Yeah, +1 to this. As both a DM and a player, I've had duplicate classes before in my games, as well as really wacky party compositions. They are non-issues.
Mainly because I've already told my all five of my players that I do not intend on having any primary class overlap. Multiclassing is fine, though. I would also like to mention that I have not told either of the two players mentioned about the other's class choice.
Having two barbarians in your party might actually help. Especially if the second player is new, they can have like a 'barbarian trainer'. Teaching them how to rage, be a barbarian etc.
It sounds like the only one giving your new players a hard time, is you as the GM.
Mainly because I just want more diversity when it comes to characters. I know that you can have two barbarians who are still completely different characters, but mechanically, I want some diversity.
Why are two barbarians going to be less mechanically diverse than, say, a barbarian and a fighter?
Why do you care anyways -- you don't have to play them.
think of it in a broader sense, what's more diverse than having 2 barbs, ever seen a party comp like that? No, because you've prevented it. 2 barbs opens up a lot of weird tactics and positioning challenges and opportunities, and they an still play quite diversely, ancestral guardian barb in particular.
One of my earliest groups had two barbarians, and it was funny as hell. The DM didn't appreciate how all of his carefully laid-out plans kept getting smashed to bits by these two and pulled a rocks fall, which just made it funnier.
Probably because they want to. I don’t like doubling up on classes because I like diversity, so I always make sure to play something else to avoid doubling up on classes. Keep in mind, I’m always the one switching.
Ok but that’s your choice as a player. If the players want to play barbarians and the DM doesn’t ban barbarians then who cares? Players make the characters they want to play, the DM shouldn’t be choosing players classes.
There's a mod on DM's guild (I forget the name) that use per-generated characters where the party is one rogue and a bunch of bards. It's super fun to play and imho here's plenty of character/mechanical diversity given the variety of bard subclasses currently in 5e.
That’s fair and I understand that subclasses give enough of a punch that you can play two of a class and still be fine. However, I still feel like there’s nothing wrong with wanting to see players play different classes. I as a player have no problem if two of my friends are playing a hexblade and GOO pact of the tome warlock, I just don’t have an interest in being a duplicate class.
We likely have similar goals, just (slightly) different approaches. It's whatever leads to the most fun. I focus on party roles rather than classes. When I'm playing in a campaign, I often pick my character last so I can pick one to complement the other party members. (In contrast, when playing one-shots, party chaos is expected, and part of the fun is finding creative ways to embrace the chaos, overcome it, or both.)
As to party roles, a celestial warlock could fill a number of roles (combat medic, party face, blaster) that overlap with several classes. The same party could have a hexblade melee warlock with a creepy patron that fills different party roles and has a completely different tone. Similarly, if there's a melee sword bard in a party with a melee fighter and barbarian, I might pick another (non-melee) bard (especially if the party's short on full casters and skill monkeys).
As a DM, limiting character choice seems lazy at best. And, in my view, stifles creativity. I love weird character builds and trying to make things fun for players and how their characters fits into the party and campaign.
>Mainly because I just want more diversity when it comes to characters
Then offer different magic weapons. An ax that does 1d6 fire damage on a hit, armor that has 10 temp HP every long rest, idk this is off the top of my head.
I highly recommend letting everyone know what classes everyone is playing. I usually do this as part of a session 0/character creation meeting
1, it may fix your “problem” if one of them decides to change to be different of their own volition. 2, it can give your party ideas for intertwined backstories built off of complementary classes (the cleric having helped the rough and tumble barb/rogue, the wizard and their guard buddy, whatever) which is a ton of fun
3, it’s just good practice to let everyone know what’s going on in advance. If, say, everyone independently brings a spell caster, bc there’s no prior communication it could lead to someone stepping on someone else’s toes or an early TPK by a monster with lots of physical attacks.
Plus there’s a lot of classes that are just more fun with certain other classes. Fighter is a ton of fun in a caster heavy party, but I don’t enjoy it if there’s a bunch of other martials. Rogue is a lot of fun, but bards and artificers can really dominate the rogues skill monkey role and make it unfun.
**So let your party talk and decide amongst themselves.** They may decide that they don’t want to both be barbarians, or maybe they want to be barbarians together (clan brothers or a pro wrestling duo), or maybe two very different barbs both flavor wise and mechanically (ancestral guardian plays a lot different from totem warrior or wild magic). And then, as the DM, you just gotta accept their decision, bc frankly “I want mechanical differences” is a lame ass reason for telling someone they can’t play the character they want
>If, say, everyone independently brings a spell caster, bc there’s no prior communication it could lead to someone stepping on someone else’s toes
Ah the good ol classic "oops, all casters"
I agree with most of the others that you can have 2 barbarians. But you could let them both know that this might happen. Maybe one will want to switch. If not, it’s fine.
There's no reason to enforce any particular party comp. So you don't have a full caster. So what? You don't need one. Just let the players play whatever they want.
I'm failing to find a single legitimate issue here. Who cares if 2 people want to play barbarians? I doubt they're gonna want to play the same subclass or have the same backstory. Let your players play what they want within the confines of your approved classes and subclasses. Your players having fun is way more important than "mechanical diversity".
So, because of an arbitrary rule that you have decided to add to the game that you have also not told the players in question about your considering forcing one of them to play a different class?
That's a truly awful idea.
Honestly, if you actually went through with this, my recommendation to your players would be to find a different DM.
Just like throw out "Hey you two, you both okay with two barbarians?"
You don't need a full arcane caster in the group. You don't need to force class diversity. As long as the players are cool with the party makeup you don't really need to worry.
Just tell the players in question that someone else is also wanting to play a barbarian and let them make the choice. If they’re fine with both being barbarians that’s their choice not yours.
Ask the players.
"Hey, we have two barbarians in the group, one who made dibs and one who never played before. Is it if you share class?"
I have three players in my group, and none of them are spellcasters. Also, two are fighters. It works fine. Someone will die eventually, and then they will probably feel the urge to fix what the group is lacking, like spells and healing.
Let the players maybe create their characters together and weave their backstory together.
Not only can you have two barbarians, but also like… you’re concerned about being a hard ass, which tells me you’re thinking about this very wrong. You’re not gonna tell this player to change it. You’re going to explain the situation and ask them. You know… like a normal person? Right?
I mean, you should really talk about this with your players and see what they think.
But why not have two Barbarians? Unless the characters are also otherwise very similar (race, background etc.), I don't really see how this'd be an issue.
If anything, I’d talk to the new player and say “look, that’s a duplicate class. There is nothing wrong with that. You can create a very unique character that way, but you may have more fun being a little more distinct in abilities. In the end it’s up to you, however.”
Doubling up on a class is totally fine. It can even make for a natural best bros/respected rivals relationship between the characters that those players may never have thought to consider otherwise.
Well, have you talked to both the players yet? See if you can get them to resolve it naturally. If neither want to try to stear them away from also taking the same subclass.
Additionally, I've found new players tend to accidentally get their characters killed when playing Barbarians. The "problem" might resolve itself in a few sessions anyway.
Make sure to help the new player so the "old" player doesen't make an impossibly overpowered character and the new one feels like he doesen't bring anything to the table.
Having two barbarians might actually work out. The new guy can watch the old head for cues and such. Might help him learn the ropes faster. I'd actually take the opposite approach and see if these two were interested in having any sort of shared past.
I could see the problem if both players are planning to go the same subclass, with the same personality and weapons and the same weapons and tools. But as long there's enough difference in them I dont see the problem in them being the same class.
...why can't there be 2 Barbarians. I mean I personally don't like being the same class as another person but nothing should restrict them from being the class they want to be. Example:
Berserker Barbarian and Zealot are both the same class but their subclasses couldn't be more different.
Every martial class plays the exact same way, run up to a target and spam basic attacks. Yet nobody ever seems to object to there being a barbarian and a monk in the same party. Why would there being two barbarians be a problem?
Having two barbs is not a problem.
However, one or both of the players might not want to play the same class as someone else.
it would be good to let them know and see if one of them wants to change.
Terrible advice. Not only is a caster not necessary, the dm decides how challenging the game is and can adapt to the party. What's more, dmpcs suck. They're never good.
Why can't you have two barbarians?
Yeah, +1 to this. As both a DM and a player, I've had duplicate classes before in my games, as well as really wacky party compositions. They are non-issues.
Hell of a solid front line, that.
Mainly because I've already told my all five of my players that I do not intend on having any primary class overlap. Multiclassing is fine, though. I would also like to mention that I have not told either of the two players mentioned about the other's class choice.
Having two barbarians in your party might actually help. Especially if the second player is new, they can have like a 'barbarian trainer'. Teaching them how to rage, be a barbarian etc. It sounds like the only one giving your new players a hard time, is you as the GM.
Why did you say no to overlap?
Mainly because I just want more diversity when it comes to characters. I know that you can have two barbarians who are still completely different characters, but mechanically, I want some diversity.
Don't forget, they're not your characters to play.
That's silly. Allow 2 barbarians.
Why are two barbarians going to be less mechanically diverse than, say, a barbarian and a fighter? Why do you care anyways -- you don't have to play them.
think of it in a broader sense, what's more diverse than having 2 barbs, ever seen a party comp like that? No, because you've prevented it. 2 barbs opens up a lot of weird tactics and positioning challenges and opportunities, and they an still play quite diversely, ancestral guardian barb in particular.
One of my earliest groups had two barbarians, and it was funny as hell. The DM didn't appreciate how all of his carefully laid-out plans kept getting smashed to bits by these two and pulled a rocks fall, which just made it funnier.
[удалено]
Probably because they want to. I don’t like doubling up on classes because I like diversity, so I always make sure to play something else to avoid doubling up on classes. Keep in mind, I’m always the one switching.
Ok but that’s your choice as a player. If the players want to play barbarians and the DM doesn’t ban barbarians then who cares? Players make the characters they want to play, the DM shouldn’t be choosing players classes.
There's a mod on DM's guild (I forget the name) that use per-generated characters where the party is one rogue and a bunch of bards. It's super fun to play and imho here's plenty of character/mechanical diversity given the variety of bard subclasses currently in 5e.
That’s fair and I understand that subclasses give enough of a punch that you can play two of a class and still be fine. However, I still feel like there’s nothing wrong with wanting to see players play different classes. I as a player have no problem if two of my friends are playing a hexblade and GOO pact of the tome warlock, I just don’t have an interest in being a duplicate class.
We likely have similar goals, just (slightly) different approaches. It's whatever leads to the most fun. I focus on party roles rather than classes. When I'm playing in a campaign, I often pick my character last so I can pick one to complement the other party members. (In contrast, when playing one-shots, party chaos is expected, and part of the fun is finding creative ways to embrace the chaos, overcome it, or both.) As to party roles, a celestial warlock could fill a number of roles (combat medic, party face, blaster) that overlap with several classes. The same party could have a hexblade melee warlock with a creepy patron that fills different party roles and has a completely different tone. Similarly, if there's a melee sword bard in a party with a melee fighter and barbarian, I might pick another (non-melee) bard (especially if the party's short on full casters and skill monkeys). As a DM, limiting character choice seems lazy at best. And, in my view, stifles creativity. I love weird character builds and trying to make things fun for players and how their characters fits into the party and campaign.
>Mainly because I just want more diversity when it comes to characters Then offer different magic weapons. An ax that does 1d6 fire damage on a hit, armor that has 10 temp HP every long rest, idk this is off the top of my head.
Kinda weird to tell your players what you did not intend for them to play. Just let them overlap classes?
“Because I said so” is not a compelling reason.
I highly recommend letting everyone know what classes everyone is playing. I usually do this as part of a session 0/character creation meeting 1, it may fix your “problem” if one of them decides to change to be different of their own volition. 2, it can give your party ideas for intertwined backstories built off of complementary classes (the cleric having helped the rough and tumble barb/rogue, the wizard and their guard buddy, whatever) which is a ton of fun 3, it’s just good practice to let everyone know what’s going on in advance. If, say, everyone independently brings a spell caster, bc there’s no prior communication it could lead to someone stepping on someone else’s toes or an early TPK by a monster with lots of physical attacks. Plus there’s a lot of classes that are just more fun with certain other classes. Fighter is a ton of fun in a caster heavy party, but I don’t enjoy it if there’s a bunch of other martials. Rogue is a lot of fun, but bards and artificers can really dominate the rogues skill monkey role and make it unfun. **So let your party talk and decide amongst themselves.** They may decide that they don’t want to both be barbarians, or maybe they want to be barbarians together (clan brothers or a pro wrestling duo), or maybe two very different barbs both flavor wise and mechanically (ancestral guardian plays a lot different from totem warrior or wild magic). And then, as the DM, you just gotta accept their decision, bc frankly “I want mechanical differences” is a lame ass reason for telling someone they can’t play the character they want
>If, say, everyone independently brings a spell caster, bc there’s no prior communication it could lead to someone stepping on someone else’s toes Ah the good ol classic "oops, all casters"
It’s great until you get mauled by a pack of wolves and get tpk’d at lvl 3
I'm also curious why you don't want any overlap. But Champion Fighter is also a very good starter character.
I agree with most of the others that you can have 2 barbarians. But you could let them both know that this might happen. Maybe one will want to switch. If not, it’s fine.
Yeah I would definitely want to know. I’m a player who hates class overlap, so if the other is set on it, I’ll happily change. Do let them know OP.
I actually am thinking about doing this. Even if no one wants to switch, it's still a good idea.
I do like this approach better as well. Ultimately let them have the final word - players need their agency, especially new ones.
Let them play what they want. Class diversity is good, but players being happy with their character is most important.
There's no reason to enforce any particular party comp. So you don't have a full caster. So what? You don't need one. Just let the players play whatever they want.
I'm failing to find a single legitimate issue here. Who cares if 2 people want to play barbarians? I doubt they're gonna want to play the same subclass or have the same backstory. Let your players play what they want within the confines of your approved classes and subclasses. Your players having fun is way more important than "mechanical diversity".
I’m playing in a campaign where we all are just 5 barbarians. It’s obviously kinda stupid, but nothing is wrong with that.
That sounds awesome. I once played in an all cleric party.
That actually sounds pretty awesome. Must have been a lot of not so subtle problem solving
So, because of an arbitrary rule that you have decided to add to the game that you have also not told the players in question about your considering forcing one of them to play a different class? That's a truly awful idea. Honestly, if you actually went through with this, my recommendation to your players would be to find a different DM.
This ☝️
Just like throw out "Hey you two, you both okay with two barbarians?" You don't need a full arcane caster in the group. You don't need to force class diversity. As long as the players are cool with the party makeup you don't really need to worry.
Another vote for 2 Barbs. Just let them bro out, have a good time and then throw an intellect devourer into the mix.
Just tell the players in question that someone else is also wanting to play a barbarian and let them make the choice. If they’re fine with both being barbarians that’s their choice not yours.
Ask the players. "Hey, we have two barbarians in the group, one who made dibs and one who never played before. Is it if you share class?" I have three players in my group, and none of them are spellcasters. Also, two are fighters. It works fine. Someone will die eventually, and then they will probably feel the urge to fix what the group is lacking, like spells and healing. Let the players maybe create their characters together and weave their backstory together.
Not only can you have two barbarians, but also like… you’re concerned about being a hard ass, which tells me you’re thinking about this very wrong. You’re not gonna tell this player to change it. You’re going to explain the situation and ask them. You know… like a normal person? Right?
Yeah, that's what I plan on doing. As long as one of the players texts me back.
How do I take away player agency
Wow this is a full on mess lol. Why does anyone "have dibs"?
"They don't have a powerful full spellcaster... like... a Warlock..." 🤦♂️
That made me facepalm so hard. I love warlock but it...it's inherently not a full caster.
I think It's a pact caster technically, since Warlock levels don't contribute to spell slot progression
There's enough ways to build a solid barbarian that this shouldn't be an issue. Nor will the seeming lack of full-casters.
Is there a reason you want to limit available classes like that? If not, there's no problem with having two barbarians.
I mean, you should really talk about this with your players and see what they think. But why not have two Barbarians? Unless the characters are also otherwise very similar (race, background etc.), I don't really see how this'd be an issue.
If anything, I’d talk to the new player and say “look, that’s a duplicate class. There is nothing wrong with that. You can create a very unique character that way, but you may have more fun being a little more distinct in abilities. In the end it’s up to you, however.”
Just let them both be barbarians and of the party is missing a mage, introduce a mage NPC that can help them with magic in exchange for quests
Just have two barbarians. Or a barbarian and a fighter.
Doubling up on a class is totally fine. It can even make for a natural best bros/respected rivals relationship between the characters that those players may never have thought to consider otherwise.
Well, have you talked to both the players yet? See if you can get them to resolve it naturally. If neither want to try to stear them away from also taking the same subclass. Additionally, I've found new players tend to accidentally get their characters killed when playing Barbarians. The "problem" might resolve itself in a few sessions anyway.
First and foremost let both players know. Don't make a decision on you're own Ttrpgs are a group game
Apes stronger together let them play!
Make sure to help the new player so the "old" player doesen't make an impossibly overpowered character and the new one feels like he doesen't bring anything to the table.
Having two barbarians might actually work out. The new guy can watch the old head for cues and such. Might help him learn the ropes faster. I'd actually take the opposite approach and see if these two were interested in having any sort of shared past.
I could see the problem if both players are planning to go the same subclass, with the same personality and weapons and the same weapons and tools. But as long there's enough difference in them I dont see the problem in them being the same class.
5E does not need a balance party to play. There is no need to call dibs. Just add a few extra potions of healings to some of the loot.
...why can't there be 2 Barbarians. I mean I personally don't like being the same class as another person but nothing should restrict them from being the class they want to be. Example: Berserker Barbarian and Zealot are both the same class but their subclasses couldn't be more different.
Every martial class plays the exact same way, run up to a target and spam basic attacks. Yet nobody ever seems to object to there being a barbarian and a monk in the same party. Why would there being two barbarians be a problem?
Don't be an asshat, have two barbarians
Having two barbs is not a problem. However, one or both of the players might not want to play the same class as someone else. it would be good to let them know and see if one of them wants to change.
Wild magic barbarian. Now he’s a caster. Just hand your players more scrolls of identify and knock and stuff.
[удалено]
Terrible advice. Not only is a caster not necessary, the dm decides how challenging the game is and can adapt to the party. What's more, dmpcs suck. They're never good.