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.

 

[Azzy]

Yes, and it gets said all the time! No one ever thinks about the bad players...

Huh. Bad players gets brought up just about every day. It's one of the never-ending complaints on ENWorld.

 

[Iosue]

that I agree, Bastions and magic items should have been in PHB, but then would it be space for it.

If Bastions were in the PHB, then we'd have people complaining about power creep, and about players expecting to be able to use them just because they are in the PHB, even if the DM doesn't want them in the campaign.

They're an optional rule. Optional rules belong in the DMG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If Bastions were in the PHB, then we'd have people complaining about power creep, and about players expecting to be able to use them just because they are in the PHB, even if the DM doesn't want them in the campaign.

They're an optional rule. Optional rules belong in the DMG.

Rules in the DMG shouldn't have a hard lock on DM involvement.

 

[PurpleHazy]

My 2 cp...

Bastions/strongholds/keeps/castles/estates have been around since the beginning. A quick review of my library found no less than 7 different systems or variants. As is often the case, and since everyone is a critic, there are always someone or something that could be better or that someone doesn't personally like.

Well....

Change it. Don't use it. Use it. Make your own. After reading many comments/opinions, may I humbly suggest that folks may benefit from not taking everything so literally (the RAI/RAW conundrum). Also, at the end of the day, if the DM/players don't agree to use this option, then it is DOA. For hack/slash players, this probably isn't a draw, for long-term campaign players, this is likely appealing. Read the room and adjust as needed. Several commentors made similar points.

Alright, with that said, I like it. I've played campaigns with similar options. Pendragon, 2nd edition, 5th edition, Pathfinder, they have all been enjoyable. It is difficult to balance tactics with strategy with governance and geopolitics. Game designers have the unenviable task of trying to find the balance of those competing mechanics and then make it appealing to a broad swath of players. It is always going to be a compromise.

I read the UA and liked it. From the video (which I did watch) it appears that the UA rules, as is typically the case with UA, are largely the same, but have been modified to some degree. No use sweating the details until the DMG is out and the changes can be easily identified.

I am, and will continue, to use some variation of these rules with my players. They enjoy it, I enjoy it. I hope other folks enjoy it. Or don't. Whatever floats in your moat...

 

[S'mon]

Rules in the DMG shouldn't have a hard lock on DM involvement.

This reminds me of how the European Court of Justice interprets optional clauses in Directives... "It's an optional rule, but if you use it, you have to use it EXACTLY as we say so!"

 

[S'mon]

Change it. Don't use it. Use it. Make your own.

I'm so fed up with WoTC I'm not even GMing 5e any more - I'm still playing in a couple 5e-2014 campaigns, one of which is the kind of "cosy roleplay" style WoTC is going for these days. And yet I still feel entitled to complain.

 

[Iosue]

Rules in the DMG shouldn't have a hard lock on DM involvement.

Why not? It’s an optional player facing system. Once the DM makes the decision to use the system in their campaign, why do they need to be involved?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not? It’s an optional player facing system. Once the DM makes the decision to use the system in their campaign, why do they need to be involved?

Two reasons (both IMO obviously):

1. Player-facing systems should be in the PH. If you want it to be clear that it's optional, say that in the rules, but say it in the PH (or another player-facing book). Putting the rules in the DMG is a marketing gimmick designed to sell the book to players.

2. The stronghold represents a thing in the setting outside the person of the PC. Such things should never be "hands-off" to the DM, and making a public claim that it is is again a marketing gimmick, and is additional an assumption that one's DM can't be trusted and has no care for the feelings and opinions of the players. Not a good look on the part of the designers.

 

[Arilyn]

The way the Bastion rules are set up, there isn't really any room for GM involvement anyway, so there's that. Attacks are just a random event roll, and no room for even player tactics, other than how their bastion is set up. The folks running the Bastion while player characters are off adventuring are pretty much meeples, who can also disappear on random events roll. The system is very abstract and really just a mini-game that may or may not appeal to players. As a GM, leaving it all to player control wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The way the Bastion rules are set up, there isn't really any room for GM involvement anyway, so there's that. Attacks are just a random event roll, and no room for even player tactics, other than how their bastion is set up. The folks running the Bastion while player characters are off adventuring are pretty much meeples, who can also disappear on random events roll. The system is very abstract and really just a mini-game that may or may not appeal to players. As a GM, leaving it all to player control wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

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.