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

[Gundan Shadeslinger]

For me it comes down to shared spotlight time. In a group you have different skills and abilities to deal with situations, when another character has the same set of skills and abilities it diminishes my characters uniqueness.

If I am playing the group rogue and scout, I want to be the character that stealths ahead and searches for traps and listens at doors. I don't want another person tagging along.

Think of a movie or tv series with a group of heroes, you have the guy who is socially skilled, than the guy who is great at computers, another guy who is a gunfighter, stuff like that. You don't need two computer hackers as main characters.

What's wrong with working together and sharing the spotlight? Why does spotlight have to work like clockwork?

Let's take two scouts for instance, since that was mentioned. Why can't the two work together? I mean it is a group game is it not?

1: Four eyes is better than two when scouting.

2: Who's to say you are always going to pass your rolls? If you fail then your partner might catch it, and same goes the other way.

3: The other scout is your backup in case something goes wrong. What if you are attacked and can't get away? Your backup can either help you out, or go and warn the others.

I'm just really bothered by some of the choice words I am seeing such as "selfish" and "rude". Sounds to me like some of you are stuck on the stereotypical "party of four" where it''s one of each class. There is no rule that states each player must be a different class.

There is enough spotlight to go around.

 

[neobolts]

This reminds me of the time I was in middle school and my friend's hot mom made us include his little brother in playing. We were childish and didn't want to play well with others, so we used a basilisk to turn the little brother's character to stone and made him pretend he was trapped in stone, so we could go about burning forests and backstabbing dragons. He just stood there for hours.

Specifically mentioning the hotness of the mom was my favorite part of this story.

 

[Henry]

Sorry it was for soulsfury post, not yours. Also i dont know what is that thing on the right side of reply with quote

You can add multiple previous posts to your reply by checking those little checkboxes to the right. Just remember to uncheck them if tour browser doesnt do it for you, or they keep getting added if you make more than one post in the thread.

 

[Schmoe]

There are so many great ways for multiple characters of similar archetypes to work together, I'm surprised that people start to feel jealous if they have "competition."

Two facemen? Try a smooth-talking con duo.

Two scouts? Try an elite team of infiltrators that uses decoys and misdirection.

Two wizards? Try finding all of the exploitative spell combos you normally can't use because of concentration.

Two healing clerics? Alright, I've got nothing.

The point is, duplicated skills opens up whole new party dynamics that aren't otherwise available. Try exploring those instead of complaining that your spotlight is being stolen.

 

[Mercule]

Doubling up on "roles" can go well or poorly, regardless of specific type. I've seen two fighters where both players wanted to stand out in toe-to-toe combat, compared to everyone else in the group. One of the issues we had when starting 5E was how easily everyone was able to add a bit of stealth to their character and leave the thief/rogue feeling useless (a reread of rogue abilities fixed that). If one wizard wants to be the mysterious stranger and the other wants to be the walking encyclopedia, it won't go well.

That's a player issue, though, not a character issue. The two fighters could be played as fun competitiveness. The rogue in the all stealth group could easily end up the leader and best at the shtick. If the walking encyclopedia is very frenetic and can spout a little about a lot, but the stranger knows the really weird stuff, both have a place. It just takes some give and take.

IME, it's generally the inability to work with others that makes the tension at the table. Everyone has bad days, but try to work with the others.

For the other issues:

DM has final say in group size and composition, but should either know the players well enough or consult with them. There's a difference between leader and dictator. Host (assuming other than GM) also has an absolute veto on who comes into their home.

I never allow more than one PC. Do not even fathom why you'd do this (troupe play may be different, but has its own convensions). If you have a small group, the DM controls NPC party members, who are explicitly supporting cast. I also despise the DMPC; the DM should always be able to divorce himself from any character.

 

[TwoSix]

There's a fair bit of difference between "playing D&D in a group with friendly people" and "meeting with your group of friends and choosing to play D&D".

In the first, the game is the priority. In that case, the DM and the host have a joint responsibility to make decisions for the betterment of the game. I do think it's common courtesy to have a discussion about increasing the size of the group, but the decision as to whether a player belongs in that scenario is ultimately the DM's and the host's.

In the second, the social aspect is prioritized. In that case, you'd follow whatever your normal convention is as to expanding the social group, which I assume would require no one raising a serious objection to the new individual.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Could you explain your sadness?

He was the little brother in question.

 

[Mercule]

There's a fair bit of difference between "playing D&D in a group with friendly people" and "meeting with your group of friends and choosing to play D&D".

In the first, the game is the priority. In that case, the DM and the host have a joint responsibility to make decisions for the betterment of the game. I do think it's common courtesy to have a discussion about increasing the size of the group, but the decision as to whether a player belongs in that scenario is ultimately the DM's and the host's.

In the second, the social aspect is prioritized. In that case, you'd follow whatever your normal convention is as to expanding the social group, which I assume would require no one raising a serious objection to the new individual.

Worst case scenario is when the group doesn't agree on which one is happening.

Speaking for myself, I only play with a group of friends (i.e. those who I'd get together with for some other reason). But... really enjoying D&D, especially as the GM, requires a bit more effort and focus from me than, say, a game of Catan. The pay-off is substantively higher, too, which is why I continue to do it. I do get a bit surly, though, when a player shows up with the same level of focus as though we were playing Catan. When one guy shows up to play Catan and he really doesn't care, he can ruin it for everyone else, but generally just ends up losing and everyone has a good time. When one person phones it in for an RPG, it has a much higher rate of tanking play for everyone.

Note: That's not a criticism of any particular style of play. It's just a statement about mismatched expectations and/or unclear social contracts.

 

[TwoSix]

Worst case scenario is when the group doesn't agree on which one is happening.

Which I think is sometimes a risk when the group is a composite of both. For example, the group is a DM and three of his close buddies, and two other people they've picked up over the years.

Note: That's not a criticism of any particular style of play. It's just a statement about mismatched expectations and/or unclear social contracts.

I play in both kinds of groups, which sort of leapt out with me when I considered how each group has handled new players in the past.

As the range of opinions in this thread has shown, consideration of your group's dynamics is always critical.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

It really depends on the group. The one I am currently DM'ing is a bunch of friends and I would never presume to invite a new player without talking it over with the group (and getting their acceptance). On the other hand, I am contemplating starting up with a new group of people solely based on their interest in my campaign, with people I don't necessarily know in advance, in which case I will have no qualms unilaterally deciding who is in and who is out.

As for duplicate classes, I wouldn't mind playing a campaign with all characters being the same class. A party entirely comprised of wizards could make for some interesting roleplaying and adventures. So I wouldn't have a problem with two players of the same class either.