2 wizards in a party

[PrismaRiyo]

Hi guys.
So I'm starting to play in a new group and a couple of days ago we had our first session.
It was a character creation session since 3 of the players are completely new to DND
Going in I knew I wanted to play a wizard, but then one of my friends came up with an idea for a wizard he was really proud of and wanted to play. This is his first time so I didn't want to tell him you should think of playing something else.
After the session I asked my DM and he said he didn't mind me switching character before The actual first session.

So basicly here is my question, are 2 wizards in a party too much? Would we end up "stepping on each other toes"?
I don't want him to not enjoy his first game but I also don't want to set myself back too much...

The rest of the party is a druid, a paladin and a monk (the other more experienced player).

[Saryn]

If he is a new player, his Wizard will probably wind up being a blaster. Meaning, if you play the typical Batman/God Wizard, you can do buffs/debuffs/control, and leave him to go a-blasting, and you shouldn't step on any toes.

[Fable Wright]

Hi guys.
So I'm starting to play in a new group and a couple of days ago we had our first session.
It was a character creation session since 3 of the players are completely new to DND
Going in I knew I wanted to play a wizard, but then one of my friends came up with an idea for a wizard he was really proud of and wanted to play. This is his first time so I didn't want to tell him you should think of playing something else.
After the session I asked my DM and he said he didn't mind me switching character before The actual first session.

So basicly here is my question, are 2 wizards in a party too much? Would we end up "stepping on each other toes"?
I don't want him to not enjoy his first game but I also don't want to set myself back too much...

The rest of the party is a druid, a paladin and a monk (the other more experienced player).

It really depends. I'm running one game that has three Wizards, a Druid, a Barbarian, and a Ranger, and that's working out well. The Wizards decided to highly specialize; one Diviner that focuses on blasts, one Bladesinger that rolled well and focuses on Enchantments, and one Abjurer whose player I allowed to swap out all offensive and crowd control spells on the Wizard spell list for defensive spells like Warding Bond and Heroism. All of them fill very different niches in the party, and things are turning out rather well. Bladesinger locks down a target with an enchantment and acts as a secondary tank, Diviner acts as nova damage for the one biggest fight of the day, and the Abjurer keeps everyone alive while I send overly-lethal challenges after the party one after another.

On the other hand, if all of them were trying to be generalists, grabbing Grease and Web and essentially just sharing a spellbook, then yes, they'd rather rapidly wind up stepping on each others' toes.

[ad_hoc]

I would switch.

You won't necessarily be stepping on each other's toes but it is much easier to avoid that by switching.

I would also do it for the DM. It is much easier for the DM to manage player spotlight if their characters fill distinct and separate roles.

There is also the other factor of overshadowing the player who is new to the game.

[Citan]

Hi guys.
So I'm starting to play in a new group and a couple of days ago we had our first session.
It was a character creation session since 3 of the players are completely new to DND
Going in I knew I wanted to play a wizard, but then one of my friends came up with an idea for a wizard he was really proud of and wanted to play. This is his first time so I didn't want to tell him you should think of playing something else.
After the session I asked my DM and he said he didn't mind me switching character before The actual first session.

So basicly here is my question, are 2 wizards in a party too much? Would we end up "stepping on each other toes"?
I don't want him to not enjoy his first game but I also don't want to set myself back too much...

The rest of the party is a druid, a paladin and a monk (the other more experienced player).
Considering that a Wizard gets the most number of spell known, and he can change the prepared list each day, you won't step on each other's toes unless you want to.

Instead, I see it as a chance for your friend that starts, because you could let each other write the spells one knows into the other's book, meaning he can easily learn much more spells than he would usually even with a lenient DM giving regular spell scrolls as loot.

And in the hypothesis where you would "shut out" each other (avoiding any cross-learning), there are enough spells available to allow you to get 100% different spelllists with only the automatic learning per level.

Also, the choice of school really digs the difference as you level, so you should end up with your own identity without problem as long as you pick different schools.

Just be attentive to his playstyle and adapt yourself in consequence to fill in the remaining role(s). But don't be afraid to still have some overlap. Either because of spells that are just too good to pass (such as Shield), or because it's always good to have a backup caster for some classic spells (Counterspell, Fireball, etc).

Frankly, I see this as a chance for you both rather than a problem. ;)

[Joe the Rat]

Carve yourself a unique niche and run with it. You could do solidly as a conjurer or abjurist or master of illusions or whatever it is that doesn't step on your buddy's Fire Wizard.
(I'm guessing, but I suspect most of the time a new player's cool wizard idea is Fire Wizard).

[corgiwho]

So basicly here is my question, are 2 wizards in a party too much? Would we end up "stepping on each other toes"?
I don't want him to not enjoy his first game but I also don't want to set myself back too much...

In my group, I'm playing a WIzard (conjuration school) since 1st session, and a few sessions ago, one character died and the player decided to create a Wizard (bladesinger).

So far we didn't have any problem. Instead, it was cool, because we ended up exchanging spells from each other's book, and we can decide who'll have detect magic/identify and counterspell/dispel magic prepared.
Wizard is a really broad class, so you have plenty of choices to have 2 or 3 wizards in the party.

In my gorup, we still didn't combine any spells yet, but, for example, even if 2 wizards focus on control, you can have a nice outcome.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

In a previous edition, I would have said yes.

In this edition....just play different.

[Specter]

It really depends. I'm running one game that has three Wizards, a Druid, a Barbarian, and a Ranger, and that's working out well.

Your group should be called 'Nerds and Hippies'.

[Sigreid]

Should be fine, especially if you two chat and coordinate your wizardly powers. Work to complement instead of compete with each other. And as it's his first time, I would suggest letting him decide the role he wants to primarily go with and helping him do it effectively. Friends who studied under the same master sounds like a great backstory to me.

[TheProfessor85]

Be a sneaky wizard. Maybe take couple levels of rogue. You could go arcane trickster with extra wizard support.

[TheProfessor85]

Go diviner and be slippery as all hell

[Safety Sword]

It's going to be up to your DM to make this work.

The biggest disadvantage is that the DM has to allow more spells on scrolls or whatever to be found so the wizards both have a decent sized spell book.

Shouldn't be a big deal, but there's a potential conflict for resources.

[Sigreid]

It's going to be up to your DM to make this work.

The biggest disadvantage is that the DM has to allow more spells on scrolls or whatever to be found so the wizards both have a decent sized spell book.

Shouldn't be a big deal, but there's a potential conflict for resources.

Or, they can share all the spells.

[Fable Wright]

Your group should be called 'Nerds and Hippies'.

It's a lighthearted 'adventuring college' game along the lines of Sigil Prep. Nerds and Hippies were assumed from the start.

[SharkForce]

i've played a campaign with 7 characters in 2nd edition where every character had to be at least partly wizard (we played with custom classes, and everyone had to have at least the equivalent of bardic spell progression included in their class).

in spite of having 7 wizards, it felt pretty much fine, even if there was some overlap (once we all got to level 5, large groups of enemies weren't much of a threat when there was a chance of 4-5 fireball spells coming in). each had a different specialization, and it didn't feel like we were stepping on each other's toes much if at all.

in 5e, your school makes a larger difference than it did in 2nd, in my opinion. i think you should certainly be able to make it work with 2 wizards.

[Safety Sword]

Or, they can share all the spells.

Doesn't allow for a great amount of customisation is the wizards have majority identical spell lists. That's when it's going to be a character "same same" feeling.

In the end, for me, I prefer greater difference in character concept or classes to allow everyone to have a unique role in the party.

Too many cooks wizards spoil the broth potion.

[Sigreid]

Doesn't allow for a great amount of customisation is the wizards have majority identical spell lists. That's when it's going to be a character "same same" feeling.

In the end, for me, I prefer greater difference in character concept or classes to allow everyone to have a unique role in the party.

Too many cooks wizards spoil the broth potion.

Not at all. There's only overlap if they prepare the same spells. I don't think I've played a wizard yet that didn't have a bunch of spells in his book that he rarely, if ever memorized.

[Safety Sword]

Not at all. There's only overlap if they prepare the same spells. I don't think I've played a wizard yet that didn't have a bunch of spells in his book that he rarely, if ever memorized.

That's because some spells are surely superior. So, both wizards will just prepare those. Or, one wizard will be effective and the other not...

Anyways, opinions differ, clearly.

[Sigreid]

That's because some spells are surely superior. So, both wizards will just prepare those. Or, one wizard will be effective and the other not...

Anyways, opinions differ, clearly.

Yes, opinions differ. It's my opinion that 2 wizards can prepare spells to work together without covering the same ground. The most obvious would be one focusing mainly on AoE damage and the other crowd control. They can even each do some of each, and as long as they don't prepare the exact same spells it's all good. Heck, I suppose they could each focus on buffs and hang back and bet on which of their compatriots strikes the last blow in a fight. :smallbiggrin:

[Citan]

Doesn't allow for a great amount of customisation is the wizards have majority identical spell lists. That's when it's going to be a character "same same" feeling.

In the end, for me, I prefer greater difference in character concept or classes to allow everyone to have a unique role in the party.

Too many cooks wizards spoil the broth potion.
Just because you yourself tend to always play a Wizard in the same manner doesn't mean one has actually to do that. Even 2 wizards from the same school could still play differently. So 2 Wizards from different scholls have nearly no chance to overlap, beyond a few basic spells that are not contributing to character identity (Shield, Mirror Image, Counterspell, Fireball).

Having several Wizards in the party is a chance for all involved, because you get many more spell learnt by exchanging spells. In any normal day, each Wizard can just prepare his favorite spells, tailoring his own playstyle and role. But...
- If by chance the party has to divide, each Wizard can now switch role in the subgroup to fill position as needed.
- If a particular quest require to be particularly good in either AOE, or encounter control, or social control, since Wizards exchanged their spells they can both prepare a few important spells, to get extra chance at succeeding in the strategy the group decided.
- If by any chance one Wizard loses his spellbook for any reason and does not have a copy available immediately, he can just grab a blank one and spend a bit of time with one Wizard pal to copy the most essential spells (or, if he has enough time, just learn everything back).

In general, it's difficult for two players to overlap with each other, even with classes which gives apparently very few customization choices, such as Champion Fighters. For Wizard, having several is actually a great boost to each other in 99% cases.

[Safety Sword]

Stuff.

I get it guys. I still differ in my view though.

To go back to the OP. The main reason to switch is because as an experienced player you have more options for fun than a new player. I would change just to allow the newer player to have the character they want and the sole wizard spotlight. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying the probability of the new player getting the most out of their character is if it's mostly unique in concept and execution.

[PrismaRiyo]

So thanks everyone, I've decided to go with the majority and I stuck with the wizard ( and also for the sharing spellbook aspect)
To make sure we're different I've made my character CG to his LN, and after the first session we've had some fun interactions, we became sort of frienemis due to our different approach to magic so I don't know about the spellbook sharing anymore but we'll see where it goes.
I could always just suicide and come back as a rouge :)

[zioth]

You've already decided, but I'll share my advice anyway, in case other people find a use for this thread.

Since this person is a new player, you can easily avoid stepping on his toes, but it might be hard not to outshine him with your better understanding of the rules and strategy. There are several ways to avoid this:



Multiclass. Rogue/wizard, fighter/wizard, or even sorcerer/wizard can be fun to play.
Specialize. If he likes blasting, you can focus on illusion and enchantment.
Change. Be a sorcerer, warlock, bard or cleric. You can be a wizard-like spellcaster from an RP standpoint without using the wizard class.
Mentor. In character, out of character or both, use your mastery of magic to teach him some tricks.

[Sigreid]

So thanks everyone, I've decided to go with the majority and I stuck with the wizard ( and also for the sharing spellbook aspect)
To make sure we're different I've made my character CG to his LN, and after the first session we've had some fun interactions, we became sort of frienemis due to our different approach to magic so I don't know about the spellbook sharing anymore but we'll see where it goes.
I could always just suicide and come back as a rouge :)

Nah, it's time to reveal that you're really CE and not CG. Pick the perfect time to kill him for his spell book! It's the right thing to do!:smallbiggrin:

[Ashrym]

As mentioned, memorizing different sets of spells and/or using different traditions works fine. You only step on each other's toes if you try to step on each other's toes. One blaster and one controller is the straight forward approach.

That isn't the only consideration. Spell book sharing was already mentioned and choosing different spells each when leveling up can significantly open up the wizard spell list much faster. The other big consideration is concentration. One of the purposes of concentration is to limit stacking powerful effects; however, the more spell casters available the more concentration spells can be running simultaneously. That's a method of 2 fifth level wizards turning a party of 4 invisible instead needing to wait for ninth level for the wizard to use a higher level spell slot or it can be a method of stacking buffs as examples. Multiple wizards (or other spell casters) can circumvent spell restrictions working together including concentration to an extent.

It's only an issue if both wizards are competing against each other instead of working together to complement one another.