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 see your point, but I'd still rather use a real system for strongholds that can actually be a part of the world like everything else.

Oh, I agree on this point. In groups I've run or been in, the player characters might decide to build a stronhold or refurbish a structure they cleaned out.

In a game I was in, we cleaned out a haunted manor and then decided to move in. Needed repairs and we had a few non- hostile ghosts floating around. Over time, we hired some NPCs who were looking for work, added a cool herb garden and an alchemy workshop. The wizard created her perfect library. We protected the nearby village, as we were in a remote area. This all started at level 2 and we just kept slowly improving the place over time. And sometimes, trouble hit, often from nobility passing through. It was fun and blended organically into the game, rather than the more mechanistic bastion system.

 

[Yaarel]

I wonder if the bastion Defenders have a seed for a useful mass combat system. There are hints of this when sending them on missions to assist the community.

The main requirement for a system is to resolve large scale conflicts elegantly - simply but realistically while accommodating various variables. At the same time, the adventurers must be free to engage the conflict personally, in a way that meaningfully impacts the outcome of the large scale conflict.

The mechanics for the Defenders might be doing something like the requirement, or at least offer part of a system that does.

 

[grimmgoose]

I wonder if the bastion Defenders have a seed for a useful mass combat system. There are hints of this when sending them on missions to assist the community.

The main requirement for a system is to resolve large scale conflicts elegantly - simply but realistically while accommodating various variables. At the same time, the adventurers must be free to engage the conflict personally, in a way that meaningfully impacts the outcome of the large scale conflict.

The mechanics for the Defenders might be doing something like the requirement, or at least offer part of a system that does.

You would assume that there would be a siege / mass battle mechanic built in, but I'm betting on nothing of the sort. WOTC seems allergic to subsystems; the prevailing assumption for basically everything in 5E is, "do it with the combat engine".

My understanding right now is that the only way a Bastion can suffer damage RAW is through a random event roll.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You would assume that there would be a siege / mass battle mechanic built in, but I'm betting on nothing of the sort. WOTC seems allergic to subsystems; the prevailing assumption for basically everything in 5E is, "do it with the combat engine".

Or the spellcasting engine. It's a symptom of their simplicity addiction.

 

[Epic Meepo]

If Ginny's Coffeehouse is a Pub in her stronghold, and you are telling the story of Ginny's Coffeehouse, why would you call it a pub? You can absolutely refer to it as a Coffeehouse. You absolutely SHOULD refer to it as a coffeehouse. In the story and in the player's notes, and in their conception of the situation, it is a coffeehouse.

This is just like having the Queen's Champion, Sir Theron, be a wizard. You can be a champion, and a knight.... and mechanically be a wizard. Because the term "Champion" and "Knight" can have multiple meanings. This should not cause any dissonance to my mind.

I'm glad none of that causes dissonance to your mind, and I suspect you're in the majority on that.

My mind works differently, so much of what you wrote does cause dissonance for me. I'll put my explanation in a spoiler block, because it's lengthy and somewhat off topic:

Spoiler: How I Experience Cognitive Dissonance

To my mind, when I read the above-quoted post in the context of the 2024 rules, I immediately have to wonder if it was written with the capitalization standards of the ruleset in mind. Because I wouldn't call Ginny's Coffehouse (the proper name) a pub (lower-case p), but I'd call it a Pub (capital P) when referencing the rules element it represents. And, in writing, I wouldn't refer to Ginny's Coffehouse (the proper name) as a Coffeehouse (capital C not preceded by Ginny's), because by the conventions of the 2014 rules, a Coffeehouse (capital C not part of a proper name) is a rules element which may or may not be a coffeehouse (lower-case c).

Also, I have to wonder why the above-quoted post uses Champions (capital C) and Knights (capital K) as examples of terms that don't cause cognitive dissonance. In the context of the 2014 rules, there would be no reason to use the terms Champion (capital C) and Knight (capital K) unless you were also introducing rules elements with those names. In the absence of those rules elements, the terms champion (lower-case c) and knight (lower-case k) are perfectly sufficient. So of course a champion (lower-case c) or a knight (lower-case k) can be a wizard (lower-case w)... or even a Wizard (capital W).

If everything I wrote in the previous paragraphs seems pedantic, then your mind doesn't work like mine, so none of the points I'm making is relevant to you (which is perfectly fine). In the mean time, my mind parses rules text the same way it parses computer code. If the rules of the game are case-sensitive, then when I'm reading or writing about those rules, my mind treats capitalized and non-capitalized words differently. That's just how my mind processes technical writing.

 

[S'mon]

I'm glad none of that causes dissonance to your mind, and I suspect you're in the majority on that.

My mind works differently, so much of what you wrote does cause dissonance for me. I'll put my explanation in a spoiler block, because it's lengthy and somewhat off topic:

Spoiler: How I Experience Cognitive Dissonance

To my mind, when I read the above-quoted post in the context of the 2024 rules, I immediately have to wonder if it was written with the capitalization standards of the ruleset in mind. Because I wouldn't call Ginny's Coffehouse (the proper name) a pub (lower-case p), but I'd call it a Pub (capital P) when referencing the rules element it represents. And, in writing, I wouldn't refer to Ginny's Coffehouse (the proper name) as a Coffeehouse (capital C not preceded by Ginny's), because by the conventions of the 2014 rules, a Coffeehouse (capital C not part of a proper name) is a rules element which may or may not be a coffeehouse (lower-case c).

Also, I have to wonder why the above-quoted post uses Champions (capital C) and Knights (capital K) as examples of terms that don't cause cognitive dissonance. In the context of the 2014 rules, there would be no reason to use the terms Champion (capital C) and Knight (capital K) unless you were also introducing rules elements with those names. In the absence of those rules elements, the terms champion (lower-case c) and knight (lower-case k) are perfectly sufficient. So of course a champion (lower-case c) or a knight (lower-case k) can be a wizard (lower-case w)... or even a Wizard (capital W).

If everything I wrote in the previous paragraphs seems pedantic, then your mind doesn't work like mine, so none of the points I'm making is relevant to you (which is perfectly fine). In the mean time, my mind parses rules text the same way it parses computer code. If the rules of the game are case-sensitive, then when I'm reading or writing about those rules, my mind treats capitalized and non-capitalized words differently. That's just how my mind processes technical writing.

I'd assume upper case Champion & Knight referred to the stat blocks in Volo's and the Monster Manual. Guess I think like you.

 

[Epic Meepo]

I'd assume upper case Champion & Knight referred to the stat blocks in Volo's and the Monster Manual. Guess I think like you.

Good catch. I think you're right about those being stat block references.

I missed that because the names were capitalized, not boldfaced they way they are in the 2014 rules. (I don't think I've actually seen yet how 2024 formats the names of stat blocks.)

 

[MarkB]

The more I've looked at these rules, I'm finding myself very unlikely to use them in full. Having some guidance on structure and some interesting special facilities is good, but this random-events minigame just isn't catching my interest.

 

[Sulicius]

The more I've looked at these rules, I'm finding myself very unlikely to use them in full. Having some guidance on structure and some interesting special facilities is good, but this random-events minigame just isn't catching my interest.

As someone using the rules, you are definitely free to change what you don’t like!

The core strength of the Bastion rules in the playtest is how easy they are to use.

Our bastion is in a ship, and the players let me play the hirelings. I am doing a ton of little b-story things with them, and it really brings the crew to life.

Meanwhile the party is slowly gathering bastion points and enjoying getting their crafting rewards.

I am curious, since there is a lot of criticism: what would you want from a home base system? And what system have you used that does it best?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'm never going to be ok with mechanics that are rationalized by the idea that the DM might be a jerk, so let's launch a pre-emptive strike against that.

Every time I see an old school DM bristle at any slight eroding of their god emperor of the lunch room table authority, I do have to ask.... If you aren't going to do it, why does it matter that it's forbidden?

You control 99.9% of the world. If you can't share a sliver, that's a you problem, not a rules problem.