Ever play a game with more than one wizard?

[Klorox]

I've been playing this game since 1984. I can honestly say I've never played a game where there were more than one single classed wizards (or magic-users before 2000) in the party. Not once.

I've had dual classed wizards in parties, multiclass wizards in parties, wizards and sorcerers together, but never, ever, more than one single classed wizard.

Isn't that weird?

I was just realizing today I've played in many parties with duplicate classes, but never wizard.

I do realize two single classed wizards can play drastically different styles, so I don't think it would be redundant.


Maybe it's happened to me because I'm usually a player and I just really favor spellchuckers. I'm not sure.

Other than the benefits of friendly wizards scribing spells off each other, are there any other benefits?

[Sigreid]

In 1e I did play in a campaign that was 6 players and they were all wizards. As long as we didn't move too fast it was pretty nuts.

[sithlordnergal]

I played Storm King's Thunder with a party that started as all Wizards...we didn't last long though.

[Bilbron]

I've been playing this game since 1984. I can honestly say I've never played a game where there were more than one single classed wizards (or magic-users before 2000) in the party. Not once.

I've had dual classed wizards in parties, multiclass wizards in parties, wizards and sorcerers together, but never, ever, more than one single classed wizard.

Isn't that weird?

I was just realizing today I've played in many parties with duplicate classes, but never wizard.

I do realize two single classed wizards can play drastically different styles, so I don't think it would be redundant.


Maybe it's happened to me because I'm usually a player and I just really favor spellchuckers. I'm not sure.

Other than the benefits of friendly wizards scribing spells off each other, are there any other benefits?
2 wizards unlocks so many sick combos. Have fun throwing down Sleet Storm/Sickening Radiance, among a gajillion other killers.

[Valmark]

I did! Having two wizards it's great, imo.

Homewever I do have to say that it was also a specific occurrence- I generally see a tendency to diversify classes (I try to do that too) even if nothing stops doubling up.

[Ir0ns0ul]

I’m playing a classic Hobgoblin Iron Wizard super focused in battlefield control and recently two new players joined our table. One of them is a War Wizard really dedicated to offense.

We are still learning how find the best synergies and combinations, but our DM is start getting worried.

[Chaosmancer]

Had three wizards in one game. Unfortunately, real-life conspired to whittle them down to a single one who showed up, but they were essentially able to learn 6 spells a level up and there are some nasty "multi-concentration" combos you can pull off.

[Gignere]

Yeah having two wizards sounds great for learning spells from one another, I can see great synergies with an abjuration or diviner with a Bladesinger wizard. Abjurer or diviner can buff the ****e and protect the Bladesinger while the BS uses spirit shroud/or Shadowblade and cut stuff up.

[Yakmala]

The best reason for having multiple wizards is enemy wizards.

Wizard 1: "I counter the spell."

DM: "The enemy wizard counters your counterspell."

Wizard 2: "I counter the counterspell countering our counterspell."

[Valmark]

The best reason for having multiple wizards is enemy wizards.

Wizard 1: "I counter the spell."

DM: "The enemy wizard counters your counterspell."

Wizard 2: "I counter the counterspell countering our counterspell."

Reminds me of when our barbarian was getting Plane Shifted to the Nine Hells by an enemy and our first Counterspeller failed her roll... Then our second passed it.

We were sweating buckets.

[Starman]

2 wizards unlocks so many sick combos. Have fun throwing down Sleet Storm/Sickening Radiance, among a gajillion other killers.

This!

Also, a single Wizard in a party with a Ring of Spell Storing can enable a lot of two wizard combos. Further, two Wizards with a Ring of Spell Storing can enable a lot of three wizard combos. Etc.

[Gignere]

This!

Also, a single Wizard in a party with a Ring of Spell Storing can enable a lot of two wizard combos. Further, two Wizards with a Ring of Spell Storing can enable a lot of three wizard combos. Etc.

Force cage plus sickening radiance + auto fail divination rolls, damn what a nasty combo.

[Starman]

Force cage plus sickening radiance + auto fail divination rolls, damn what a nasty combo.

Wall of Force and Wall of Light comes online even earlier. Concentration spell stacking is very potent.

One of the cooler things a Wizard can do with a Ring of Spell Storing is first cast Create Homunculus. Then give the Homunculus a bat Familiar with the Ring of Spell Storing. The Homunculus can use an action to look through the bat Familiars senses giving the Wizard blindsight that doesn't require an action to use.

Also the Wizard can put a Wall of Force in the Ring of Spell Storing to use on a humanoid with a good amount of hit points. The Homunculus can use the ring to Wall of Force the humanoid while the Wizard casts Magic Jar on the humanoid and transfers hit dice from the Magic Jar'd humanoid to the Homunculus.

Also, you can get a Find Greater Steed for your Homunculus.

[Samayu]

I don't think I have. But then I don't recall a game in the last seven or eight years, where we had two of the same (main) class, though it probably happened. I guess we tend to stay out of each other's way.

[HappyDaze]

I have not seen multiple wizards in a party. I have seen twice seen two clerics, once seen two druids, and once seen two bards. I have also seen a game being set up that would have included three artificers, but I don't think that one actually got up and running.

[Keltest]

I did a one shot where everybody was a wizard once. It turned out that having so many different wizards made spell selection a chore and a half because nobody wanted to overlap but we also all wanted to have certain tools available to us all. So creating characters took a long while.

[Bilbron]

This!

Also, a single Wizard in a party with a Ring of Spell Storing can enable a lot of two wizard combos. Further, two Wizards with a Ring of Spell Storing can enable a lot of three wizard combos. Etc.

10th level Chronurgist with Arcane Abeyance can cast through a Summon to get another concentration slot. I'm 2 levels away, but already have a 3rd level Svirfneblin Spell Gem, so can do 2 spell combos already and it's so sweet. Adding a 3rd gonna get ugly.

[Quietus]

I am in the process of preparing a short, 2-3 session game where the central conceit is that all four players must be wizards. Just to see what happens.

Right now, I know one intends on playing a Nekomancer, another a Chronurgist, and the third is planning on a homebrew cantrip specialist. Fourth has not really bought in just yet.

::Edit:: To note - it's level 6, no intention to level up, with a maximum of 1 level of multiclassing allowed.

[Eldariel]

In my first longer 5e campaign we had two Wizards in the party (started from level 3). Our job split was pretty clear: the other was a War Wizard with basically only damage spells and mine was a Diviner with no damage spells. A near TPK later though the other Wizard quit IC and their player brought in a Monk (and quit after another session).

[Starman]

So basically a 9th level Wizard taking full advantage of a 9th level party could at least in theory defeat Zariel.

[Rara1212]

So basically a 9th level Wizard taking full advantage of a 9th level party could at least in theory defeat Zariel.

Wait, where did Zariel come from?

[ff7hero]

Wait, where did Zariel come from?

I'm not certain, but I think Mount Celestia.

[DeTess]

In a 5e campaign I'm currently playing, We currently have 2 wizards, a sorcerer and a warlock. The sorcerer is a blaster, the warlock is a celestial bladelock and the party healer, and both wizards are geared towards utility and crowd control, but with spells selected to minimize the overlap. It works pretty well, though combat tends to involve a lot of panicked screaming and running around, as we're all pretty fragile.

[Eldariel]

So basically a 9th level Wizard taking full advantage of a 9th level party could at least in theory defeat Zariel.

9th level Wiz abusing Glyph of Warding has a shot solo.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I played a game with two abjuration deep gnome wizards. Great for spell known.
Great for rituals that need to be cast more then ones(alarm and pamtome steed come fo mind).

[elyktsorb]

Played a game with 2 wizards and one of them basically suicided in the first encounter and the other wizard took his spell book. They planned this.

[cutlery]

Whe had two and a half (one was multiclass) in AD&D - non overlapping specialties (and barred schools) made it pretty easy back then.

[SociopathFriend]

I've had a few. Some significantly better than others.

The 2e game involved probably a dozen rotating players that seldom actually met up in-person. There were plenty of of casters in that 'group'. That campaign was objectively the worst I ever played though- endless min-maxing and backstabbing along with people getting private adventures with the DM to get extra loot before the group sessions- (rants for some time).

I had a Pathfinder game where both myself and an uppity kid were both Sorcerers along with a 3rd guy who wasn't around much. Ended up stuffing the kid's soul in a gem and selling him to a Lich.

There's definitely been multiple campaigns in 5e with multiple casters in the party- I specifically remember one with a Sorcerer the DM ruled could Twin-Fireball often boasting he could kill the entire party.
Then the DM at the end of the year allowed us a consequence-free battle royal. The Sorcerer did not win that one- a certain Necromancer Wizard did. :wink:

I'm sure there have been others of various combinations. If you mean specifically more than one Wizard then I would say no just out of not remembering such but if you mean multiple casters then oh yeah- all the time.

[Amdy_vill]

I've been playing this game since 1984. I can honestly say I've never played a game where there were more than one single classed wizards (or magic-users before 2000) in the party. Not once.

I've had dual classed wizards in parties, multiclass wizards in parties, wizards and sorcerers together, but never, ever, more than one single classed wizard.

Isn't that weird?

I was just realizing today I've played in many parties with duplicate classes, but never wizard.

I do realize two single classed wizards can play drastically different styles, so I don't think it would be redundant.


Maybe it's happened to me because I'm usually a player and I just really favor spellchuckers. I'm not sure.

Other than the benefits of friendly wizards scribing spells off each other, are there any other benefits?

I don't think it's weird, mostly as their are some many party combinations posable

[Hal]

Not wizards, but I'm currently running a game with two sorcerers (plus a druid and a cleric) in it.

They hurt me, they really do. Slow + Confusion leads to them dominating my encounters. That, and about a billion saving throws. Guh.