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

[Kikuras]

I am not going to judge either the player or the DM because there is no way to know the full story. I have played with DMs who can't manage a party bigger than 4. We don't know what is going on completely in that game. Maybe the player is being cranky and demanding, maybe the DM is not running the game well and the player already has issues.

The OP needs to bring his concerns up with his DM.

But my point is this just because a DM feels he can handle more players does not mean that his players are comfortable with that. This a group game and I don't think that the DM should be god to the point of getting a free rein on things that effect the entire table. For example I would not be comfortable with a DM who after the game started added house rules without talking with the players or deciding that spells no longer worked the way they say they do without talking to the players first. Bringing new players in can change a game hopefully for the better but not always. So I think at least talking to the table and listening to and addressing their concerns seems the smart way to deal with things like this.

I think you're absolutely right... IF the circumstances are as you assume them to be. And there is a clue or two that suggests to me the DM in question might not be playing with a full deck. But at at some point you have to give the DM the benefit of the doubt, which you seem to be completely against.

And I get the whole DMs aren't perfect thing, I've made mistakes, and I've played under DMs who don't seem to quite get it. The stories I could tell.

 

[SoulsFury]

Right because DM never misjudge their abilities or make mistakes.

The DM did make a mistake. He let the OP play two characters.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't think you're wrong, in fact I think you're very right, and being quite honest about the limitations of party size, and player-DM interactions. However, I think a lot of people are put off by the general attitude that no one new can join, no matter what, because we can't take one more. In the circumstance described by the OP, it was the DM who invited the new person, suggesting that the DM did not feel that another player would be detrimental to the overall interactions at the table.

Moreover, I think a lot of people support the idea of inclusive play rather than exclusive play, as being rejected by social rejects is even more damaging to the psyche. And no, we don't have an obligation to accept new people, but we don't have an obligation to reject them either. It's always going to be case by case, but let's not automatically assume they are the problem, because often enough it's us as individuals who have the problem. And yeah... 10 is too many. How do you even get 10 people to show up to a game regularly? I can't find a group who can do better than 5!

I think you're absolutely right... IF the circumstances are as you assume them to be. And there is a clue or two that suggests to me the DM in question might not be playing with a full deck. But at at some point you have to give the DM the benefit of the doubt, which you seem to be completely against.

And I get the whole DMs aren't perfect thing, I've made mistakes, and I've played under DMs who don't seem to quite get it. The stories I could tell.

I am giving both the benefit of doubt. I have to say I love how on the forum here if you take the stand that a DM has certain prerogatives like saying what classes can be played you are for DMs and against players but when you say DMs should talk to the players before making an important change in am game already running then you are against DMs in favor of players.

Most of my posts have had little do with the actual situation at the OPs table and more of a generalized idea on the subject. My only advice to the OP would be talk to your DM about this because since none of us are at the table we can't really advise him what to do. We can say that having another wizard in the party may not be the disaster he think it is or advise that he give up one of the two characters he is playing to the new player.

But I don't see how I have not been willing to give the DM the benefit of the doubt. Though I see a lot of people judging the OP to be cranky, selfish. and a few other not so nice terms. As a matter of fact I don't think I have said anything about the DM in question other than he didn't seem like he sprung this on the players as surprise. And I have not once assumed that I know what is going on at the table.

 

[Elf Witch]

The DM did make a mistake. He let the OP play two characters.

How judgmental of you many of us have allowed players to have more than one character as a matter of fact we used to regular have dozens of henchmen and minions under the control of PCs. Do you play at this table? Do you know all the circumstances leading up to the the OP playing two characters?

 

[SoulsFury]

How judgmental of you many of us have allowed players to have more than one character as a matter of fact we used to regular have dozens of henchmen and minions under the control of PCs. Do you play at this table? Do you know all the circumstances leading up to the the OP playing two characters?

If only people who were at the table could judge this, there wouldn't be a thread about it. OP asked for opinions, and that is mine. The OP stated how he came to play two characters. He was not playing henchmen or minions. He was playing two full blow characters. This is a mistake in my opinion. Feel free to dislike my opinion.

 

[Elf Witch]

If only people who were at the table could judge this, there wouldn't be a thread about it. OP asked for opinions, and that is mine. The OP stated how he came to play two characters. He was not playing henchmen or minions. He was playing two full blow characters. This is a mistake in my opinion. Feel free to dislike my opinion.

I don't dislike your opinion I disagree with your opinion because I have seen players play more than one character successfully many times.

My point to your earlier comment that since the DM was the one bringing in new players he obviously could handle it was that sometimes DMs think they can do something well but they actually are not.

In the OP case I do think that wanting to hang onto two characters when a new player is coming into the game is problematic and he should choose which one he likes best. But I don't necessarily think the DM made a mistake wanting to keep both characters in the game after the one player left and sometimes the way to accomplish it is let another player run both.

There seems to be so much rigid thinking here that just because you don't do something it is a mistake fr another group to do it.

 

[Riley37]

Perhaps we should get all the DMs on one side, and all the players on another side, for a mass combat, until one side or the other is eliminated. Then those who "side with the DMs" and those who "side with the players" will have the issue resolved.

I don't know whether the DM is also the host, or if another player is hosting. If the OP is the host, and providing the literal table and chairs, then the OP can tell the DM not to come back next week. Otherwise, the OP can either bring concerns/requests to the DM, or boycott this DM's table, or try the former and then resort to the latter.

Boarding house rule: "everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds".

 

[steeldragons]

Perhaps we should get all the DMs on one side, and all the players on another side, for a mass combat, until one side or the other is eliminated. Then those who "side with the DMs" and those who "side with the players" will have the issue resolved.

Rocks fall. Everyone dies.

DMs win.