever, apparently, since we all know brand new dms never make mistakes.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I'm sure they'll want more in the future. A system where I can get them excited about spending money to pimp out their base sounds good. I had one keep in my AD&D days and pretty quickly I noted that my "standing army" wasn't really good for much more than taking on bandits- there wasn't enough men to really think about conquering anyplace, and of course, if I moved them out, the threat of the place being attacked (it was the Keep in the Kryptgarden Forest from the excellent "The Inheritance" adventure in Dungeon #26) and my mandate from the Lords of Waterdeep to "keep the forest clear of threats"- imagine my surprise when I learned about "Old Gnawbones", a green dragon who made her lair in the same forest!

And I rarely had opportunity to actually return there between adventures, so in the end, it wasn't of much benefit to me.

That last is what tends to ruin these things: that you never get to go there.

That said, was it because the next adventure always came on too fast, or because your group didn't tend to split up during downtime?

If it's because the group doesn't split up to pursue independent downtime activities, maybe suggest a common stronghold for the party.

Now part of that was the campaign didn't really give me opportunities to flex the fact I was a landed noble, nor involve me in Waterdhavian politics- I can see how in some games having a keep and men-at-arms could be a big deal, but in most of the ones I've played in, it feels like it's a big waste of time, like when I had another character win a bar in an adventure, sunk a lot of coin into it, and never saw it again before the campaign ended.

A character in my game built a pub and it immediately became home base for the partyfor several in-game years. Other characters tacked on their own bits e.g. a mage built her lab out back in a separate building, another character bought some cottages across the road as places for adventurers to sleep when in town, and so forth. The trick is for the character doing the building to promote the place to other characters as a hangout/headquarters.

So the Bastion system intrigues me with the idea of letting my players sink a lot of gold into minor benefits. I just was hoping I wouldn't have to do all the work myself, lol.

Strongholds of any kind can quickly become money sinks, I can attest to that.

 

[Lanefan]

And, this is why we don't have follower rules in the game anymore.

I much prefer player facing rules to be actually player facing.

Indeed. NPCs are not a part of the player-facing rules, however, which makes this a moot point.

Then again, if I'm worried about my players suddenly becoming mass murderers for no reason, maybe it would be more of a concern. Since I don't play with dicks, it's not a concern.

If your players suddenly become mass murderers, you've got problems I can't fix. But if their characters suddenly become mass murderers then so be it - the characters are theirs to do with what they will, and it's on you-as-DM to have the setting react appropriately (if it can) to the PCs' actions.

 

[Hussar]

If you want to adress my point, have a) actual argument and b) actually respond to my post instead of vague references because you cannot solve the examples I provided. Relying on casual "I don't play with mass murderers" is reductionist and another attempt at being a smartass, isntead of actually being smart. Mechanics you present in the game determine what kind of behavior they encourage. If you slam a player-facing mechanic without rhyme or reason, it can, like the bastion does, encourage horrible behavior. Even the nicest players may become murderhobos if they see this is the behavior the game rewards and encourages. Consequences of your actions and making players invested in the world are common tools to avoid it. Bastion rules, by being a) a safe heaven DM cannot touch, thus allowing a place to escape consequences of your actions b) populated by quasi-npcs who do not act like actual living beings in the world, but immersion-breaking set of mechanical bonuses, thus taking player away from the world and reminding them this is just a game...both of these seem to prevent use of best methods to cull murderhoboing and instead encourage it.

Also, to have proper player-facing game, it has to be integrated into the entiriety of the game, not just slapped awkwardly in one place because it's what other games have so D&D has to have it too.

Umm, how does having a bastion encourage players to become mass murderers? That's a leap I'm not really managing on my own. In what way do the bastion rules encourage horrible behavior?

For example, you claim that the bastion is a "safe haven the DM cannot touch". Which is flat out false. It's not a safe haven. I can't, as the DM directly impact the Bastion itself, I suppose, by RAW, but, there's nothing saying that I can't 100% ignore it and directly affect the PC's. And, since the Bastion is abstracted, there's no way the players can leverage anything to stop the DM for doing so.

 

[Lanefan]

In the rules, it’s a single pc’s stronghold near as I can tell.

If they don't include anything around multi-character or whole-party (or even adventuring company) strongholds it would be a miss IMO.

But advising dms not to mess with it is going to ruin dnd forever, apparently, since we all know brand new dms never make mistakes.

There's a difference between these:

a) advising DMs not to mess with it
b) outright banning DMs from messing with it
c) giving DMs advice on how to (and how not to) mess with it in ways that constructively add to the game and-or its story.

Some are interpreting the new system as saying b) above, hence the pushback.

I'd prefer if they did c) - but I ain't holding my breath.

 

[Hussar]

Indeed. NPCs are not a part of the player-facing rules, however, which makes this a moot point.

If your players suddenly become mass murderers, you've got problems I can't fix. But if their characters suddenly become mass murderers then so be it - the characters are theirs to do with what they will, and it's on you-as-DM to have the setting react appropriately (if it can) to the PCs' actions.

But followers were 100% player facing in AD&D. The DM had no control over the followers, nor were the followers ever meant to be DM played NPC's. They were 100% player resources. That DM's ignored that and turned followers into yet another monkey's paw is why the follower rules disappeared. Players simply refused to have followers because it was never worth the headache.

Then in 3e, with the Leadership feat, you got a limited number of flunkies, that again, was 100% player facing. The DM was not intended to have any input here. The player chose their cohort.

And, funnily enough, being able to choose didn't encourage players to have their characters turn into mass murderers.