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

[Elf Witch]

Right, that's why no one enjoyed the movie "Sneakers". Also that's why no one would ever do a movie about seven samurai. 7 characters, and they're all samurai? How boring! How could you even tell them apart?

That's why each of the "Ghostbusters" had unique abilities. Imagine how boring "Ghostbusters" would have been, if all four of them were equipping identical proton packs, firing identical streams of energy at ghosts.

That's also why no one watches soccer teams or basketball teams or hockey teams with multiple players in overlapping roles, and that's why there are no famous rock and roll bands from Liverpool with two guitarists. (Or, worse, two guitarists who are ALSO both vocalists. Imagine how badly would they step on each other's toes; it's easy if you try.)

In short, all of these would be epic fails, because people only have solo abilities, and don't have interesting personalities or motives or methods which are independent of those abilities, and cannot combine their efforts in interesting ways.

I have not seen Sneakers in a long time and I have never seen 7 Samurais but in Ghostbusters they may have worn the same equipment but they had different roles. Veckman was the face, another was the expert on science and another on lore so they had things that made them different and stand out. Which is something I believe 5E is trying to do with customizing your PC. So you could have two wizards of different schools who are not stepping on each other toes you could have a group of fighters who specialize in different fighting styles.

As for you example about sports well in football there is only one quarterback on the field at one time with bands both are not singing lead at the same time. Also with sports some players don't play in a game they set on a bench I don't think any of are suggesting that would be a good way to play DnD.

But if you look at most TV shows most have a format with people having different skill sets take Star Trek there is only one captain, one first officer, one head engineer, one head doctor yes someone may fill in for the captain or Data may do Geordie role if he is off ship or doing something else.

 

[Kikuras]

There's a lot of conjecture and specific personal baggage being brought to this discussion. The truth of the matter is that it is possible that having two wizards can suck. It's also true that having two wizards is awesome. And that can apply to any class. It's important to keep an open mind when a new character joins the party, whether there's class overlap or not.

What I think is fair to say is that the DM has a responsibility to mitigate character duplication, whether by encouraging certain unused classes, or by ensuring that the new character is different enough in concept so as to not be a thematic copy.

As a player, I consider it my duty, when joining a group mid-campaign, to build a character that fills any tactical or social gaps within the existing party, to establish my own niche, and not to intrude on the existing dynamics if I don't have to. While this attitude may be limiting, it doesn't hurt to play a character you might not have made otherwise, and I've come across more than a few players who are simply unable to play a character outside a certain mold, to the detriment of the game.

 

[Paraxis]

As a player, I consider it my duty, when joining a group mid-campaign, to build a character that fills any tactical or social gaps within the existing party, to establish my own niche, and not to intrude on the existing dynamics if I don't have to. While this attitude may be limiting, it doesn't hurt to play a character you might not have made otherwise, and I've come across more than a few players who are simply unable to play a character outside a certain mold, to the detriment of the game.

Exactly the first thing I ask when I join an ongoing game or at the start of a new one is, "What is everyone else playing?" I want to know the race - class - concept - gender - general build, of every other character first. If the campaign is knew and people are unsure that is fine obviously, but I want to fill the roles not being filled, I want my character to have a spotlight all his own.

 

[Gundan Shadeslinger]

There's a lot of conjecture and specific personal baggage being brought to this discussion. The truth of the matter is that it is possible that having two wizards can suck. It's also true that having two wizards is awesome. And that can apply to any class. It's important to keep an open mind when a new character joins the party, whether there's class overlap or not.

What I think is fair to say is that the DM has a responsibility to mitigate character duplication, whether by encouraging certain unused classes, or by ensuring that the new character is different enough in concept so as to not be a thematic copy.

As a player, I consider it my duty, when joining a group mid-campaign, to build a character that fills any tactical or social gaps within the existing party, to establish my own niche, and not to intrude on the existing dynamics if I don't have to. While this attitude may be limiting, it doesn't hurt to play a character you might not have made otherwise, and I've come across more than a few players who are simply unable to play a character outside a certain mold, to the detriment of the game.

Unnecessary.

There is no such thing as an "unused" class in 5th edition because the game isn't designed around having at least certain classes in a group. If your game has a specific theme then suggesting away is fine, or if they are new then giving friendly advice is welcome, but suggesting another class because someone else already has that class isn't needed. The game is designed for parties of the same class. Why do you think backgrounds, feats, and subclasses were brought into this edition?

I am seeing that word "selfish" again and it's really grating on my nerves because the one being selfish, is the person insisting they hold the monopoly on a certain class and not wanting anyone else to play it.

 

[Riley37]

As a player, I consider it my duty, when joining a group mid-campaign, to build a character that fills any tactical or social gaps within the existing party, to establish my own niche, and not to intrude on the existing dynamics if I don't have to.

This is made of pure awesome. Well, it's awesome mixed with human decency mixed with artistic collaboration, but those are overlapping categories anyways.

I'd frame the question more as "What would make this party more awesome, and more fun for the existing players?", but that might well lead to the more specific method of "what's already being done and where are there interesting gaps?" so Paraxis and I arrive at the same location by different paths.

A new-to-my-table gamer has been playing dwarf barbarians, over and over, for years. With a bit of nudging, now he's playing a halfling rogue. Okay, it's still pretty stereotypical, but at least it's a different stereotype; and he's having much more fun than he expected. If he learns, from D&D, that it's often a good idea, to try new things (in the company of decent people and/or supportive friends), then I call that a DM moral victory.

"tactical or social gaps within the existing party" != un-used classes

 

[Kikuras]

Unnecessary.

There is no such thing as an "unused" class in 5th edition because the game isn't designed around having at least certain classes in a group. If your game has a specific theme then suggesting away is fine, or if they are new then giving friendly advice is welcome, but suggesting another class because someone else already has that class isn't needed. The game is designed for parties of the same class. Why do you think backgrounds, feats, and subclasses were brought into this edition?

I am seeing that word "selfish" again and it's really grating on my nerves because the one being selfish, is the person insisting they hold the monopoly on a certain class and not wanting anyone else to play it.

I'm not saying there's not room for multiple versions of the same kind of character in a party, there are many, many circumstances where it works just fine. What I AM saying is that showing up with your own thing, with no regard with how it MIGHT affect the current party, is rude and unnecessary. Even selfish.

There's no law that says I should give up my seat on the bus to the little old lady, but I was raised right in regards to how I interact with the people around me. I cannot assume I can just do whatever I want and everyone else has to be okay with it. Joining an existing group is the same, I need to tailor my actions to best fit within a preexisting paradigm, and if there is room for a second wizard, or another monk, then yay for me, but if I force it down their throats, then I shouldn't play with them because it's quite obvious I never learned how to play nice with others.

 

[Kikuras]

"tactical or social gaps within the existing party" != un-used classes

Or a used class designed differently.

 

[SirAntoine]

As a player how I would feel about a new player would be based on many things like how big the group already is. I have never once had a fun role playing experience in a large group. Now I get some people do but I have never found big parties conducive to a game with a lot of role playing. If it was not a matter of numbers then I would ask questions like what kind of style to they like playing a hack and slasher would not fit with any group I play with. I would ask if they felt that they had to combat every session again we often don't.

I am usually open to giving new players a try. But if I see the DM having issues giving the players he has enough spotlight time or combat is a bore that takes forever to get through then i might question can we add another player to the table without compounding these issues.


BTW I think it is a tad arrogant that you think you need to show me how to play or DM. I read your pot about how you happily run a table with 10 players and you have the more the merrier kind of attitude. The game is played many different ways and what works for you does not work for me and that does not either of us is playing the game wrong.

You must remember this is an attempt to give general advice to someone. Our own experiences are useful examples, but I want to postulate what a general rule would be for the OP and others.

I think it would be only a matter of courtesy to permit someone to join your group, but I also make allowance for several limits including space, and also in-game considerations. The ones you mention in particular, spotlight time, combat length, and the amount of role playing you can get in, are certainly affected by the number of players. However, the question is when does it become a problem. I would be surprised to learn a group of five or fewer players would really not enjoy the game if they included one more. Even if the individuals' spotlight time is reduced, it would only be by a little, and the same goes for the combat length only being a little longer, and the amount of role playing you can get in is only a little less. I've seen groups of six or more players get in a lot of role playing, too, but for many groups it would mean less.

At some point, the group's number might become too many. It will depend on the particular people we're talking about, but I'd like to hear DM's say they'd be willing to run the game for at least four players maximum.

With respect to questions about what style of play someone enjoys, not everyone is particular about that. Some players might just want to play some D&D, and they'd be more than happy to go without one thing or another they're used to or which is their favorite. I know hack n' slash players who play in role playing heavy groups, and vice versa. Whoever does the inviting would be able to tell the player what to expect, and if it would be a necessity for the player then they should ask about that.

With respect to having another wizard in the group, the class has great variety of spells learned and subclass. If the group has two wizards of the same subclass, with largely the same spells, the two players should respect each other's decisions and just realize their choices are popular. No one should tell the other players they shouldn't play the same character class. If it really bothers someone, though, there is no harm in asking them to play another character. If they really want to play the class, too, that settles it then.

 

[neobolts]

As a player, I consider it my duty, when joining a group mid-campaign, to build a character that fills any tactical or social gaps within the existing party, to establish my own niche, and not to intrude on the existing dynamics if I don't have to. While this attitude may be limiting, it doesn't hurt to play a character you might not have made otherwise, and I've come across more than a few players who are simply unable to play a character outside a certain mold, to the detriment of the game.

The best new players are often the ones whose first question is "What does the group need?"

I am seeing that word "selfish" again and it's really grating on my nerves because the one being selfish, is the person insisting they hold the monopoly on a certain class and not wanting anyone else to play it.

I wouldn't go as far as to call players who intrude another player's spotlight "selfish", but I would say that players that avoid overlap are "selfless". I am a big fan of session zero coordination and promoting cooperative "party building".

I guess I'm also toying with multiple build ideas most of the time. There's always a couple of things I'm dying to try. So taking an open class never feels like a setback or that someone else was monopolizing a class.

 

[Elf Witch]

There's a lot of conjecture and specific personal baggage being brought to this discussion. The truth of the matter is that it is possible that having two wizards can suck. It's also true that having two wizards is awesome. And that can apply to any class. It's important to keep an open mind when a new character joins the party, whether there's class overlap or not.

What I think is fair to say is that the DM has a responsibility to mitigate character duplication, whether by encouraging certain unused classes, or by ensuring that the new character is different enough in concept so as to not be a thematic copy.

As a player, I consider it my duty, when joining a group mid-campaign, to build a character that fills any tactical or social gaps within the existing party, to establish my own niche, and not to intrude on the existing dynamics if I don't have to. While this attitude may be limiting, it doesn't hurt to play a character you might not have made otherwise, and I've come across more than a few players who are simply unable to play a character outside a certain mold, to the detriment of the game.

Unnecessary.

There is no such thing as an "unused" class in 5th edition because the game isn't designed around having at least certain classes in a group. If your game has a specific theme then suggesting away is fine, or if they are new then giving friendly advice is welcome, but suggesting another class because someone else already has that class isn't needed. The game is designed for parties of the same class. Why do you think backgrounds, feats, and subclasses were brought into this edition?

I am seeing that word "selfish" again and it's really grating on my nerves because the one being selfish, is the person insisting they hold the monopoly on a certain class and not wanting anyone else to play it.

You must remember this is an attempt to give general advice to someone. Our own experiences are useful examples, but I want to postulate what a general rule would be for the OP and others.

I think it would be only a matter of courtesy to permit someone to join your group, but I also make allowance for several limits including space, and also in-game considerations. The ones you mention in particular, spotlight time, combat length, and the amount of role playing you can get in, are certainly affected by the number of players. However, the question is when does it become a problem. I would be surprised to learn a group of five or fewer players would really not enjoy the game if they included one more. Even if the individuals' spotlight time is reduced, it would only be by a little, and the same goes for the combat length only being a little longer, and the amount of role playing you can get in is only a little less. I've seen groups of six or more players get in a lot of role playing, too, but for many groups it would mean less.

At some point, the group's number might become too many. It will depend on the particular people we're talking about, but I'd like to hear DM's say they'd be willing to run the game for at least four players maximum.

With respect to questions about what style of play someone enjoys, not everyone is particular about that. Some players might just want to play some D&D, and they'd be more than happy to go without one thing or another they're used to or which is their favorite. I know hack n' slash players who play in role playing heavy groups, and vice versa. Whoever does the inviting would be able to tell the player what to expect, and if it would be a necessity for the player then they should ask about that.

With respect to having another wizard in the group, the class has great variety of spells learned and subclass. If the group has two wizards of the same subclass, with largely the same spells, the two players should respect each other's decisions and just realize their choices are popular. No one should tell the other players they shouldn't play the same character class. If it really bothers someone, though, there is no harm in asking them to play another character. If they really want to play the class, too, that settles it then.

I think it is natural for people to bring their own experiences "personal baggage" into any discussion because it influences how we all look at things. In my case my personal baggage for example is that over large parties suck at role playing opportunities, often playing with SO in the same game can be fraught with landmines and that deliberately stepping on another players toes can lead to hostility and derailment of a game.

So it is natural when any of these subject come up I am going to be looking at them with a jaundiced eye. And how I respond will be with my experiences.

I think always keeping an open mind is good as well as communication. The best way I have seen two players playing the same concept is for them to sit down and work it out themselves. The DM steps in if they can't. That works so much better than the new player coming to the table with his lock picking rogue ready to go and the player already playing the same concept sitting there going WTF!!!

I am leery about playing with anybody who has the attitude that if I don't get to play this concept right now I won't have any fun. That seems so rigid to me and they are most likely to be rigid about other things as well.

When I join a game already in progress I ask what others are playing and I ask have they noticed any weakness that has been impacting the game. Then I make a character that can help with the weakness I do this for two reasons one to make the party as a whole stronger and because I like my PC to stand out in what she is good at. I think this is a win win for everyone.

I think there is a big difference between not wanting to share the spotlight with your concept in a specific game and not wanting to ever allow anyone else to play the concept in every game.


Again I don't think courtesy has anything to do with it I can only repeat that you don't have as a gamer the right to join a group just because you want to play. No group is obligated to take on any new players. This is where I think we are having our disconnect. If my table is not full and if I think the person is a good fit then I am always opened mined about even excited about having a new player. What my issue with is your idea that I have an obligation to open my table to new players.

Again the people I play with don't want to play with someone who does not want to invest in the same amount of role playing that we want. So no a hack and slasher even if he is not disruptive is not going to be a good fit because he will not be contributing to the game what we want in a player. Also asking a player to sacrifice what he enjoys most about the game to be able to play has never in my experiences really worked out. It will most likely be a very unsatisfactory play experience for them.