Obviously we would like the best of both worlds, but with UA material, is it more important to you to have a mechanically balanced and interesting class/race/skill/whatever even if it's a little milquetoast in concept or would you prefer to have a thematically interesting concept even if the mechanics end up being a little underwhelming? And while we're at it, which do you think is easier to fix between UA and publication?
I find myself in the "theme first, mechanics second" category.
It can really go both ways. Firstly because either can inspire the other. For example, having a random mechanical idea for a Barbarian could spawn an entire Subclass, but then you have to use that theme to make the rest of the abilities.
Then you have the issue of reskinning or repurposing content. If something mechanically gets the job done and only needs a touch of work to reflavor it, theres no good reason to reinvent the wheel. For example a Red Draconic Sorcerer makes a good stand in for a Tiefling that is pulling Infernal magic from their Devil Bloodline.
I think the cracks in the design start to show when the inspiration between idea and implementation break down. Usually because thematic ideas turn out to be non-viable mechanics and have to be significantly altered to work, or a theme proves unworkable or problematic. Sometimes you end up with schizophrenic classes that are doing almost two entirely different things.
The Rune Knight and the Revived are two examples to me. The Rune Knight is a Fighter that uses rune magic to prepare an advantage...and then somehow turns into a Giant Barbarian. The Revived is a rogue that has remembered their past lives and all their accumulated skill and knowledge. But then starts throwing out necrotic magic and can speak to the dead.
So to me, the theme and the mechanics can't really be seperate. They both have to be new and different and bring something to the entire ecosystem and the best designs will have them so intertwined you cant tell where one starts and the other begins.
They're both necessary? I doubt you could have one without the other, but if I truly had to give it up, I'd say that top down designs have more wriggle room as flavour is infinitely malleable but mechanics can only stretch so far.
Guytza has the right of it. The magic happens when the flavor and the mechanics work together seamlessly. If either is off, the whole suffers for it. I don't give nearly as much of a rat for balance as everybody else does, with the exception of inter-character balance. That's the only 'balance' that matters, and beyond that what needs to happen is that the mechanism is both fun to use and reinforces the idea that the game is trying to present. It's why a lot of UA falls flat - they bolt mechanics that have nothing to do with the themes, lore, and flavor they're trying to represent into a thing and it just... Doesn't...
what needs to happen is that the mechanism is both fun to use and reinforces the idea that the game is trying to present. It's why a lot of UA falls flat - they bolt mechanics that have nothing to do with the themes, lore, and flavor they're trying to represent into a thing and it just... Doesn't...
WORK.
This! I love the amount of UA we've been getting, but a bunch of the subclasses feel kinda wonky. Mechanics can be fixed between UA and publishing, but like... Fey Wanderer Ranger, for example. Your character has gone into the Feywild, survived, and grown stronger for the experience, allowing them to... use a variant Divine Smite? Huh?
Part of why the Armorer Artificer is so exciting to me is that while it is jank as hell, the theme is clear throughout the kit. Everything revolves around making sure your power armor is as cool as possible, while giving you versatility to tweak it for the task at hand.
Meanwhile, Circle of Stars Druid allows you to... cast Guiding Bolt a bunch, and turn into a constellation instead of an animal. Turning into a constellation isn't a power that makes any sense, particularly for someone who has made a study of stars and star maps. It feels like a cop-out, and the unfocused nature of the transformation (turn into one of several forms! like a dragon! or a cup!) further dilutes the flavor.
Most of the Psionic subclasses have been hits for me, and though the mechanics might need some work, the theme is there - you have a talent, you use it to reinforce your natural skills in a way that makes sense. But in general, DnD subclasses should follow the rule of function-follows-form. Otherwise you end up, say, hastily reflavoring a vague "unity" cleric after realizing your Love domain is all about nonconsent.
Guytza has the right of it. The magic happens when the flavor and the mechanics work together seamlessly. If either is off, the whole suffers for it. I don't give nearly as much of a rat for balance as everybody else does, with the exception of inter-character balance. That's the only 'balance' that matters, and beyond that what needs to happen is that the mechanism is both fun to use and reinforces the idea that the game is trying to present. It's why a lot of UA falls flat - they bolt mechanics that have nothing to do with the themes, lore, and flavor they're trying to represent into a thing and it just... Doesn't...
WORK.
A good example of one I look at and think 'yes, that works' is the Circle of Wildfire Druid. With the very minor exception of the fiery teleportation ability of the Wildfire Spirit which comes a little out of left field. But other than that little hiccup the entire thing feels very on theme while being mechanically sound. Even the playstyle feels on theme, since that Druid can easily go crazy and burn through their spells if they start going all out.
To be honest, going through the UAs available right now. I feel like there are a lot more hits than misses. Even something as strange as the Wild Magic Barbarian is tracking well between theme and mechanics. Looking forward to the released versions of most all of them.
As others have said, both are important, but if I have to pick one, it's mechanics. Mainly because I can come up with a theme to bolt onto a set of mechanics much more easily than I can build a balanced class.
I voted theme. Nothing turns me away from a UA like jumbled mix of abilities that don't match the stated theme. The Revived, as stated above, is a pretty good example, but the Way of Mercy takes the gold medal for stepping off theme. Why would a monk dedicated to healing have Necrotic punches and a cloud of poison lingering around them?!
As others have said, both are important, but if I have to pick one, it's mechanics. Mainly because I can come up with a theme to bolt onto a set of mechanics much more easily than I can build a balanced class.
That's my reasoning too. There are some published subclasses are pretty awful - e.g. The Undying patron - and no matter how cool the theme is (for instance huge longevity & regenerative powers is one of the most logical pacts to pursue i.m.o.), it is a constant niggle to play what is mechanically a lame duck.
I feel anything can be re-skinned within reason/DM agreement, but players buffing their own subclass features can easily complicate life for everyone...
Both are important, but the question is about which is MORE important, so: theme. Good mechanics cannot make up for a bad idea. If I have to reflavor a subclass to make it fun, I’m not actually playing that subclass anymore, which, you know, demonstrates my point.
Flavor is way more wide-reaching and way more constant an influence on my enjoyment of the game than mechanics are.
Subclasses have been the most common UAs lately and I think subclasses lend themselves to a foundation in lore and then filling in the blanks to round out features. I feel like the same is probably true for backgrounds and monsters as well. Others may disagree. If there was another UA that came out with feats, spells, or even items, I can see how they might start with a mechanical concept, balance it, and then go back to fluff it out later in the process.
Good mechanics is probably more important. Any good DM can change what a certain subclass or race is supposed to be into something better. No DM can change the official rules of the game to fit a certain theme better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Good mechanics is probably more important. Any good DM can change what a certain subclass or race is supposed to be into something better. No DM can change the official rules of the game to fit a certain theme better.
I feel like that reasoning is flawed, because it provides an excuse to not put any effort into making those subclasses and races feel distinct and close to whatever flavor people are choosing them for in the first place. That said, I'd say they are equally important. A well-constructed theme backed by well-designed mechanics is the ideal to strive for.
I agree, both are super important.
But, if someone on DnDBeyond wants to homebrew a better version of the Beast Master Ranger, they aren't allowed to do so.
If someone wants to flavor their Warforged Celestial Sorcerer as being a living wand, used in battle to heal and damage, they are free to do so, using only imagination to make the change, not actual game-fixing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In the digital tool, usable mechanics are important. One can also kibitz them to a degree, and frankly it's disingenuous to say "well the DM can put any fluff they want on the mechanics, fluff doesn't matter."
If fluff didn't matter, none of us would bother with make-believe imagination games like this.
Really. Neither should take precedence over the other. Bad fluff is just as big a dealbreaker as bad mechanics. See half the new UA being tested, which is either awkward or broken enough from a thematic, storyscape standpoint that it just turns people off altogether. Nobody will play mechanics if the fluff doesn't get them excited for the game.
Nobody will play mechanics if the fluff doesn't get them excited for the game.
I have to disagree to a certain extent, I have played games purely for the mechanics because I knew I could “fix” the story, I have never suffered through shitty mechanics for more than a few sessions because the “fluff” was just that darned interesting.
This new UA is magic tattoos and spells. I think it's a good example of the importance ofdesigners seemingly prioritizing mechanics first and fluff (while still important) being secondary. I would put this in contrast to the recent subclasses where I reverse my priorities.
EDIT: My use of the word importance may have given a different impression than I intended and it also sounded kind of preachy to me.
This new UA is magic tattoos and spells. I think it's a good example of the importance of mechanics first and fluff (while still important) being secondary. I would put this in contrast to the recent subclasses where I reverse my priorities.
This newest UA definitely has more mechanics than fluff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Obviously we would like the best of both worlds, but with UA material, is it more important to you to have a mechanically balanced and interesting class/race/skill/whatever even if it's a little milquetoast in concept or would you prefer to have a thematically interesting concept even if the mechanics end up being a little underwhelming? And while we're at it, which do you think is easier to fix between UA and publication?
I find myself in the "theme first, mechanics second" category.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It can really go both ways. Firstly because either can inspire the other. For example, having a random mechanical idea for a Barbarian could spawn an entire Subclass, but then you have to use that theme to make the rest of the abilities.
Then you have the issue of reskinning or repurposing content. If something mechanically gets the job done and only needs a touch of work to reflavor it, theres no good reason to reinvent the wheel. For example a Red Draconic Sorcerer makes a good stand in for a Tiefling that is pulling Infernal magic from their Devil Bloodline.
I think the cracks in the design start to show when the inspiration between idea and implementation break down. Usually because thematic ideas turn out to be non-viable mechanics and have to be significantly altered to work, or a theme proves unworkable or problematic. Sometimes you end up with schizophrenic classes that are doing almost two entirely different things.
The Rune Knight and the Revived are two examples to me. The Rune Knight is a Fighter that uses rune magic to prepare an advantage...and then somehow turns into a Giant Barbarian. The Revived is a rogue that has remembered their past lives and all their accumulated skill and knowledge. But then starts throwing out necrotic magic and can speak to the dead.
So to me, the theme and the mechanics can't really be seperate. They both have to be new and different and bring something to the entire ecosystem and the best designs will have them so intertwined you cant tell where one starts and the other begins.
They're both necessary? I doubt you could have one without the other, but if I truly had to give it up, I'd say that top down designs have more wriggle room as flavour is infinitely malleable but mechanics can only stretch so far.
Guytza has the right of it. The magic happens when the flavor and the mechanics work together seamlessly. If either is off, the whole suffers for it. I don't give nearly as much of a rat for balance as everybody else does, with the exception of inter-character balance. That's the only 'balance' that matters, and beyond that what needs to happen is that the mechanism is both fun to use and reinforces the idea that the game is trying to present. It's why a lot of UA falls flat - they bolt mechanics that have nothing to do with the themes, lore, and flavor they're trying to represent into a thing and it just...
Doesn't...
WORK.
Please do not contact or message me.
This! I love the amount of UA we've been getting, but a bunch of the subclasses feel kinda wonky. Mechanics can be fixed between UA and publishing, but like... Fey Wanderer Ranger, for example. Your character has gone into the Feywild, survived, and grown stronger for the experience, allowing them to... use a variant Divine Smite? Huh?
Part of why the Armorer Artificer is so exciting to me is that while it is jank as hell, the theme is clear throughout the kit. Everything revolves around making sure your power armor is as cool as possible, while giving you versatility to tweak it for the task at hand.
Meanwhile, Circle of Stars Druid allows you to... cast Guiding Bolt a bunch, and turn into a constellation instead of an animal. Turning into a constellation isn't a power that makes any sense, particularly for someone who has made a study of stars and star maps. It feels like a cop-out, and the unfocused nature of the transformation (turn into one of several forms! like a dragon! or a cup!) further dilutes the flavor.
Most of the Psionic subclasses have been hits for me, and though the mechanics might need some work, the theme is there - you have a talent, you use it to reinforce your natural skills in a way that makes sense. But in general, DnD subclasses should follow the rule of function-follows-form. Otherwise you end up, say, hastily reflavoring a vague "unity" cleric after realizing your Love domain is all about nonconsent.
A good example of one I look at and think 'yes, that works' is the Circle of Wildfire Druid. With the very minor exception of the fiery teleportation ability of the Wildfire Spirit which comes a little out of left field. But other than that little hiccup the entire thing feels very on theme while being mechanically sound. Even the playstyle feels on theme, since that Druid can easily go crazy and burn through their spells if they start going all out.
To be honest, going through the UAs available right now. I feel like there are a lot more hits than misses. Even something as strange as the Wild Magic Barbarian is tracking well between theme and mechanics. Looking forward to the released versions of most all of them.
As others have said, both are important, but if I have to pick one, it's mechanics. Mainly because I can come up with a theme to bolt onto a set of mechanics much more easily than I can build a balanced class.
I voted theme. Nothing turns me away from a UA like jumbled mix of abilities that don't match the stated theme. The Revived, as stated above, is a pretty good example, but the Way of Mercy takes the gold medal for stepping off theme. Why would a monk dedicated to healing have Necrotic punches and a cloud of poison lingering around them?!
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That's my reasoning too. There are some published subclasses are pretty awful - e.g. The Undying patron - and no matter how cool the theme is (for instance huge longevity & regenerative powers is one of the most logical pacts to pursue i.m.o.), it is a constant niggle to play what is mechanically a lame duck.
I feel anything can be re-skinned within reason/DM agreement, but players buffing their own subclass features can easily complicate life for everyone...
Both are important, but the question is about which is MORE important, so: theme. Good mechanics cannot make up for a bad idea. If I have to reflavor a subclass to make it fun, I’m not actually playing that subclass anymore, which, you know, demonstrates my point.
Flavor is way more wide-reaching and way more constant an influence on my enjoyment of the game than mechanics are.
Subclasses have been the most common UAs lately and I think subclasses lend themselves to a foundation in lore and then filling in the blanks to round out features. I feel like the same is probably true for backgrounds and monsters as well. Others may disagree. If there was another UA that came out with feats, spells, or even items, I can see how they might start with a mechanical concept, balance it, and then go back to fluff it out later in the process.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Good mechanics is probably more important. Any good DM can change what a certain subclass or race is supposed to be into something better. No DM can change the official rules of the game to fit a certain theme better.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree, both are super important.
But, if someone on DnDBeyond wants to homebrew a better version of the Beast Master Ranger, they aren't allowed to do so.
If someone wants to flavor their Warforged Celestial Sorcerer as being a living wand, used in battle to heal and damage, they are free to do so, using only imagination to make the change, not actual game-fixing.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In the digital tool, usable mechanics are important. One can also kibitz them to a degree, and frankly it's disingenuous to say "well the DM can put any fluff they want on the mechanics, fluff doesn't matter."
If fluff didn't matter, none of us would bother with make-believe imagination games like this.
Really. Neither should take precedence over the other. Bad fluff is just as big a dealbreaker as bad mechanics. See half the new UA being tested, which is either awkward or broken enough from a thematic, storyscape standpoint that it just turns people off altogether. Nobody will play mechanics if the fluff doesn't get them excited for the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
C) Both?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have to disagree to a certain extent, I have played games purely for the mechanics because I knew I could “fix” the story, I have never suffered through shitty mechanics for more than a few sessions because the “fluff” was just that darned interesting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This new UA is magic tattoos and spells. I think it's a good example of
the importance ofdesigners seemingly prioritizing mechanics first and fluff (while still important) being secondary. I would put this in contrast to the recent subclasses where I reverse my priorities.EDIT: My use of the word importance may have given a different impression than I intended and it also sounded kind of preachy to me.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This newest UA definitely has more mechanics than fluff.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms