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

[MarkB]

As for Wizards specifically (assuming cloned characters): with the limitations of Concentration, having a pair of wizards allows for some potent combos if they work together, especially at higher levels with limited spell slots.

Absolutely. Rather than worrying about having another wizard in the party, you should be looking forward to working with the other player to see what kinds of synergistic combos the two of you can come up with.

 

[neobolts]

...unless the players wanted it.

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

I agree with your point. If the two players have a wizard duo concept and coordinate to stay off of each other's toes, it can work and actually create cool synergies. We ran LMoP using the Starter Set (5 players, 2 wizards) and they coordinated very well from the get-go.

Unfortunately, OP is having this sprung on him by his DM, and doesn't seem to be looking to share the wizard spotlight. I think OP's complaint is reasonable in that regard.

As for OP's other question...

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

Adding players and the social dynamics is really a group-by-group issue. I will say this: Just someone wants to play does not obligate a group add them. D&D night is not a charity.™

 

[Iosue]

As a player, I play at the pleasure of the DM. They are going through all the work of getting the game up and running. If they feel comfortable adding more players, who am I to say them nay? If, after playing, the player is a problem, then I'll check with the other players and then bring it up with the DM. But I neither expect nor want to be consulted beforehand.

As a player, I would never think of intruding on another player's chargen. That's their own personal business. Even if their character sheet is an exact copy of mine. Making my character distinct through my play of my role is the whole point of the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How do you all feel about 2 wizards in a party together? What is your experience with this? Also, how do you feel about the DM inviting player after player without first talking to the players?

It sounds awesome! The worst thing about playing a wizard is feeling squeezed when selecting your 2 spells per level. With two wizards, you can copy from each other's spellbooks and get twice as many spells, including many situational and other spells which you could otherwise not afford.

Also, each of you can specialize in a different school of magic. Diviners are cool, for instance, both for Portent and for cheap scouting ahead via Arcane Eye/Clairvoyance. Necromancers are cool for the mailed fist when needed. Normally it would be hard to choose between them, but with two wizards, you don't have to!

 

[Herobizkit]

I personally find this a bit selfish. Even if you don't have class overlap, you still can have type overlap. To you use your scout example: who's stepping on who's toes if both the rouge and ranger want to scout? What about the high dex illusionist who picked up stealth to work magic from the shadows?

My specific issue is with class and type overlap.

Me: I choose a 4e warlock hexblade who grew up an orphan, became a street thief, and later uses mobility/teleports to pick off select targets.
Player: former character dies, then chooses A 4e thief (striker) who grew up an orphan, became a street thief, and later uses mobility/teleports to pick off select targets.... then maxes out as much damage as possible to become broken.

Me: Plays a Druid who is going to focus on shapeshifting to extend her survivability in combat.
Player: Plays a Barbarian who is maxed out for survivability, then mutli-classes to druid to extend his survivablity in combat and become broken.

 

[Henry]

As a player, I play at the pleasure of the DM. They are going through all the work of getting the game up and running. If they feel comfortable adding more players, who am I to say them nay? If, after playing, the player is a problem, then I'll check with the other players and then bring it up with the DM. But I neither expect nor want to be consulted beforehand.

As a player, I would never think of intruding on another player's chargen. That's their own personal business. Even if their character sheet is an exact copy of mine. Making my character distinct through my play of my role is the whole point of the game.

I've actually dealt with this in the past, both as player and as GM.

Last year, our GM informed us that someone whom he had gamed with in the past wanted to join, and he told the table about it a week beforehand. I didn't know him personally, but the GM and two other players did, and since I trusted their judgment, I was fine with it. He's a good person and excellent player, and I'm glad to know him.

Two years ago, a co-worker expressed an interest in gaming with us, and I invited him, but I staged a meeting at a local coffee shop first to see how we all meshed together before gaming together. He fit in well, we started gaming, and we got along pretty well, personality-wise, but turns out Pathfinder was not a game he enjoyed (wanted a bit less rules heavy). He dropped out after a while.

So i've seen it work, and i've seen it not work. Maybe the best lesson is for the group not to trust my judgment better than the other GM.

 

[S'mon]

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.

If you have 2 PCs and you object to any other player playing a PC of the same type as either of those two PCs, that's twice as much entitlement as if you only had 1 PC.

 

[Queer Venger]

My local DM keeps inviting more and more new players to our face-to-face group without ever consulting first his players. This is really starting to piss me off and I find it rude. We already have 5 players, one of which, me, is playing 2 characters. One of these players can only make it every other week or so and has missed a decent amount lately so we consistently have 4 and occasionally 5 players.

I play the group's wizard and barbarian. The DM has now invited another player who wants to play a wizard too. I have never been a fan of 2 wizards stepping on each other's toes in a party and now I hear this player wants to invite a friend too.

How do you all feel about 2 wizards in a party together? What is your experience with this? Also, how do you feel about the DM inviting player after player without first talking to the players?

I agree that the DM, as courtesy, should consult your group, but I think that it's his ultimate decision. Since you now have 6 players, I dont think you need to run 2 characters. It could always be ideal, depending on the level and lethality factor that your DM is going for, to include two wizards.

I think you should all discuss this with your DM. D&D is a game of group teamwork and I have a policy of inviting a new player to check things out, it should be inclusive, not exclusive.

 

[redrick]

Having two wizards is like having two guitarists.

Honestly, I can't think of any class schtick that wouldn't be useful to double. Two armored hard-hitting fighters? That means you can control a wider hallway! Two rogues? Now you can flank from both sides. Double sneak-attack damage in one round! Two clerics means double the healing, double the aiding, double the blessing.

The players just need to agree, out of character, how important it is for them to have unique schticks and be up front about that with each other. Is it fun for two wizards to have a sporting contest to see who can get the fireball off first? Or is one player going to be irked because fireballs were his thing? I have definitely seen situations at my table where players have struggled with this kind of competition (even among two different classes), and when it stops being fun for them, it stops being fun for me. If the new player is an unknown, I can see that being a wild card.

As for inviting new players without consulting the current players. In my experience, I wanted to grow our group (from 4 players, one of whom was super flaky), and I checked with the group before doing so. First off, because I wanted to give them the opportunity to suggest the potential player before putting up a public posting, but also because I felt like they had some stake in the matter. On the other hand, once I started inviting new players, I didn't give my group any say in vetting those players, and we had a couple of months where there seemed to be a rotating slot at our table that kept getting filled by new people. The two new players who ultimately stuck it out are now as much a part of the gaming group as the two who have been involved since day one.

 

[Bayonet]

My opinions;

1) Group size; final decision should be shared by the DM and whoever the host is, but a good DM/Host would take the other players feelings into account.

2) Multiple characters playing the same classes; Go for it. I think that any party that goes outside the standard set up is just interesting. Make it work, and differentiate your characters through rp.

3) One player playing multiple characters. No. Why would one special snowflake get double or triple the play time of everyone else at the table? Pick a character and play it. The other one gets horribly and entertainingly murdered/lost/banished by DM fiat.