D&D (2024) What would you like in the 2024 DMG Instead of the Bastion System?

[Reynard]

I perceive that despite the fact that the Bastion system was intended to be one of the biggest, shiniest toys to be revealed during this playtest, the overall reaction (based on comments and the number of threads) is largely that of indifference.

I disagree with the premise. Even moreso, I think the idea that we can only judge what might be good for the game based on how EN World responds to the initial playtest is a deeply flawed perspective.

 

[R_J_K75]

Give it its own book, integrated with a bastions-centered adventure, so that they can really go to town on the rules.

This is my biggest gripe with 5E. WotC is so terrified to release a 32-64 page book, which is exactly where this belongs.

 

[Tonguez]

A functional and clear set of Exploration rules with or without resource management.
Something akin to the downtime rules, but for the wilds.

Yes this would be brilliant beyond measure

Not that I dont want a stronghold building system (that addresses Bastion Systems flaws) so maybe incorporate Bastions into the Exploration system as a "Settlement building system" that lets PCs explore and modify the area around their homebase (or are they best as seperate systems?)

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm cool with bastion rules being a part of the new DMG. And because we're discussing a playtest, I'm positive the rules will evolve and improve before the DMG is published. I'm not worried. Although, I'd rather them call it the "stronghold" system, sounds more classic D&D to me.

But the new DMG needs more guidance and support for the pillars listed as important to D&D, but that have not been well developed. Travel and exploration, and social interactions. Other companies are innovating in these areas, WotC should too. And who knows, maybe they are planning on just that.

Really looking forward to Cubicle 7's "A Life Well Lived" (currently in crowdfunding) and their "Uncharted Journeys" (which is out, I just don't have it yet).

 

[Parmandur]

I thinkntheyvseem good? If theybcut them, they aren't necessarily replacing the page count with anything, or if they do it will be name tables or something.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I like the Bastion system because it includes an implicit magic item availability by level and cost of treasure that isn't daft.

I would be happy with an explicit version of magic item availability by level and sane costs.

 

[Davinshe]

I disagree with the premise. Even moreso, I think the idea that we can only judge what might be good for the game based on how EN World responds to the initial playtest is a deeply flawed perspective.

Obviously EN World isn't representative of the majority of players, but it's been my impression that EN World, if anything, tends to be more enthusiastic about these sorts of subsystems than the general player. If EN World has little enthusiasm for this ruleset, I think that bodes poorly for it's reception broadly. I'll be the first to admit that I might be wrong on that point -- it just seems like the cantrip revisions have engendered much more discussion despite being a fraction of the page count of the Bastion system.

 

[darjr]

I like the idea of bastions or bases. I’m not a fan of this implementation.

Nor the page count.

What I’ve always wanted was a montage system.

Something akin to the downtime system that ties into it but is more like the journey system from C7.

 

[Sulicius]

If I am honest, I think this bastion system won’t see use for 90% of campaigns, so seeing this scrapped from the DMG won’t be a surprise for me.

That has nothing to do with how good or bad it is! Just with how long campaigns last in game-time

 

[Aldarc]

The issue that I have with it is that it largely takes something which (in my opinion) should warrant greater investment from the players (i.e. a home base) and largely makes it vestigial.

This sums up a lot of issues that I have with 5e and how it's designed.