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

[daddystabz]

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?

 

[Fildrigar]

It sounds like the proper venue for this discussion is actually with your DM. But, why are you playing two characters? Is it just that you're playing your friend's character when he doesn't show up for a session?

 

[daddystabz]

It sounds like the proper venue for this discussion is actually with your DM. But, why are you playing two characters? Is it just that you're playing your friend's character when he doesn't show up for a session?

We ARE discussing it. The alt Barb character is a leftover from a friend who had to drop out. I love playing him and he has important story background history with our Ranger.

 

[Fildrigar]

Well, as a DM, I have invited several new players into my campaign, and I did not consult my players first. It helps that everyone gets along, and no one feels like their toes are being stepped on. But, I've pretty much got a waiting list for my table, and I can't have everyone join. I wouldn't let someone play two characters, as I'd rather let someone in from my waiting list first. ( That said, one player is notoriously late, and her character generally gets run by someone else. )

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Well, you're potentially doubling your spells known by copying from eachother's books, and able to share out the less commonly used spells so there's a greater chance of one of you having exactly the right spell at exactly the right moment.

 

[steeldragons]

There is nothing wrong with a DM inviting anyone to join the group they are running. As a player, if I wanted a friend to come join/check it out, I would run it past a DM first. But "permission" from the other players isn't really something in my frame of reference/experience (as a player or DM).

Yes, it is best for everyone to get along. Presumably, the DM knows his players and can determine what people will or won't, generally, get along...for playing make believe elves. Everyone doesn't have to be best friends outside of the game (though that is certainly nice). But a capacity to be civil and mature [enough to play and have fun with make believe elves] in interactions while we play is a given presumption...and those that can't need not attend any longer.

There is also nothing wrong with having more than one wizard in a party...or more than one any other class, for that matter.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, you're potentially doubling your spells known by copying from eachother's books, and able to share out the less commonly used spells so there's a greater chance of one of you having exactly the right spell at exactly the right moment.

Crushing the enemy with arcane power doesn't suck. Honestly, he should be upset any time someone other than a wizard shows up.

 

[Warunsun]

As a DM with a full group (meaning over four players) I would most definitely tell my group if I was adding more players. However, I know my players and I wouldn't add someone to the mix that I felt would cause an issue. We have recruited from outside of our known players too before. Usually this goes smoothly but often said new players don't last. We vetted the new folks through all my established players before we even sat down with them. Sometimes they were complete unknowns but usually someone knew of them through some friend or acquittance. I don't let people run two characters. Sometimes I do let the players run an NPC companion character temporarily (so I can focus on the foes) but that is it. If a player can't show up his character generally isn't present in my games. If a player is going to be late I will have their character follow the group around and do very little until they show up. As long as they aren't more than 90 minutes late I usually give them full XP. Absent players get no XP for their characters. But they also aren't in any danger either. During 4E I followed the suggestion that even absent players get XP for their characters (which I never had done before or since). It kept them all leveling at the same time and it was nice in that way but some folks started to abuse it. During 4E I also handed out treasure to specific individual characters (which I never had done before or since). It was quite refreshing and a different take. Absolutely no arguing over treasure. But it became boring since in 4E there were certain key qualities you wanted in an item and variety was less important.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Another wizard is another target for the monsters that isn't my wizard. More meat shields equals longer life!

 

[famousringo]

Between the diverse specialties and the huge spell list, there's lots of room for two wizards, and that's before you even look at multiclassing. One of you can be a supporting abjurer with a couple levels of cleric, the other an Eldritch blasting necromancer/warlock with an undead army.