As someone who just handed out to their party a Bastion I am glad it was at level 5. One I aligned the story so that they reached level 5 and got the Bastion at the same time, so ergo no issue with the whole "middle of dungeon" but also now they have access to resources to better utilize during downtime. I am usually bad about downtime, but with this, my players can have more time to research or build things and learn proficiencies like the rules dictate, without me having to come up with rules to do it.

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

 Some people play THAT level of AL-Strict RAW.

Ergo, playing within the constraints of the system as is.

That's why people may not like an auto-Bastion, among other changes brought up as a result of 10 years of feedback of mixed quality.

 Those people will have already laid the groundwork for receiving their Bastions before level 5 then, as outlined in the rules. There is no problem except where some insist on creating one. 

If you have the campaign module, "Dragon Heist", that roguish scoundrel about town, Volothamp(?), offers the players a deed on a run down town house and attached tavern, if they do him some 'small' favors.

If the party succeeds in these favors, they have a town house and the basis for a Bastion.

Actually it makes for a decent starting bastion but there is more in that adventure if you play your cards right - at least potentially.

The campaign I am currently running began with the PCs being promised the deed to a castle if they performed a task for the town this castle overlooked and their then inspecting what is a ruined but functional castle to see if they would accept this proposal. Making what has since become their 'home base' the first exploration site of the campaign.

The hobby has always had 'home bases.'

I haven't read the 2024 rules to see how Bastions are implemented and haven't reached Level 5 in either of the 2024 D&D games I play in.

But it's hardly 'revolutionary' for PCs to obtain for themselves a 'home base.'

A module from 1979 intended for characters of Levels 1-3 has the characters do just that.

PCs have also always been able to purchase strongholds and hire followers. Purchase. Hire. And unless rewarded such things characters should pay for them. Handing these things to characters upon their reaching this or that level is problematic in more ways than one.

Be good to list those problems. None of the bastion facilities seem that over powered that forcing parties to purchase or wait to be awarded one seems so outlandish. 

You see nothing wrong with their not needing to pay for retainers to maintain these strongholds? There is a word for that: slavery. You see nothing wrong with their just being given things in a world in which only the most privileged enjoy that luxury?

Quote from 7thlevelspecialist >>

You see nothing wrong with their not needing to pay for retainers to maintain these strongholds? There is a word for that: slavery. You see nothing wrong with their just being given things in a world in which only the most privileged enjoy that luxury?

 
You admitted in a previous post you had not read the bastion rules for 2024.  As a general rule, it is a good idea to actually look into something before complaining about something you have no knowledge of - had you read the rules before implying the system is promoting slavery, you would know your concern is groundless. 

“Each special facility in a Bastion generates enough income to pay the salary of its hirelings.”

Right there in the rules.

Sorry I'll make sure to also pack my toilet paper for our next session. So we also need to account for bathroom breaks for all the people in the bastion too when deciding how and when bastion turns happen?

This is a fantasy realm, not everyone wants to count coppers to have fun. But as stated above, they literally pay for themselves! This is a game about the PCs not about (unless the party wants to RP as them) the people back on the farm making sure the herbs are maintained until the next Bastion action.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 
You admitted in a previous post you had not read the bastion rules for 2024.  As a general rule, it is a good idea to actually look into something before complaining about something you have no knowledge of - had you read the rules before implying the system is promoting slavery, you would know your concern is groundless. 

“Each special facility in a Bastion generates enough income to pay the salary of its hirelings.”

Right there in the rules.

Then it would appear the Reddit post I read in which the complainant said characters do not pay for these things was incorrect.

My players love resource management. They will pay individual torchbearers daily wages. And I do think hand-waving this as the 'home base' generates enough gold to pay for any hirelings is still a bit off. It makes these hirelings little more than 'units of efficiency' that just keep things running. Hardly the most humane way to treat those in one's employ. Retainers should have their own personalities and histories.

And I wasn't just talking about whether or not hirelings were paid:

You see nothing wrong with their just being given things in a world in which only the most privileged enjoy that luxury?

It's also a bit rich of you to to be telling me to read into things before making what might be a false claim. Given you claimed the 1e DMG said using grids and miniatures was a 'more accurate' way to play D&D. It says no such thing; it says using a grid and not just drawing it up on paper will give a more accurate representation of how someone or something in flight can make turns. In a section that isn't even the combat section of the book.

Quote from hollowtpm >>

Sorry I'll make sure to also pack my toilet paper for our next session. So we also need to account for bathroom breaks for all the people in the bastion too when deciding how and when bastion turns happen?

This is a fantasy realm, not everyone wants to count coppers to have fun. But as stated above, they literally pay for themselves! This is a game about the PCs not about (unless the party wants to RP as them) the people back on the farm making sure the herbs are maintained until the next Bastion action.

The characters in your games see those in their employ as nameless and lifeless laborers? That ain't problematic?

Quote from 7thlevelspecialist >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 
You admitted in a previous post you had not read the bastion rules for 2024.  As a general rule, it is a good idea to actually look into something before complaining about something you have no knowledge of - had you read the rules before implying the system is promoting slavery, you would know your concern is groundless. 

“Each special facility in a Bastion generates enough income to pay the salary of its hirelings.”

Right there in the rules.

 

Then it would appear the Reddit post I read in which the complainant said characters do not pay for these things was incorrect.

My players love resource management. They will pay individual torchbearers daily wages. And I do think hand-waving this as the 'home base' generates enough gold to pay for any hirelings is still a bit off. It makes these hirelings little more than 'units of efficiency' that just keep things running. Hardly the most humane way to treat those in one's employ. Retainers should have their own personalities and histories.

 
Once again, I implore you to actually look into something rather than comment on something you already acknowledged you had not read. If you looked at the rules, you would find you are missing the mark here as well. 

”A player can assign names and personalities to hirelings in their character’s Bastion using the same tools DMs use to create NPCs (see chapter 3).”

Now, that is a “can”; if that is not a player’s cup of tea, they do not have to engage in this kind of roleplaying and can stick to pure mechanics.  But the DMG does explicitly promote giving your hurlings name and personalities. 

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 
Once again, I implore you to actually look into something rather than comment on something you already acknowledged you had not read. If you looked at the rules, you would find you are missing the mark here as well. 

”A player can assign names and personalities to hirelings in their character’s Bastion using the same tools DMs use to create NPCs (see chapter 3).”

Now, that is a “can”; if that is not a player’s cup of tea, they do not have to engage in this kind of roleplaying and can stick to pure mechanics.  But the DMG does explicitly promote giving your hurlings name and personalities. 

It's like you expect me to admit to my having been wrong for simply having trusted some Redditor instead of reading the rules for myself when you are unwilling to admit to your having been wrong when you outright misrepresented what a book said:

It's also a bit rich of you to to be telling me to read into things before making what might be a false claim. Given you claimed the 1e DMG said using grids and miniatures was a 'more accurate' way to play D&D. It says no such thing; it says using a grid and not just drawing it up on paper will give a more accurate representation of how someone or something in flight can make turns. In a section that isn't even the combat section of the book.

 And I wasn't just talking about whether or not hirelings were paid or were given names:

You see nothing wrong with [characters'] just being given things in a world in which only the most privileged enjoy that luxury?

They have reached a level. And this now entitles them to land and property and to those who will maintain these things for them?

Bastions is basically saying a character's class (i.e. a character's social class) is contingent on their arriving at a certain level. That they are now entitled to land and property and to those who will maintain them by virtue of nothing more than their having arrived at that level. It's problematic.

Literally it is not. Tier 1 is meant to be the local heroes, Tier 2 (aka when you get a Bastion) is meant for those local Heroes to now become heroes of the nation or larger area surrounding where they started. This makes it extremely reasonable for them to have a home and access to resources (with out having to maintain them with their own nickel and diming) and not be "problematic." Nothing you get at a level 5 Bastion is in anyway more than what a week of downtime would earn the players. The only difference it that they typically do not need to roll or spend as much money on said thing. 

Now to counter this, when the party is NOT in their Bastion, there is a small chance for things to go wrong.

Onto the fact that you refer to not naming these hirelings, not "paying for" these hirelings (love how getting help for free is slavery but "paying for them" is not?), and not roleplaying out their meal breaks, and sleep schedules as problematic is frankly not true. The DMG DOES encourage the naming of these hirelings and growing some attachement to them, but not doing that is not "problematic" it is simply a difference in play style. Not wanting to count coins is not "problematic" it is a difference in how someone enjoys the game.

For me and my players, they will most likely name them when needed, but no one jumped up and started questioning my morales and worldly concerns because I said "Do that if you want, we aren't going to do that today." Why? Because this is a RPG in a fantasy setting, I am not actually hiring people to work for me. IF a player WANTs to RP out what they and their hirelings do when in the bastion great! If the player says "I collect my 1 healing potion" when we talk about their bastion fine! But the second behavior is not "problematic" it simply means they would rather RP out the adventure than book keep.

Quote from hollowtpm >>

Literally it is not. Tier 1 is meant to be the local heroes, Tier 2 (aka when you get a Bastion) is meant for those local Heroes to now become heroes of the nation or larger area surrounding where they started. This makes it extremely reasonable for them to have a home and access to resources (with out having to maintain them with their own nickel and diming) and not be "problematic." Nothing you get at a level 5 Bastion is in anyway more than what a week of downtime would earn the players. The only difference it that they typically do not need to roll or spend as much money on said thing. 

Now to counter this, when the party is NOT in their Bastion, there is a small chance for things to go wrong.

Onto the fact that you refer to not naming these hirelings, not "paying for" these hirelings (love how getting help for free is slavery but "paying for them" is not?), and not roleplaying out their meal breaks, and sleep schedules as problematic is frankly not true. The DMG DOES encourage the naming of these hirelings and growing some attachement to them, but not doing that is not "problematic" it is simply a difference in play style. Not wanting to count coins is not "problematic" it is a difference in how someone enjoys the game.

For me and my players, they will most likely name them when needed, but no one jumped up and started questioning my morales and worldly concerns because I said "Do that if you want, we aren't going to do that today." Why? Because this is a RPG in a fantasy setting, I am not actually hiring people to work for me. IF a player WANTs to RP out what they and their hirelings do when in the bastion great! If the player says "I collect my 1 healing potion" when we talk about their bastion fine! But the second behavior is not "problematic" it simply means they would rather RP out the adventure than book keep.

What may not be problematic for you and those at your table may be for others. That you need to reach beyond the actual point being made and venture into the ridiculous by talking about toilet paper and role-playing 'meal breaks' and 'sleep schedules' only shows you don't want to engage with the actual point being made:

How is it not indicative of privilege for characters to be entitled to land and property and those who will maintain it just by arriving at such-and-such level?

Is it just not possible that the characters' actions might mean the obtainment of these is not at all warranted?

'Well you've reached Level 5 so now a bunch of serfs have no choice but to work for you.'

Does CHA play no role in whether or not people even want to work for you? It used to.

I get that we live in an age and culture in which class is but an afterthought for most. But I and others do find it problematic that characters can just 'earn' themselves land and property—and workers—because of the amount of XP they have earned and this likely from mostly or strictly killing things.

Earning things is not privilege. Like don't get me wrong I think they should have spent more time on the whole how/why you get it section instead of a one sentence, hey wing it guys line. But you are adventurers, you got to level 5 by adventuring and doing great deeds.

You are putting the cart before the horse on this one. Yes they use level 5 as the point this happens, but that isn't why they got it. It can(can as they basically say wing it, including inheritance) in fact be their actions that is why they get it, 5 is just a way of representing how much they have accomplished. Now maybe your party was skeezy, then maybe the wing it part is the local thieves guild put up the land/workers for you. But assuming standard adventuring, they probably saved the town from something a couple times by this point. And if they have not accomplished much, then they probably should not be level 5, and the privilege was you handing them out levels for free.

Now I do think given the leveling system in 5e level 5 may be a bit too low to indicate that. They probably have done very little by this point, but the concept in itself is not privilege unless you make it so when you wing it and say something like your dad was super wealthy so he buys a beach house for you and your friends. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Earning things is not privilege. Like don't get me wrong I think they should have spent more time on the whole how/why you get it section instead of a one sentence, hey wing it guys line. But you are adventurers, you got to level 5 by adventuring and doing great deeds.

You are putting the cart before the horse on this one. Yes they use level 5 as the point this happens, but that isn't why they got it. It can(can as they basically say wing it, including inheritance) in fact be their actions that is why they get it, 5 is just a way of representing how much they have accomplished. Now maybe your party was skeezy, then maybe the wing it part is the local thieves guild put up the land/workers for you. But assuming standard adventuring, they probably saved the town from something a couple times by this point. And if they have not accomplished much, then they probably should not be level 5, and the privilege was you handing them out levels for free.

Now I do think given the leveling system in 5e level 5 may be a bit too low to indicate that. They probably have done very little by this point, but the concept in itself is not privilege unless you make it so when you wing it and say something like your dad was super wealthy so he buys a beach house for you and your friends. 

You will notice I have made a distinction between what it means to earn something and what it means to 'earn' something.

It is getting into very problematic territory when we believe people 'deserve' to have others work for them.

You are misreading and misunderstanding my use of privilege.

I am not talking about 'in-game' privilege. Whether or not the characters have come into some inheritance. Have wealthy parents. But at least this would make narrative sense. Unlike the characters' simply 'deserving' the labour of others ... because Level 5!

I am talking about how conceptually the notion that characters 'deserve' land and property and workers with them by virtue of nothing more than their having accumulated experience points is very much indicative or privilege.

With regard to all three it is pretty much how the worst of corporations that are guilty of colonial practices in the Global South operate: 'We have so much power and influence now. It's our right.'

You even make this point for me.

Why do players 'deserve' strongholds and followers because they have saved the town on a number of occasions?

Is the concept of saving others just because it is the right thing to do now dead?

Why do the characters now 'deserve' the labour of others?

Quote from 7thlevelspecialist >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Earning things is not privilege. Like don't get me wrong I think they should have spent more time on the whole how/why you get it section instead of a one sentence, hey wing it guys line. But you are adventurers, you got to level 5 by adventuring and doing great deeds.

You are putting the cart before the horse on this one. Yes they use level 5 as the point this happens, but that isn't why they got it. It can(can as they basically say wing it, including inheritance) in fact be their actions that is why they get it, 5 is just a way of representing how much they have accomplished. Now maybe your party was skeezy, then maybe the wing it part is the local thieves guild put up the land/workers for you. But assuming standard adventuring, they probably saved the town from something a couple times by this point. And if they have not accomplished much, then they probably should not be level 5, and the privilege was you handing them out levels for free.

Now I do think given the leveling system in 5e level 5 may be a bit too low to indicate that. They probably have done very little by this point, but the concept in itself is not privilege unless you make it so when you wing it and say something like your dad was super wealthy so he buys a beach house for you and your friends. 

 

You will notice I have made a distinction between what it means to earn something and what it means to 'earn' something.

It is getting into very problematic territory when we believe people 'deserve' to have others work for them.

You are misreading and misunderstanding my use of privilege.

I am not talking about 'in-game' privilege. Whether or not the characters have come into some inheritance. Have wealthy parents.

I am talking about how conceptually the notion that characters 'deserve' land and property and workers with them by virtue of nothing more than their having accumulated experience points is very much indicative or privilege.

You even make this point for me.

Why do players 'deserve' strongholds and followers because they have saved the town on a number of occasions?

Is the concept of saving others just because it is the right thing to do now dead?

Why do they now 'deserve' the labour of others?

You are the one using the term deserve. Do wizards deserve 3rd level spells at 3rd level or did they just accumulate enough spell casting experience to be able to do so. Why they get it is up to you, if you decide to go on a because they deserve it reasoning that is on you. Normally going back to earlier editions it wasn't they deserved it, though in some cases people can be rewarded things, but it was more the local people in charge wanted you to have the land so you'd have a reason to protect the area. They felt they would get more out of the deal than they lost by giving up some land and paying for some workers. 

As I said earlier in this thread I'd prefer a more basic, this is what it usually costs to buy land/build things/hire permanent staff system instead of a poof you are level 5 system. But how it comes across thematically is 100% on the DM and players in the bastion system.