D&D 5E Having another wizard in the group...does it suck?

[steeldragons]

If 5e brings the hobby back to days [or, rather, into a "new age"] of groups with 6-8-10 people being a norm, and it has more than enough makings/variety to make that happen, imho, that is nothing but a good thing.

 

[Aribar]

It sounds like this problem was resolved on the first page. You talked about how cool the barbarian is and how much you like to play that character, but not really the wizard. Have your wizard become an NPC helping out in the background and continue playing the barbarian.

Also, D&D is a group activity and everyone should have a say in what happens with the group. I have no idea what your group is like, but it'd be nice if people asked for permission before bringing on new players, if for no other reason than it can be more of a burden on whoever hosts the game and the DM balancing the game.

 

[Pickles JG]

If 5e brings the hobby back to days [or, rather, into a "new age"] of groups with 6-8-10 people being a norm, and it has more than enough makings/variety to make that happen, imho, that is nothing but a good thing.

I have no idea why 8 players is good idea. I know in 1982 we were restricting games to 6 players as they were unwieldy if they got bigger, though they often did.

I accidentally invited a 7th player to my game when I started running 5th, as I was chatting to an old friend about it, fortunately we had a drop. And hes an old friend of half the other players too.

When I join a group a a player there a z load of factors that play into what I want out of it. Whothe other players are what the system is, who is dm, what the campaign style is and how many other, people are involved.

If the DM unilaterally changes one of these factors I will reasess my participation. The fact he did it unilaterally is also a consideration. See mea culpa above.

All of this less irritating than one person playing 2 characters though.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not sure I get the "one person playing 2 characters" push back/irritation. That seems to me to be the least of the issues here...assuming a player wants to play 2 characters and is experienced/"good" enough as a player to make that work. In this case, it doesn't sound like they do want to play 2 PCs...so I would drop one and give the other to the DM to NPC or "write out" of the story as they see fit.

It's certainly not necessary to play 2 PCs (regardless of what a party "needs"/doesn't have niche-wise). But if it happens, I don't understand why that would matter to anyone else at the table. More characters = more chances for success...No? Or how someone have 1 PC but still running a secondary follower/"NPC" [which, I would submit, the DM would/should be controlling anyway] is any different than someone running 2 PCs.

I mean, it certainly wasn't a common occurrence bitd, most players definitely had their single/primary PC that was their favorite/they loved to play in a given campaign and that's all they played. But it happens/happened. Especially with somewhat flexible/amorphous groups with players coming and going.

Any insights there for a slightly confused 'Dragon? Is this another "spotlight/special snowflake" issue that I just don't get/have experience with?

 

[Dausuul]

How do you all feel about 2 wizards in a party together? What is your experience with this?

It's great. With multiple casters, you can stack up concentration effects, and pull off one-two punches like cloudkill/forcecage. (CK/FC is theoretically possible with just one caster, but in practice the enemy is likely to move out of the cloudkill before you can forcecage it. With two of you, it doesn't get that chance.)

Of course, that assumes the other caster is willing and able to cooperate.

Also, how do you feel about the DM inviting player after player without first talking to the players?

That ain't cool. But you should bring it up with the DM, not us.

 

[Henry]

I'm not sure I get the "one person playing 2 characters" push back/irritation. That seems to me to be the least of the issues here...assuming a player wants to play 2 characters and is experienced/"good" enough as a player to make that work. In this case, it doesn't sound like they do want to play 2 PCs...so I would drop one and give the other to the DM to NPC or "write out" of the story as they see fit.

It's certainly not necessary to play 2 PCs (regardless of what a party "needs"/doesn't have niche-wise). But if it happens, I don't understand why that would matter to anyone else at the table. More characters = more chances for success...No? Or how someone have 1 PC but still running a secondary follower/"NPC" [which, I would submit, the DM would/should be controlling anyway] is any different than someone running 2 PCs.

I mean, it certainly wasn't a common occurrence bitd, most players definitely had their single/primary PC that was their favorite/they loved to play in a given campaign and that's all they played. But it happens/happened. Especially with somewhat flexible/amorphous groups with players coming and going.

Any insights there for a slightly confused 'Dragon? Is this another "spotlight/special snowflake" issue that I just don't get/have experience with?

It's an issue for every table to decide, but I believe the main reason it tends to be received negatively is because (in my past experience) it hampers the role playing done and self-identification at the table of a player and their character. A GM plays multiple roles, sure, but not very deeply (it's why most of us GMs rely on stereotypes so much) and since the majority of players aren't exactly skilled voice actors, it can muddy the role playing moments a bit.

Add to that, a player with two characters takes twice as many actions and twice as much spotlight time as the other players, and you have the makings of a problem that's not much of a problem if you only have two or three players at the table, but becomes a bit confusing (and unnecessary) by the time five or six people including GM are sitting at the table. That's my reasoning, anyway.

I play in two alternating Pathfinder games with 8 players and GM. If anyone wanted to play 2 characters at the table, they'd be shot down in short order. The only reason we don't split into two games is because we all enjoy spending time together, and we dont have enough room for two tables. On the good side, it means the game runs without fail every week with almost never being called on account of players not showing up.

 

[Sunseeker]

If 5e brings the hobby back to days [or, rather, into a "new age"] of groups with 6-8-10 people being a norm, and it has more than enough makings/variety to make that happen, imho, that is nothing but a good thing.

I do feel though that 1 DM per 5 people is a good balance, so larger groups either need to be insanely well behaved or have an assistant DM.

 

[pkt77242]

I think you are looking at the two wizard situation all wrong. A second wizard in the party is an opportunity for all kinds of amusing shenanigans. Having a single wizard in the party is like being an only child. When something magically mischievous occurs, you KNOW who did it. A pair of wizards can have great fun with prestidigitation, pantsing the fighter and pointing to the other wizard to shift blame.

Remember that no matter what classes are in the party, you are a team. Wizards gotta stick together.

Reminds me of Goblin and One-Eye from the Black Company books.

 

[neobolts]

Two players with the same class have never been allowed at our table, unless the players wanted it. It's bad mojo in terms of spotlight stealing. The negative reaction you had is the exact kind if situation a policy like this addresses. And this isn't about math, it's about feeling like a badass.

In a game where you aspire to be the best wizard in the world, one of you will end up being the second best wizard in the room. Which is lame.

 

[Diamabel]

Two players with the same class have never been allowed at our table, unless the players wanted it. It's bad mojo in terms of spotlight stealing. The negative reaction you had is the exact kind if situation a policy like this addresses. And this isn't about math, it's about feeling like a badass.

In a game where you aspire to be the best wizard in the world, one of you will end up being the second best wizard in the room. Which is lame.

Best at what? Wizards come in many flavours. A necromancer and an abjurer are going to be exceptional at different aspects of wizardry.

In a game where you aspire to be the best adventurer in the world, everyone else is second, third, fourth or fifth best in the room!