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.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My suggestion is using "grogs", PCs with levels of survivor classes (Van Ritchen's Guide 5e). Each grog works for a "room". The players play with grogs and the reward wouldn't be XP but "bastion points" to level up the tiers of each "room".

 

[Stormonu]

One beneficial thing I see about adding Bastions is that it encourages the game to slow down time a bit. Instead of the characters doing one adventure after another with no time in-between expeditions there's now a direct benefit to having spans of downtime between adventures, and a better scaling of time.

 

[Dausuul]

Even all of that has to go through the DM. For example, if there are no aarakocra in the game, the player wouldn't be able to create one as a PC.

Sure, but those decisions are usually in the form of "X is allowed, Y is not." The DM chooses what tools the player can use; what the player does with those tools is "player territory" and outside the DM's purview in all but exceptional cases.

Similarly, a DM might veto certain bastion buildings, but if one is allowed, it's player territory.

As a player, I have zero interest in anything resembling the UA system, though. Territory that comes with that much bookkeeping can go right back to the DM. (Or, assuming the DM is equally uninterested, into the sea.) It's a pity, I'd love a good stronghold system, but this ain't it.

 

[Stormonu]

Sure, but those decisions are usually in the form of "X is allowed, Y is not." The DM chooses what tools the player can use; what the player does with those tools is "player territory" and outside the DM's purview in all but exceptional cases.

Similarly, a DM might veto certain bastion buildings, but if one is allowed, it's player territory.

As a player, I have zero interest in anything resembling the UA system, though. Territory that comes with that much bookkeeping can go right back to the DM. (Or, assuming the DM is equally uninterested, into the sea.) It's a pity, I'd love a good stronghold system, but this ain't it.

One of the nice things is that individual PCs can choose to use or ignore Bastions according to their preference. Someone playing the Champion Fighter might not be interested in managing a keep and not take a Bastion, but in the same group the party wizard might be keen on having a Wizard's Tower with a magical garden for a handful of potions they want to brew up for the party.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah that's odd to me too. I am currently using the Bastion playtest rules to great success, but it is a ship.

I'm taking a lot more control than is suggested by the RAI, as my players enjoyed it more that their Hirelings were played by me. I love doing little Star Trek B-stories with the crew during downtime or while the party is gone.

"The smith keeps picking the fruit from our garden! It's not even ripe yet!"

"The hireling of the sanctum is having an existential crisis after seeing the PC contact a god."

In any case, I think I understand why they try to make bastions a part of the campaign that the DM doesn't have to micromanage.

I think it ends up being about the specific table dynamics, but I think James Wyatt's words indicate to me that they are looking at it in terms of "knives" as a role-playing term. Stuff like what you quoted is fun, but the DM deciding that your Temple Bastion is headed by a high priest, who betrays an excommunicates you , stealing your bastion and slurring your name, because the DM thinks that would make for an interesting story... that is less fun for a lot of people. And I think that needs to be a table discussion.

 

[Arilyn]

One beneficial thing I see about adding Bastions is that it encourages the game to slow down time a bit. Instead of the characters doing one adventure after another with no time in-between expeditions there's now a direct benefit to having spans of downtime between adventures, and a better scaling of time.

I love that too. The UA Bastion system doesn't really support that much, however. Hopefully it's been reworked.

 

[bedir than]

Beyond just dropped their written preview of Bastions

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1828-exploring-bastions-from-the-2024-dungeon-masters

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

As with the UA, the concept sounds fabulous. I'm hungry to incorporate some sort of system into my own game, whether it's WotCs or whatever tweaks DM's Guild comes up with.

Oh, me too! No doubt the DMs Guild will produce some fabulous ideas about how to get the most fun out of Bastions.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Bar should be 1st level facility. even if it's a runty 2by2 meter kiosk with cheap ale and watered down wine.

The 5th level storehouse is a way to buy/sell goods and earn 10% of the investment each Turn. It could be a tavern.

Prior to 5th level it should earn less than 10%. Maybe 2% per level. So a 1st level character put in 50gp and make back 51gp. 2nd 52gp, 3rd 53gp, 4th 54gp, at 5th as their Bastion 55gp profit.

 

[kigmatzomat]

For example, the word "Pub" is now codified to mean a particular special facility with very specific, narrowly-defined rules. Those rules reflect the designers' narrative about the role pubs play in the world, but they provide almost no flexibility.

I know. I can't believe they didn't call it a Covert Operation or Spy Ring or something much less "pub".