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.

 

[Hussar]

My experience is that players don't want followers for their PCs because they have to (horrors!) pay them.

Not when I played 3e.

My character took the Leadership feat; and while I had some in-character input into what I was looking for in a cohort (ideally a full-time healer-type whose one job would be to keep me upright), when a cohort showed up, that cohort is what I got - in this case a double-class Cleric and (I forget now - Rogue?). Kind of like advertising for a new employee where you pretty much have to take the first qualified person who responds.

Perhaps, but that was someone else's take.

Huh?

You don't have to pay followers.

 

[Hussar]

This is not actually true. Here's a quote from the 1e DMG:
View attachment 382062
The following section discusses how the DM roleplays and controls the NPC's, including hirelings and henchman. Plus in the section specifically about henchman, there are various points where it talks about information the players might not know about the henchman. Further, there is an extensive loyalty system for said NPC's, and the DM decided how they would react to the actions of the PC's, and could even turn on or abandon them!

Now in my experience, my DM usually allowed me to control my henchman in combat, but they were capable of independent action (and frequently did things based on the DM's decisions).

Except that followers are not hirelings nor henchmen. They do not follow the loyalty system. They are 100% loyal to the PC barring the PC being a total dick. They don't make loyalty checks. That's why they are followers and why I've been very careful to only talk about followers - which is largely what the bastion system seems to be emulating.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

So, my early AD&D campaigns didn't have stable "adventuring parties"- everyone had their own characters, and they decided who they were playing, and they all sort of just ended up on the adventure du jour, lol. People could get solo time and even solo adventures, if the DM had time for them, but because I had to go where the adventure was, by the time I had a home base to call my own, the adventure was rarely anywhere near it.

As time went on, there was a shift in the way people ran games. Suddenly you had stable adventuring parties that went on adventures with one another, and it was always one adventure to the next. Downtime was a rarity, because there was always something to do.

When we did have downtime, it was usually the dreaded "city session" where the party suddenly splinters and goes shopping, and you basically had to sit around and twiddle your thumbs until the DM got back to you, lol.

Most DM's never really knew what to do with downtime, and when the WotC era suddenly introduced cool things spellcasters could do with downtime (like creating magic items), a new problem erupted.

Wizzo the Wondrous decides "hey, we got some money, I can make us a few magic items."

Party: "Huzzah!"

Wizzo rents his space and details his plans. The rest of the party, having nothing to do with this process, start asking the DM what they can do during this time. This resulted in either a lot of nothing, since the DM had no real plans (inevitably, the warriors would find some pit fight or whatever to try and earn a few coins or just end up getting arrested lol), or worse, they manage to convince the DM in giving them a solo adventure, which makes Wizzo's player very annoyed that he's basically giving up play time to crank out some magic swag for the party members!

The last Pathfinder 1e game I was involved with, the party up and decided to take a mission to sail to another town, ditching the spellcaster while he was enchanting things for them! Upon learning this, that player left the game, and the magic items (and the party's loot) were never seen or heard from again!

I was absent for this session, so I lost treasure over this through no fault of my own so I had pretty mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the other players deserved their fate, but on the other hand, I don't think the GM should have allowed the scenario to play out- from an in-universe stance, characters can do what they will, sure, but the reality is, one person was excluded from the game because they dared to invest personal resources (feats, skill points, etc.) to support the party.

Anyways, for my current campaign, I'm putting a lot more effort into giving every player something interesting to do during downtime, and presenting interesting downtime activities, though even with that, I've noticed that unless the benefit is really good, they still would rather adventure than sit around for a few weeks, lol.

In the previous 5e game, the only character who really seemed to want or need downtime was the Wizard, and even that was simply to scribe spells. The other players mostly screwed around until it was time to get back to the adventure.

That's why I'm thinking maybe a fun base building minigame will make the players more invested in this sort of thing.

 

[Hussar]

It's not like this is the first time this sort of thing has been tried in D&D anyway. In the 3.5e PHB2 there were Affiliations, which more or less worked exactly like this - abstracted mini-game that largely played away from the table. It was mostly something that players could engage with between sessions.

 

[James Gasik]

Except that followers are not hirelings nor henchmen. They do not follow the loyalty system. They are 100% loyal to the PC barring the PC being a total dick. They don't make loyalty checks. That's why they are followers and why I've been very careful to only talk about followers - which is largely what the bastion system seems to be emulating.

Hm. I admit, maybe this is because that's how I saw them used, but I'd always assumed followers were henchman and hirelings. The 1e books are pretty vague on this point. It wasn't until 2e that the Fighter's tables of potential followers were even in the PHB (previously they were in the DMG).

In fact, the 1e PHB has this to say:

Nothing in there really says "hey, these NPC's are exclusively under your control". Even in 2e, all it says is that these people are loyal as long as they are paid and well-treated.

If there is some carved-out exception that says followers are under player control, I can't seem to find it.

 

[Hussar]

Hm. I admit, maybe this is because that's how I saw them used, but I'd always assumed followers were henchman and hirelings. The 1e books are pretty vague on this point. It wasn't until 2e that the Fighter's tables of potential followers were even in the PHB (previously they were in the DMG).

In fact, the 1e PHB has this to say:
View attachment 382064
Nothing in there really says "hey, these NPC's are exclusively under your control". Even in 2e, all it says is that these people are loyal as long as they are paid and well-treated.

If there is some carved-out exception that says followers are under player control, I can't seem to find it.

Note, fighters are not the only class to gain followers. Additionally, it's "automatic" that they gain the followers. I have to admit, I forgot that he had to pay them. But, I'm also pretty sure that the followers rules are in the DMG, not the PHB.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

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.

Because I cannot affect Bastion, a PC is now allowed to commit all kinds of atrocities and, as long as they can flee to their Bastion. As I have said, a PC could now slaughter a whole village, piss on the king and kidnapp his daughter and, as long as they flee to their Bastion, escape consequences, because the DM is not allowed to interact with the Bastion at all.

And if you are saying that Bastion is so abstract that fleeing to it is impossible, then that's even more immersion breaking. There is a place a PC can build to live in, but it doesn't provide most basic benefit a place to live does, shelter. There is no way if a PC declared "I'm fleeing to my bastion and hiding until it's over", that I would not come looking like a railroading jackass for saying "You cannot, Bastion cannot provide you shelter". The way you are describing Bastion it becomes a video game menu with list of bonuses, that literally refuses to be a physical place in the world, it primary purpose being to just break the immersion and remind the player this is a video game, not a living, breathing world.

EDIT: And the topic of followers is the same thing. I am not allowed to have those characters react with disgust and horror to anything a PC has done, even if it's like slaughtering Village of Women And Children, Edmonton. If the PC says that his followers are all an order of righteous knights but doesn't want them to react a way righteous knights would to an act of evil, I'm supposed to roll with it because those aren't NPCs, just abstract numbers to cheer on the PC. It encourages murderhoboing by banning me from making player actions have consequences and it's a giant "IT'S JUST A GAME BRO!" sign that ruins all immersion-building efforts I've made.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

It's not like this is the first time this sort of thing has been tried in D&D anyway. In the 3.5e PHB2 there were Affiliations, which more or less worked exactly like this - abstracted mini-game that largely played away from the table. It was mostly something that players could engage with between sessions.

I played a lot of 3.5 and I have never in my life seen anyone use or even mention this mechanic at all, it was forgotten.

 

[Lanefan]

And this is exactly the type of thing that they are telling DMs to avoid. You have your group and your group loves your style, Lanefan, but I DESPISE this sort of crap. You know, I have lived my entire life with very very people actively betraying me? Oh, I have plenty of terrible people in my life, but they are kind of obvious.

Yet, here we are in literally the first example I've presented to you, and instead of allowing an innocuous love story between two nobody peasants that only the Player really cares about, you are immediately looking for "how can I turn them against the PCs to work against their interests"

Obviously. It's my job as DM to present challenges to the PCs and any avenue for doing such becomes another tool in my box, which means of course I'm looking for ways that the bastion rules (in this case) can help me generate possible challenges.

And note that I said "possible". I don't have to twist the stronghold followers, and if I don't need to I quite likely won't; but I do want that avenue left open to me.

Why? It can't be because you need conflict and drama, because I am assured you have spent the last 50 years with plenty of that in your games. Why does EVERYTHING need to be potentially used to hurt and betray the players? Why can they trust NO ONE, ANYWHERE? Do you know how utterly, mind-numbingly boring that is? When literally everything is against the PCs no matter where, what or why, it is so utterly stale and uninteresting.

It's not a matter of they can trust no-one anywhere, it's more a matter of them taking the time and effort to learn who they can trust. The game has always had divination spells. Use them. These days it also has Sense Motive and other quasi-divination character abilities. Use them.

Blindly trusting whoever you meet is going to lead to the same result as never checking for traps before opening doors in a dungeon: you'll probably get away with it for a while but sooner or later it'll bite you.

No one said they were clones. Players CAN make NPCs who are different from each other, and may have unique goals and reasons for joining the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to steal from the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to spy on the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to unlock the gate and allow in the enemy assassins to kill the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to poison the PCs. That doesn't mean they need to be secret devil worshipers who are slaughtering the local village women and hiding their bodies in the PCs garden.

Though they may never manifest, I'd still prefer those all be available possibilities....

It can literally be as simple as they joined the PCs stronghold to make enough money to take care of their sickly mother. And no evil groups or eldritch demons end up pressuring them into evil acts, or anything of the sorts. They can just be a person that the PCs help by being good employers who they have a good relationship with, and occasionally talk to to check on the status of their sick mother.

....side-along with things like this.

I mean hell, I could even turn that sickly mother into a PC-side challenge in any number of ways. Some examples:

--- the PCs learn of a possible cure for her sickness but finding or reaching such requires some adventuring (cue a 1-adventure find-and-fetch quest)
--- whatever is making her sick is going to make a lot of other people sick if not stopped (cue the short story arc where the PCs have to find out what caused the sickness, cut off that cause before it spreads, and then cure the mother; that's good for 3 adventures)
--- she is more important than anyone realizes, and her death is going to trigger some serious event(s); she needs to be kept alive long enough for people to prepare for and-or prevent those events (cue a potentially long story arc, I could get 10 adventures out of this, easy )

 

[Lanefan]

Huh?

You don't have to pay followers.

So they're slaves, then?