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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's up slippery slope? How ya been?

Remember kids, if you cant have the bastion NPC's betray the party/get killed by DM fiat, the world is garbage and no one cares.

Why are you presenting the situation where those are the only two options?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And the only way to avoid these strawman argument examples was to reduce them to things that are not people living and interacting with the world and remove consequence for player actions?

Don't be a coward, answer my hypothetical:
Player decided his bastion is populated by order of righteous paladins of god of good, who adore his character as greatest hero of them all and chosen one of their god, new messiah maybe even.
The player then proceeds to on a hwim slaughter Village of Women and Children, Edmonton, assaut the king and pee on him before kidnapping his daughter and fleeing to his keep.
Am I the bad guy for deciding that the princess hates him, his knights are horrified and disgusted by his actions and king sends an army to lay a siege to the Bastion? Or should I just let the player face zero consequences and in fact, because she is now in his bastion, I should let thep layer decide the Princess, who was previously as an NPC established to hate his guts, is actually totally in love with him, Stockholm Syndrome style?

I'd give them high fives and declare they won D&D. Good job!

They beat the king, which was probably a tough battle given it didnt take place in their bastion. RAW, from what we have seen, the bastion wouldnt give them control of the princess, who was previously established outside of the bastion though. The men would continue to idolize their murderhobo liege though.

Question for you:
Have you ever considered playing with friends you actually like, or is it always just the worst randos you can scrounge from the store/con?

 

[Hussar]

Considering roleplaying patrons was one of my favorite parts of my time as a DM (and I HAVE handed over one patron to another player - player who played that patron as PC in previosu campaign, not the player of the Warlock), this paragraph alone just reads to me like telling me personally to go ef myself and that I DON'T get to have fun. If this kind of garbage becomes the norm, I would rather switch to a GMless system.

I am in no way telling you how to run or play your game. I was expressing my personal preference.

 

[Hussar]

And the only way to avoid these strawman argument examples was to reduce them to things that are not people living and interacting with the world and remove consequence for player actions?

Don't be a coward, answer my hypothetical:
Player decided his bastion is populated by order of righteous paladins of god of good, who adore his character as greatest hero of them all and chosen one of their god, new messiah maybe even.
The player then proceeds to on a hwim slaughter Village of Women and Children, Edmonton, assaut the king and pee on him before kidnapping his daughter and fleeing to his keep.
Am I the bad guy for deciding that the princess hates him, his knights are horrified and disgusted by his actions and king sends an army to lay a siege to the Bastion? Or should I just let the player face zero consequences and in fact, because she is now in his bastion, I should let thep layer decide the Princess, who was previously as an NPC established to hate his guts, is actually totally in love with him, Stockholm Syndrome style?

Option C.

Don’t play with players who do that.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Is it possible that you tend to exaggerate or read way more into the things people are expressing? Because you seem to think most objections to your position are insults, dismissal, bad faith etc.

Remember when you were arguing a few weeks ago that the dance bard was made as a direct permission from WotC to explicitly bully and humiliate monk?

Well, so far a lot of what I see from 2024 rubs me the wrong way.

I like new Monk, but I hate that Dance Bard basically gives one of most powerful classes, that already was and still is in a whole different league from Monk, an ability to do few things Monk could and it couldn't. I know that with right spell seleciton people will build Dance Bard who will outshine Monk in every situation and I know on my table I will have to make them mutually esclusive.

I hate how Warlock has been changed in a way that takes away from the patron. By the rules I'm not allwoed to reveal what the patron is for two levels of the class, I'm not allowed to have patron contact the Warlock regually before level 10 (otherwise 10th level feature is pointless), and I know people will take two levels for power-up and never let the patron develop into an actual character. So I will have to begin my campaigns at level 3 with no multiclassing or rewrite Warlock into something separate from an actual class.

And I hate that the Bastion rules seem pretty much antiethical to the way I run the game. I'm sick of every new thing about this update seemingly designed to naughty word on parts of the game I like.

Have you ever considered playing with friends you actually like, or is it always just the worst randos you can scrounge from the store/con?

Don’t play with players who do that.

Have both of you considered the idea that I don't have to be personally experiencing something to point out that a mechanic is easily abusable and encourages toxic behavior? Have either of you considered there is already too many people who struggle as DM's for this game and that this mechanic effectively makes their life harder and takes fun away from the game? Have you considered that I want the game to be good and community healthy even if something won't affect me personally?

Also, stop insulting my players.

I'd give them high fives and declare they won D&D.

Explain why I should take anything you say seriously if this is your answer?

They beat the king, which was probably a tough battle given it didnt take place in their bastion. RAW, from what we have seen, the bastion wouldnt give them control of the princess, who was previously established outside of the bastion though. The men would continue to idolize their murderhobo liege though.

Follow-up question: If the men keep idolizing a kidnapper and mass murderer of women and children, Butcher of Edmonton, but the player decided these guys are all paladins of God of Good, should that God take away their paladin status? After all, Gods are controlled by DMs and Gods take away paladin powers, but the DM is not allowed to interact with the Bastion. The player character, for this hypothetical, is a Fighter, btw.

 

[Imaro]

I’m 100% behind any mechanic that spreads the load among everyone at the table.

Especially if it's laughably easy to use the mechanic in a traditional way if you want too.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Especially if it's laughably easy to use the mechanic in a traditional way if you want too.

the mechanic that explicit bans its use in a traditional way? that mechanic?

 

[Imaro]

Yes, with a caveat that they control these NPC's actions, while I control the roleplay aspect - I decide how they react to the player decisions or things they put them through. Especially when a familiar is an imp sent by Warlock's patron, who is loyal to patron, not the Warlock. Or, in my current campaign, where Warlock's patron is a PC-turned nPC from previous campaign and faimilairs are souls of NPCs or PCs from that game, turned into talking animals.

So you still let PC's take actions outside of their PC's... but your answer is still a little muddied to me... can a beastmaster's pet decide to betray him? Can a familiar decide it's not going to give its benefit to the wizard who summoned it and can an important decide it will help the warlock and go against the patron?

"No, u" is not a proper argument. Asking bluntly a question like that the way you did clearly implied to me you think players have no power and control over anything in my game and are just the audience, a statement that is VERY untrue. You made an assumption, acussed me of it in a backaround way and then got mad when I called you out on it.

Well you assumed my intent instead of asking me and you were wrong. Asking what your players job was in no way implied any of what you seem to think it did... it was a clarifying question to avoid assuming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In my games, henchmen (including animal companions) are NPCs are controlled by the DM (except in combat, a nod to convenience on my part). Familiars, which are basically part of the PC as they are described, are an exception to this and are controlled by the PC. NPCs act based on their personalities, their knowledge, and their relationships with others (including of course the PCs).

So yes, if an animal companion felt sufficiently aggrieved by their master, I could see them betraying them. Seems pretty unlikely though.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

can a beastmaster's pet decide to betray him? Can a familiar decide it's not going to give its benefit to the wizard who summoned it and can an important decide it will help the warlock and go against the patron?

If the beastmaster is blatantly mistreating the pet, I would consider it but only after repedatelly calling it out in other means and have player ignore it. It's no different than in my current game, when a prince of another nation who was PC's sidekick betrayed the party after being repedatelly relegated to minor taks, despite making it clear as a warrior he found it insulting, and being multiple time harassed by a PC who thought he is a spy (he wasn't, but he decided if they're treating him that way he may as well prove them right).

With the familiars it depends on their personality. Again, looking at my current game, One that was forced by the patron to be a familiar as punishment and Warlock anjoyed abysing him? He was basically waiting to betray the party, but they got him permakilled by accident. Current familiar is a hero who died and got his soul trapped as a familiar, so he mostly gives Warlock side-eye or comments on his actions or laments his state. He wouldn't act against the Warlock because he convinced Warlock to do a quest to get him his body back, eventually.