Or rather, I’m tired of the way that a lot of gamers use this term to describe certain classes. Vanilla is a slang term used to describe something that, while not inherently of lesser value, is undesirable due to over-familiarity or lack of overwhelming flavor.
I would not have a problem with a gamer claiming that a class is vanilla to them personally due to over-familiarity; after all who wants to play the same class over and over? Unfortunately, I’ve never heard a complaint that a class is merely vanilla to the complainant. When a gamer complains that class is vanilla, the invariable implication is that the class is inherently lesser due to its lack of flavor.
Most often, I’ve seen the vanilla label applied to the wizard and fighter classes. While classes such as these archetypal ones do lack the inherent flavor that many other classes, I would like to point out that this is not a bad thing. While other classes do not lack a prepackaged flavor, the fighter and wizard for example require more imagination on the player’s part to create their flavor.
For example anyone, even a non-gamer, who hears the word ‘barbarian’ instantly has a mental image of a muscular dirty man wielding some type of heavy blade and screaming at the top of his lungs. For a player, this makes character background and roleplaying easier; he or she only has to fill in the details of the character. Note: a player can create a non-stereotypical barbarian if he or she so chooses, but the point I am making is that they are not required to.
Someone hearing the word ‘fighter’ on the other hand, has no stereotype to fall back on. The only definitive thing that can be said about such a character is that they are well, good at some type fighting. Therefore, a player has to but more effort into creating his or her fighter’s background and personality in order to roleplay effectively and has to put more effort into choosing character options because fighters have more of them.
I’ve also heard the term vanilla applied to classes whose ‘viable options are limited’. For example, I’ve seen folks complain that wizards only have a certain number of worthwhile spells. Hence, their philosophy becomes that of ‘the wizard option’ rather than ‘the wizard’s options’. Just because a player believes that being a non-specialist is mechanically superior doesn’t mean that playing a specialist can’t be fun. It seems that many players create a set list of character options, such as spells, that are the best possible optimized combo for a particular class and then complain that that class is vanilla because they won’t consider playing with a non-totally-optimized set of options. Of course Joe the Mage is going to be a pretty boring character to all but new players, but what about trying Marvin the Magnificent who will only cast colorful spells?
If you are a gamer that prefers classes with built-in flavor and fewer character options to think about, be content with this preference but think twice about having disdain for the so called ‘vanilla’ classes.
These are my thoughts on the idea of ‘vanilla’ classes. You are welcome to comment or criticize but be aware that I will not respond to posts that:
1) Nitpick at the mechanics of the game or of certain classes in an attempt to argue against my logic,
2) Are written by someone who is having a bad day and simply wants me to share their misery,
3) Are so faulty in logical process that it is obvious that the poster will argue their point until Hell freezes over just to tell themselves that they are right, or
4) Are written with such incredibly poor grammar and spelling that I can’t decipher what the point of the post is.
Cheers, TS
I personally find the Fighter and Wizard to be Great classes, even the non-specialist wizard is easy to add flavor to. give a commoner personality and history and they have flavor. I agree that general wizards are probably stronger but why play just plain ol generalist when you could play a generalist with a necromantic bent struggling to remain morally true yet fighting against his desire for power over life.
Its even easier to flavor a fighter thats what feats are partly for; who says every fighter has to take weapon focus, then power attack, then cleave and wear full plate? Hows a master of arms ound, with every feat being a different weapon focus or wepon proficiency with every wepon slot filled with something new and interesting. Or play an Aiel from the wheel of time, leather armor max but a master of the spear with cross classes hide and move silently.
or the Clishe spell-sword fighter/wizard... this list goes on and on
EDIT: In fact i think it is harder to customize a barbarian or paladin, everyone knows what to expect and people find themselves caught up in the steriotype unconsiosly. Sometimes other players even crtisize a choice to customize one of the steriotype classes "what do you mean you playing a halfling paladin with a spiked chain and spiked hair?"
I'm not really sure how to respond to this thread because I am definitely *not* one of "those" people who complain about vanilla and, in fact, I obviously have been ignoring them or overlooking them altogether since I wasn't aware before reading your post that this was even really an issue. That being said, I would have to say that I agree with Rhavin. I think the examples of vanilla classes you gave, TS, are much easier to flavor and enjoy in a variety of ways than other instantly stereotypical classes. Now I must interject here that I am a traditionalist, I like to see my paladins in full plate with sword & lance & shield with a cross on it, charging on a spirited white stallion. But in fact, when my husband created his long term character in exactly that image, it quickly became dry and boring and difficult to role-play. I've always made my clerics standard battlefield medics who are basically scholarly, quiet healers with great moral fiber and few offensive spells. I've noticed on these messageboards and elsewhere that apparently many players create truly in-depth clerics with summoning & other *colorful* spells. It has inspired me to create a completely new style of cleric for the upcoming Savage Tide campaign.
If I had to call something vanilla (and there's a thread somewhere around here that addresses this very issue), I'd say the rogue is pretty vanilla. The reason being that it seems that no matter how you tinker with it, the thief is always essentially the same. The fluff might change but the crunch is usually the same. The only way to combat this is to ROLEPLAY in the deepest sense so that the characters themselves have different personalities even though they essentially fill the same niche. My husband is a Marine. When he graduated from boot camp (now many moons ago) I was seriously hard-pressed to pick him out of his platoon on the parade grounds. But I'll also tell you this, anyone who met my husband would never mistake him for someone else - even if they all *do* wear the same uniform and perform the same job.
So my short answer is ... true roleplaying ends the vanilla complaint every time. If you've read any Dragonlance there's a good example in the wizard Raistlin. Definitely NOT like any wizard you've met before or after.
If I had to call something vanilla (and there's a thread somewhere around here that addresses this very issue), I'd say the rogue is pretty vanilla. The reason being that it seems that no matter how you tinker with it, the thief is always essentially the same. The fluff might change but the crunch is usually the same.
That last sentence puts it in a nutshell. From a purely game mechanic point of view, all fighters gain d10 hp, lots of bonus feats, good BAB etc. - you get it. Same goes for the other "archetypal fantasy" classes. Its what you make from these bare bones that makes the difference. True, rogues have special class features that give him a certain direction, other than a fighter, but imagine a aristocratic rogue just in for it for the thrill, a street orphan striving to survive, a bully for mafia-like crime cartel, a spy or a military scout - all of them could be built from your basic rogue without fiddling with the class per se, and are vastly different.
Your fighter could be a soldier or mercenary, a law enforcer (enforcer taken quite literally...), a professional bodyguard, a seasoned brawler who has learned more than the usual share of dirty tricks, a fencer a la the Three Musketeers, a squire or sergeant for a religious order and lots of other roles.Wizards are somewhat limited, but they still could have a scientific outlook (like Dr. Frankenstein), be purely power-oriented fireball throwers, sneaky manipulators, otherworldy mystics in ivory towers or practitioners of dark arts, everything within the rules´ frame and with or without specializing. Imagine the sneaky little hedge wizard from the Conan movie, and as a contrast, Gandalf or Saruman - all are wizards (well, the LotR characters not quite...).
In the end, people complaining about classes being vanilla should ask themselves if their imagination is probably lacking if they can´t come up with interesting character ideas for these classes.
Stefan
I'm not a huge "vanilla" class fan and I've seen that most of my players aren't, either. Part of my bias comes from 2nd Edition, where, if you could play a ranger or paladin, why even bother with a fighter? Different story now, but that's where it began.
I like other classes besides the four vanilla classes (fighters, rogues, wizards and clerics) a little more because they've been tailor-made with the concept I'm going for already in mind. Special abilities and bonuses are a bit more exciting to me than more feats and spells with each level. I have a bit more to look forward to with these other classes. If I'm lazy for not wanting to tailor a more vanilla character class toward what I want to do, so be it, but these were archetypes that players wanted to use, hence the classes' existence in the first place.
It's pretty rare for anyone in my group to play just a fighter or a cleric. Druids are more popular for some reason, as are barbarians and rangers and paladins. You could buy a plain cake at the store, take it home, put some extra icing and things on it to dress it up and have something a bit more fancy. Or you could buy a cake that already has those accoutrements and just go home and enjoy it. Vanilla's nice and all if you're in the mood to put the extra time and effort into it to dress it up, but if you want flavor right from the beginning, there are other options.
another thing I wonder about:
why hasnt multiclassing come up yet? Rogue may be vanilla to some people and a fighter may be as well... but why not a fighter/rogue with more feats yet enough class abilities to suit anyone ad if you are a purely game-mechanic player it everages skill points out to a happy medium of 5 every level roughly withour INT added on.
Or how about the mystic theurge wizard/cleric, not only does that have game advantages but it also hasplenty of room for customization (why on earth would he sacrifice spell power for the gods or vice versa)
Multiclassing allows for incredable variation and role-playing
How about this: I recently played a savage Paladin who had equal levels in soulknife (the magical variant presented for the umbragen awhile back in Dragon). He wore bone armor and manifested "the claws of the Owl," the totem spirit for his barbaric tribe, rather than the standard "mindblade."
A pretty big break from the standard "vanilla," yeah?
TK
You can always do something to challenge peoples images of what the classes are. Change your setting and see what people do with the same classes. A rogue may be seen a bit differently in a campaign based around Native American cultures or a Barbarian in a campaign set in the Crusades.
another thing I wonder about:
why hasnt multiclassing come up yet?
I have to voice my opinion on the side of Rhavin on this one ~
Sometimes I get down on one class or another, but then when I get down to working out the stats I always find something interesting by multi-classing! (try a Barbarian/Ranger, or Fighter/Bard to help you find a new character concept).With the multitude of Prestige Classes, Alternative Levels, Variant Classes, etc, I sometimes find myself thinking that I have too many options...
Personally I think paladin is the most problematic, vanilla, class. Problematic multiclassing, too few skill points, no extra feats except those described...not much room there for variation. Monks and to some extent sorcerers have a bit same problem.
Fighters and wizards on the other hand indeed give lots of room to play with, especially with some choice multiclassing. Same goes for rogues.
|
Though some people won't want to hear it (you out there Fakey?) Eberron has "reimagined" some of the classes. There are savage orcish paladins in the Demon Wastes, for example. One of the attractions of the setting in it's non-standard, non-vanilla-ish-ness. "Vanilla" is fine, actually, and can be a lot of fun, but a bit of rasperry ripple goes a long way too.
I like vanilla ice cream. mmmm...ice cream.
Aubrey's post had me visualizing vanilla ice cream but then I thought he'd written raspberry 'nipple'. The idea of such a fusion danced across my eyes as only beautiful verse can.
|
|
[Aubrey's post had me visualizing vanilla ice cream but then I thought he'd written raspberry 'nipple'. The idea of such a fusion danced across my eyes as only beautiful verse can.
There is (or was) a beer in the UK called Nun's Tipple. While this is the wrong thread, arguably, in which to share this revelation (there being at least two in-depth discussions of beer that I am aware of on these boards) I thought I would appraise you all of that.
I personally have always preferred to play fighter (even back in 2.0 days), mainly because of its Vanilla qualities. A fighter is basic template to which I need to add some background and personality in order to make it interest for me to play. I would generally be a human fighter too as this always me to choose any background and any personality that I would like to play at that time. Over the years I have played just about every class out there and apart from one memorable rogue I still prefer fighters.
My recently deceased character from our Shackled City campaign was a rare exception in that he was a half-orc, but I had come up with an interesting background for me to play from. But that character died, along with one other character in the group. Together we have created a cool concept for two characters to join the group at the same time (see my thread Journal of Shiba Ichiro for more on that).
Vanilla is an empty canvas, waiting for the personal thoughts and imagination of the artist. I love it in every way.
Another analogy - and related to ice-cream:
Vanilla icecream is like a base vehicle for many other flavors. Delicious but not over the top, it carries all added flavors such as hot fudge, nuts, cookie crumbles and MnMs. It is the glue that holds all the other combos of flavors together.
Back to DnD:
I have never run ito problems running fighters and wizards. I've had players, after a long fight against a major baddy or BBEG ask, "Wow, what was that guy? A Dragon Blooded Kinetic Mystic Blade?"
Little do they know, it was just a fighter with some RP quirks and red painted platemail.
I'd say that the attitude and term are more about lacking imagination. An 'insert class name here' will be as exciting or as boring as the concept. I'd also add to this that DM's sometimes force this truism but limiting player creativity during character development.
One more point, I think you'll find this attitude more among power and meta gamers. Role players generally conceptualize their characters and then apply the class abilities to support the concept which invariably provides an interesting character no matter the class/abilities.
Is the term appropriate to use? I don't find it offensive or derogatory. I do find that it tells me the writer/speaker may have missed the point of RPG's.
I do believe a game system itself could fall into such a category or even a campaign if it doesn't stand out from its comtemporaries.
Part of my bias comes from 2nd Edition, where, if you could play a ranger or paladin, why even bother with a fighter? Different story now, but that's where it began.
My group DOES play second edition, working with the 8 basic classes plus another 3 we've cannibalized, but we've never had the problem of classes getting stale or "vanilla" if you prefer because that's where the ROLE PLAY comes in.
I don't play D&D because I want to see my little figures on the table beat the other guy's little figures on the table. If that were all it was about, I could save a WHOLE lot of money on book and supplements and stick with chess!
For us, it's about character development, it's about drama, it's about the fiction we create every week sitting around a table, it's about characters whose story lines go back 10 years or more (real time). It's about exploring different aspects of my personality and letting my id come out to play, and THAT is what makes all my fighters, rangers, paladins, mages, thieves, and clerics unique. I can, and have, run two characters with the same class on a game and have the DM KNOW who's doing what by the way they fight, interact with NPCs, and react to what's going on in the game. You don't need pre-packaged prestige classes to do that.
Oh, I read all the prestige class stuff when it comes out in Dragon. But I read it for ideas on how to customize new characters (or NPCs) from a role playing / character development aspect. Because THAT'S what the heart of this game's about IMHO.
I agree; vanilla is misused; I like vanilla, it has great flavor; I never understood why peeps say that vanilla = plain, I think this comes from football; all preseason they have constantly said that teams are showing vanilla defense and offense to hide their new tricks.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
One example of how I made 'vanilla' take my players by surprise was when I made a normal elven wizard (not much more 'vanilla' than that, eh?) but gave him numerous ranks in Tumble and Bluff as well as feats like Dodge, Mobility, and Elusive Target (from Complete Warrior). He fought with a longsword (elven proficiency) and made a point of harassing the PCs during combat by tumbling past them, jumping around the room, blinking through walls, etc. They swore up and down he must've been a bladesinger but he was really just a straight level 13 wizard with some unique skill and feat choices.
Indeed, in the campgain I am a player in, my character is an elf wizard. It's his personality and spell choise that make him interesting not his class. whos up for a dose of necromancy and emotional instability from the nice little elf?
With 3.0/3.5, I think the only vanilla characters are the ones you create -- it's your choice with all the options now available.
My two cents :)
Jack
Though some people won't want to hear it (you out there Fakey?) Eberron has "reimagined" some of the classes. There are savage orcish paladins in the Demon Wastes, for example.
Was this done with modifications to paladin class or just cultural imagery applied to the LG paladin as presented in PHB?
Dragon has published also some interesting variation rules but as presented in PHB, I'd say paladin is the class which allows for least variation. Limited multiclassing and alignment, no extra feats and a special ability (mount) which encourages certain feat tree, limited skill points (unless of course you rolled a super character who can afford a high INT to go with high STR, CON, WIS and CHA...) which might make you a decent diplomat.Sure, there can be variation in looks and background, and even personality if your DM allows it without decreeing everything except being paragon of virtue as non-paladin-like.
|
|
Though some people won't want to hear it (you out there Fakey?) Eberron has "reimagined" some of the classes. There are savage orcish paladins in the Demon Wastes, for example.
Was this done with modifications to paladin class or just cultural imagery applied to the LG paladin as presented in PHB?
Cultural imagery. They guard the exits to the waste to prevent escaping horrors, but they don't have any specifically different rules. They are part of a barbaric culture which worships a variant of the Silver Flame, and barbarians are held to be filled with a righteous wrath while the paladins are the leaders, advised by clerics.
|
|
My only dislike of Eboroni is that it has a more steam-punk feel to me. I like some of the ideas (warforged, dragonmarks, etc.) but I feel that if I wanted to play that type of setting that there are already games out there that do something very similar much better.
I like a true Pantheon where the Gods interact more with their world.
I don't begrudge the setting for what it did that was a reimagining of something existing, its just that some of the stuff rubs me wrong or looks like a different game.
FH
|
When my players were creating their characters for STAP, one of them wanted to be a "sexy female elf druid". When he learned that everyone else was choosing races and classes that he considers "non-standard", he started complaining that everyone thought he was going to be a "vanilla noob"... I told him the fact that this is the first D&D game he's played in 10 years would probably have more bearing on whether the other players viewed him as a "vanilla noob" or not ;)
|
There is nothing wrong with playing a standard or archetypical race/class combo. It only seems "vanilla" to jaded players who have seen it all. I've been playing since the mid '80s, and I'm more likely to raise an eyebrow at the Tauric Fey-touched Troglodyte Swashbuckler/Lurk/Totemist/Master Basketweaver than I am at the Human Paladin. A strong background is what makes a character compelling, not a bizarre race or class.
A "sexy elf druid" sounds just fine (although I would hope there was a little more background than that). It is neither mechanically nor conceptually inferior to any other character.
There is nothing wrong with playing a standard or archetypical race/class combo. It only seems "vanilla" to jaded players who have seen it all. I've been playing since the mid '80s, and I'm more likely to raise an eyebrow at the Tauric Fey-touched Troglodyte Swashbuckler/Lurk/Totemist/Master Basketweaver than I am at the Human Paladin. A strong background is what makes a character compelling, not a bizarre race or class.
A "sexy elf druid" sounds just fine (although I would hope there was a little more background than that). It is neither mechanically nor conceptually inferior to any other character.
hmmmmmmmmmmmm....
master basket weaver you say... tell me more, that sounds like an excellent prestige class ;)