I have a few friends asking me to start a new campaign so I'm very open-minded as to where they go and what they do right now.
However, two of the players like the idea of playing siblings with characters built to work well together in combat somehow (again, no details yet). The other two players are more freewheeling so they don't have solid concepts yet and one has even said that he's willing to run whatever the party might need to fill a gap like a tank or a caster.
My concern is that the campaign will devolve into the 'those two and then everyone else' show with the two siblings doing most of the heavy lifting in combat and the rest joining in as they can. I'm afraid the two outfielders are going to miss that familial connection and get left behind. Does anyone have any ideas how to prevent this or avoid it? I want everyone to have fun not just the siblings with hangers-on.
I have a few friends asking me to start a new campaign so I'm very open-minded as to where they go and what they do right now.
However, two of the players like the idea of playing siblings with characters built to work well together in combat somehow (again, no details yet). The other two players are more freewheeling so they don't have solid concepts yet and one has even said that he's willing to run whatever the party might need to fill a gap like a tank or a caster.
My concern is that the campaign will devolve into the 'those two and then everyone else' show with the two siblings doing most of the heavy lifting in combat and the rest joining in as they can. I'm afraid the two outfielders are going to miss that familial connection and get left behind. Does anyone have any ideas how to prevent this or avoid it? I want everyone to have fun not just the siblings with hangers-on.
I would talk to everyone about your concerns and what issues you can see coming up in the game. The idea is to see if your concerns are warranted or if the group already has a plan on how the four will be playing the game. If the group has not thought about how the interaction or roleplay will work out, then that is the time to work out those finer details so that it does not become the siblings' show with a special guest-starring 'the others'.
Provided that this is two separate players with a shared backstory, then it's probably fine. One person playing a pair is a no-no, but having interconnected backstories is always a good thing. As long as they stick to official content, the worst thing they can do is making two characters who compliment one another perfectly. Throw them some abilities which move one of them or restrain one and their combo plans will fall apart. It's not going to be that bad! You can paralyze, slow, freeze, petrity, frighten, or simply knock prone one of them and they might end up separating.
I would, however, recommend talking to them about not making characters with a shared "lone wolf" or "us against the world" mentality - make sure that they are friendly with the rest of the party, and have a good reason to work with them.
If the characters were built right, and everyone was on board with the idea, then the siblings could do the heavy lifting in combat - but the other PCs would be the ones doing the heavy lifting in social and exploration encounters. It would definitely be an interesting way to play, but you'd have to be very careful to allow enough time for the others to shine. In my mind, that probably makes it not worth it, but I still think it could be done. Not necessarily should, but could.
The main thing, as others have said, is that you and the players all communicate and make sure everyone's good with it. You could check in with everyone periodically as the campaign progresses, too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Character classes are designed to run independently. The problem with running a pair of characters who have supportive abilities is that when they use those abilities, the effects can only be as powerful as... a standard class. Because they each get one turn, and each of them needs, on their turn, to have the power level of a single, standard character.
This in turn means that when they are not using their abilities, they are required to be weaker than a standard character. If you explain this to the players, then I doubt that they'll go for it. I suspect that they envisage the two characters working together to produce bigger effects than their power level should equate. They'll probably see it as "but it only happens when we work together, which is what our roleplay is all about." To which you'll point out that they will be able to work together in practically every encounter in the game, because it's very rare that the party splits.
One possible way to do this is to have one character operate as a battery, and the other a power release; but this then means one character does nothing, basically in every encounter, while the other has the equivalent power of 2 turns.
Fortunately, you can get the desired effect by using standard classes!
I have played in a campaign as one of a pair of brothers. My character was an Eldritch Knight built purely to tank; shield, protection from evil and good, warding wind, absorb elements, plate armour and an adamantine shield. He was practically unhittable and could lock enemies down with booming blade and I was planning to take Sentinel feat, though the campaign collapsed before we got there. His backstory was that he wanted to be a paladin, but his Charisma of 9 made it impossible. My 'brother' played a Light Cleric, and had Constitution 7 but Intelligence 17 and Wisdom 18 (we rolled our stats and kept them in order). So the cleric was pretty powerful and smart, but with a -2 CON modifier he'd drop to practically a gust of wind most of the time. My EK would ignore the best tactics to always body-block for his brother, who would in turn keep me up and tanking. So together, they overcame each other's weaknesses and would work as a unit.
I think that this is the kind of gameplay that your players are after. It's best if there's conflict between them as well. Here are some other options:
Beefy fighter and sickly mage - Caramon and Raistlin from Dragonlance
Wild Magic Barbarian and Wild Magic Sorcerer - both touched by the same wild power
Thief Rogue and Order domain Cleric - a balance between chaos and order
Druid (any) and Artificer (any) - one gifted to work with nature, the other to work with machines
Two clerics following opposite aspects of a single deity - e.g. the dark face of the moon (Death domain) and the light side of the moon (light domain). It's the same god, just different facets
Hopefully some of those ideas work for you - make it all about opposite abilities and that way they'll complement one another without needing additional powers.
One thing you could consider is giving them both the same custom Feat, e.g.:
Blood Bond of Arkanor - custom feat
If you are within 15 feet of another creature that has the Blood Bond of Arkanor, when that creature suffers damage you may choose to take half the damage yourself instead. After using this ability you must take a long rest before you can use it again. At 8th level you may use it twice before taking a long rest, 3 times at level 13, and 4 times at level 18.
I wouldn’t worry about it at all. As others have said, they still only get one turn each per round. There will be plenty for the other characters to do. And if these two are all combat all the time, that still leaves two other pillars for the other players. If it really starts getting annoying, cast hold person on one of the two and watch the other flounder when left alone. Not every time, just once in a while to keep them honest.
And really, how optimized can they be? I can’t imagine how two characters, no matter how well built to synergize, can by themselves beat an encounter designed for four characters.
You could always tie the others players into the backstory. The young person that they grew up with was called to the priesthood and is just recently back from training (with a starting quest). The other player starts out as a DEX fighter and then can morph into whatever class the party may need. Tie that PC into the group as the person that was likable but needed direction. They were easily swayed by others influence. Someone that was "always there" but in the background. Have them step up to become the leader.
Everyone comes from the same village and knows each other from growing up. One parent owns the tavern; another the general store, the siblings come from a more financially challenged part of the community (farming, low level merchant, mining) and need to seek their fortune. The siblings convince the others to leave town to fulfill the cleric's quest- just this once. They all leave on an adventure and come back to the village in ruin with a few clues as to its destruction. Game on!
I reckon a big question is whether you're going for combat-heavy or social interaction-heavy? If the former, no problems, if the latter then that's where more thought it useful.
Provided that this is two separate players with a shared backstory, then it's probably fine. One person playing a pair is a no-no, but having interconnected backstories is always a good thing. As long as they stick to official content, the worst thing they can do is making two characters who compliment one another perfectly. Throw them some abilities which move one of them or restrain one and their combo plans will fall apart. It's not going to be that bad! You can paralyze, slow, freeze, petrity, frighten, or simply knock prone one of them and they might end up separating.
I would, however, recommend talking to them about not making characters with a shared "lone wolf" or "us against the world" mentality - make sure that they are friendly with the rest of the party, and have a good reason to work with them.
I reckon that's the main question to ask for social interactions as well - do the two characters have abilities that not only compliment each other, but will also lead to some friction?
One way to do this is to ensure the siblings have different backstories, vs "we grew up together, lived together, now fight together". For example, what if younger Sibling X was kidnapped as a teenager, escaped and learned to survive on their own in the wild, while older Sibling Y searched for them and failed, but in doing so gained a bunch of political contacts? You can then have the rugged survivalist vs polished socialite, authority-disdaining vs authority-leaning, or even pragmatist vs guilt-ridden idealist.
I'm sure there's plenty other examples, but ensuring the backstories are different seems a good way to make them different enough, and may also help them empathise with other PCs (eg Character Z is also a rugged survivalist).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“And what would humans be without love?" RARE, said Death. Terry Pratchett, Sourcery
There's also a possibility that you're reading too much into the players' intentions. They might just want to play a fun complementary duo and aren't planning to optimize or dominate at all. As it stands, you don't have much information, so I agree that it's wise to approach the players themselves and ask, "What did you have in mind for your siblings?"
On a personal note, I've done this build. After my friend and I lost our PCs in an explosion, we rolled up aasimar twins with a yin-yang theme. I played a pacifist druid with severe social anxiety, and my twin was a charming, bookish barbarian. He was Fallen, I was Protector. Our class choices and combat abilities were intended to fill party gaps, but also highlight the theme of being opposites. And yes, the DM separated us from time to time, which made for entertaining RP opportunities.
As long as the players understand they're two members of a bigger team, there shouldn't be too much trouble. Having backstory ties doesn't necessarily mean they'll get Main Character Syndrome and steal the spotlight from everyone else.
Sounds like a really good bunch of players to me! I don't think you will have any problems. For combat, use numbers/challenge as your equaliser. For eg: Your dynamic duo might take on two or three "heavies", while the rest of the party deal with their slightly weaker companions. The siblings might create a fighting "distraction" while your other members sneak around/into a location for intelligence gathering or to effect a rescue. If your players are fair-minded you should actually find this style of gameplay rewarding and good to DM:
Another possibility: If the siblings are especially close, you can create both positives and negatives from this. A small bonus to skill checks when they are acting together, balanced by shared negative modifiers if one or other is injured, in pain or emotionally challenged. If separated for any length of time, they could both find themselves missing the other and a small general negative modifier follows.
I'd have the sibling be rogues who enable each others sneak attacks when they're on the same opponent. From there you probably got room for another front-liner, maybe actual martial, and some sort of caster. There's an issue I've seen where players will sometimes want a "special" derived from background like sibling hood, but don't want to do any of the lifting of reading the rules to figure out how to synergies class features to reflect that. I think the rogue option requires the least though from the DM, and least coaching to the players who want to do this but aren't really researching the possibilities within the rules.
Help, as its not talked about a lot, I feel is an underutilized action. If they or you think Help eats up too much of a character's action economy, maybe look at the Hobgoblin of the Feywild (I don't know yet if this is the version in MMM, but it's in the Heroes of the Feywild UA) and build a feat out of the Fey Hobgoblin's hospitality trait. If you do this of course, give the other two characters a free feat too.
As far as the dynamic duo, or Wonder Twins stealing the plot, that's sort of on the DM. Just because the players can explain the characters rogue synergy as derived from their sibling status, you don't have to make the game about their relationship. The relationship may inform the way they play their characters, and that's fine for motivation in the moment and long term, but that in no way obligates you to cater to their background over the potential that may develop within the more flexible players' characters. I guess, when you propose a campaign wrapped around one idea or theme, I think I would consider two characters background and relationship the theme of the campaign at all. The relationship informs those characters actions, but there's no need to make the campaign about the relationship. Rather, it's sorta on the DM's early sessions to give space to the not as specifically designed character concepts to explore what they're about, and from there you might have campaign themes, though as a DM I don't usually use player backgrounds for themes, the backgrounds are tools for the player to determine how the character may act when faced with the themes of the campaign.
I'd have the sibling be rogues who enable each others sneak attacks when they're on the same opponent. From there you probably got room for another front-liner, maybe actual martial, and some sort of caster. There's an issue I've seen where players will sometimes want a "special" derived from background like sibling hood, but don't want to do any of the lifting of reading the rules to figure out how to synergies class features to reflect that. I think the rogue option requires the least though from the DM, and least coaching to the players who want to do this but aren't really researching the possibilities within the rules.
I would add 3 levels of Battle Master to both just for Commander's Strike. Precision Attack and Ambush would be other fitting and effective Maneuvers. Going Assassin on both would let them both allow each other large amounts of damage in the first round, especially if they had Ambush. They would be limited in how much they could do that, though, so I don't think it would create too much of an imbalance. But this duo is definitely a powerful one, so it wouldn't be good to do if the other players weren't also effectively built.
I would also like to mention that doing this would require at least one, if not both, of the other players to be spellcasters, since this duo would be nearly (if not entirely) devoid of magic. If I were to build the rest of this party (for synergy), I'd probably go with a Paladin for tanking and divine casting, as well as social interaction, and then probably a Wizard for arcane magic (mainly support, but also effective magical damage). You would also do well with a Cleric (tanking/divine magic) and a Sorcerer (social interaction/arcane casting), and both of those would be good at support (Twinned haste, anyone?). In short, the others need to be able to cover social stuff and support, and at least one should be a full caster.
Man, I feel like I should be writing this in the Tips & Tactics board. Oh well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Sounds like a great group to play with, planning backstories and characters to have a solid story of their own to bring into your world. My own group is prepping characters for a new campaign our DM has been planning and my daughter and I are playing characters who know each other when the party forms. We've been friends for a while, both searching for that "thing" we were meant to do. Some grand adventure. Our other players are making characters who will be new to us (and each other) but ironically, be the ideal fit for our party. We are all chatting a bit collaboratively, to try and bring the most rounded group we can, while having a combination of newcomers joining an established duo.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, but it is something worth noting in session 0 that you don't want this to turn into the twins show or something similar. It's possible (likely?) they have no intent of being the spotlight, but more a collective part of a bigger team. You may find them pushing one of the other players story to the forefront, coming in as helpers who want to assist others who maybe DON'T have a sibling to help them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a few friends asking me to start a new campaign so I'm very open-minded as to where they go and what they do right now.
However, two of the players like the idea of playing siblings with characters built to work well together in combat somehow (again, no details yet). The other two players are more freewheeling so they don't have solid concepts yet and one has even said that he's willing to run whatever the party might need to fill a gap like a tank or a caster.
My concern is that the campaign will devolve into the 'those two and then everyone else' show with the two siblings doing most of the heavy lifting in combat and the rest joining in as they can. I'm afraid the two outfielders are going to miss that familial connection and get left behind. Does anyone have any ideas how to prevent this or avoid it? I want everyone to have fun not just the siblings with hangers-on.
I would talk to everyone about your concerns and what issues you can see coming up in the game. The idea is to see if your concerns are warranted or if the group already has a plan on how the four will be playing the game. If the group has not thought about how the interaction or roleplay will work out, then that is the time to work out those finer details so that it does not become the siblings' show with a special guest-starring 'the others'.
Provided that this is two separate players with a shared backstory, then it's probably fine. One person playing a pair is a no-no, but having interconnected backstories is always a good thing. As long as they stick to official content, the worst thing they can do is making two characters who compliment one another perfectly. Throw them some abilities which move one of them or restrain one and their combo plans will fall apart. It's not going to be that bad! You can paralyze, slow, freeze, petrity, frighten, or simply knock prone one of them and they might end up separating.
I would, however, recommend talking to them about not making characters with a shared "lone wolf" or "us against the world" mentality - make sure that they are friendly with the rest of the party, and have a good reason to work with them.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
If the characters were built right, and everyone was on board with the idea, then the siblings could do the heavy lifting in combat - but the other PCs would be the ones doing the heavy lifting in social and exploration encounters. It would definitely be an interesting way to play, but you'd have to be very careful to allow enough time for the others to shine. In my mind, that probably makes it not worth it, but I still think it could be done. Not necessarily should, but could.
The main thing, as others have said, is that you and the players all communicate and make sure everyone's good with it. You could check in with everyone periodically as the campaign progresses, too.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Character classes are designed to run independently. The problem with running a pair of characters who have supportive abilities is that when they use those abilities, the effects can only be as powerful as... a standard class. Because they each get one turn, and each of them needs, on their turn, to have the power level of a single, standard character.
This in turn means that when they are not using their abilities, they are required to be weaker than a standard character. If you explain this to the players, then I doubt that they'll go for it. I suspect that they envisage the two characters working together to produce bigger effects than their power level should equate. They'll probably see it as "but it only happens when we work together, which is what our roleplay is all about." To which you'll point out that they will be able to work together in practically every encounter in the game, because it's very rare that the party splits.
One possible way to do this is to have one character operate as a battery, and the other a power release; but this then means one character does nothing, basically in every encounter, while the other has the equivalent power of 2 turns.
Fortunately, you can get the desired effect by using standard classes!
I have played in a campaign as one of a pair of brothers. My character was an Eldritch Knight built purely to tank; shield, protection from evil and good, warding wind, absorb elements, plate armour and an adamantine shield. He was practically unhittable and could lock enemies down with booming blade and I was planning to take Sentinel feat, though the campaign collapsed before we got there. His backstory was that he wanted to be a paladin, but his Charisma of 9 made it impossible. My 'brother' played a Light Cleric, and had Constitution 7 but Intelligence 17 and Wisdom 18 (we rolled our stats and kept them in order). So the cleric was pretty powerful and smart, but with a -2 CON modifier he'd drop to practically a gust of wind most of the time. My EK would ignore the best tactics to always body-block for his brother, who would in turn keep me up and tanking. So together, they overcame each other's weaknesses and would work as a unit.
I think that this is the kind of gameplay that your players are after. It's best if there's conflict between them as well. Here are some other options:
Hopefully some of those ideas work for you - make it all about opposite abilities and that way they'll complement one another without needing additional powers.
One thing you could consider is giving them both the same custom Feat, e.g.:
I wouldn’t worry about it at all. As others have said, they still only get one turn each per round. There will be plenty for the other characters to do. And if these two are all combat all the time, that still leaves two other pillars for the other players. If it really starts getting annoying, cast hold person on one of the two and watch the other flounder when left alone. Not every time, just once in a while to keep them honest.
And really, how optimized can they be? I can’t imagine how two characters, no matter how well built to synergize, can by themselves beat an encounter designed for four characters.
You could always tie the others players into the backstory. The young person that they grew up with was called to the priesthood and is just recently back from training (with a starting quest). The other player starts out as a DEX fighter and then can morph into whatever class the party may need. Tie that PC into the group as the person that was likable but needed direction. They were easily swayed by others influence. Someone that was "always there" but in the background. Have them step up to become the leader.
Everyone comes from the same village and knows each other from growing up. One parent owns the tavern; another the general store, the siblings come from a more financially challenged part of the community (farming, low level merchant, mining) and need to seek their fortune. The siblings convince the others to leave town to fulfill the cleric's quest- just this once. They all leave on an adventure and come back to the village in ruin with a few clues as to its destruction. Game on!
I reckon a big question is whether you're going for combat-heavy or social interaction-heavy? If the former, no problems, if the latter then that's where more thought it useful.
I reckon that's the main question to ask for social interactions as well - do the two characters have abilities that not only compliment each other, but will also lead to some friction?
One way to do this is to ensure the siblings have different backstories, vs "we grew up together, lived together, now fight together". For example, what if younger Sibling X was kidnapped as a teenager, escaped and learned to survive on their own in the wild, while older Sibling Y searched for them and failed, but in doing so gained a bunch of political contacts? You can then have the rugged survivalist vs polished socialite, authority-disdaining vs authority-leaning, or even pragmatist vs guilt-ridden idealist.
I'm sure there's plenty other examples, but ensuring the backstories are different seems a good way to make them different enough, and may also help them empathise with other PCs (eg Character Z is also a rugged survivalist).
“And what would humans be without love?"
RARE, said Death.
Terry Pratchett, Sourcery
There's also a possibility that you're reading too much into the players' intentions. They might just want to play a fun complementary duo and aren't planning to optimize or dominate at all. As it stands, you don't have much information, so I agree that it's wise to approach the players themselves and ask, "What did you have in mind for your siblings?"
On a personal note, I've done this build. After my friend and I lost our PCs in an explosion, we rolled up aasimar twins with a yin-yang theme. I played a pacifist druid with severe social anxiety, and my twin was a charming, bookish barbarian. He was Fallen, I was Protector. Our class choices and combat abilities were intended to fill party gaps, but also highlight the theme of being opposites. And yes, the DM separated us from time to time, which made for entertaining RP opportunities.
As long as the players understand they're two members of a bigger team, there shouldn't be too much trouble. Having backstory ties doesn't necessarily mean they'll get Main Character Syndrome and steal the spotlight from everyone else.
Sounds like a really good bunch of players to me! I don't think you will have any problems. For combat, use numbers/challenge as your equaliser. For eg: Your dynamic duo might take on two or three "heavies", while the rest of the party deal with their slightly weaker companions. The siblings might create a fighting "distraction" while your other members sneak around/into a location for intelligence gathering or to effect a rescue. If your players are fair-minded you should actually find this style of gameplay rewarding and good to DM:
Another possibility: If the siblings are especially close, you can create both positives and negatives from this. A small bonus to skill checks when they are acting together, balanced by shared negative modifiers if one or other is injured, in pain or emotionally challenged. If separated for any length of time, they could both find themselves missing the other and a small general negative modifier follows.
Compulsive homebrew creator and GM!
Feel free to check out my Period Fantasy novella: Storm on the Cathe
I'd have the sibling be rogues who enable each others sneak attacks when they're on the same opponent. From there you probably got room for another front-liner, maybe actual martial, and some sort of caster. There's an issue I've seen where players will sometimes want a "special" derived from background like sibling hood, but don't want to do any of the lifting of reading the rules to figure out how to synergies class features to reflect that. I think the rogue option requires the least though from the DM, and least coaching to the players who want to do this but aren't really researching the possibilities within the rules.
Help, as its not talked about a lot, I feel is an underutilized action. If they or you think Help eats up too much of a character's action economy, maybe look at the Hobgoblin of the Feywild (I don't know yet if this is the version in MMM, but it's in the Heroes of the Feywild UA) and build a feat out of the Fey Hobgoblin's hospitality trait. If you do this of course, give the other two characters a free feat too.
As far as the dynamic duo, or Wonder Twins stealing the plot, that's sort of on the DM. Just because the players can explain the characters rogue synergy as derived from their sibling status, you don't have to make the game about their relationship. The relationship may inform the way they play their characters, and that's fine for motivation in the moment and long term, but that in no way obligates you to cater to their background over the potential that may develop within the more flexible players' characters. I guess, when you propose a campaign wrapped around one idea or theme, I think I would consider two characters background and relationship the theme of the campaign at all. The relationship informs those characters actions, but there's no need to make the campaign about the relationship. Rather, it's sorta on the DM's early sessions to give space to the not as specifically designed character concepts to explore what they're about, and from there you might have campaign themes, though as a DM I don't usually use player backgrounds for themes, the backgrounds are tools for the player to determine how the character may act when faced with the themes of the campaign.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I would add 3 levels of Battle Master to both just for Commander's Strike. Precision Attack and Ambush would be other fitting and effective Maneuvers. Going Assassin on both would let them both allow each other large amounts of damage in the first round, especially if they had Ambush. They would be limited in how much they could do that, though, so I don't think it would create too much of an imbalance. But this duo is definitely a powerful one, so it wouldn't be good to do if the other players weren't also effectively built.
I would also like to mention that doing this would require at least one, if not both, of the other players to be spellcasters, since this duo would be nearly (if not entirely) devoid of magic. If I were to build the rest of this party (for synergy), I'd probably go with a Paladin for tanking and divine casting, as well as social interaction, and then probably a Wizard for arcane magic (mainly support, but also effective magical damage). You would also do well with a Cleric (tanking/divine magic) and a Sorcerer (social interaction/arcane casting), and both of those would be good at support (Twinned haste, anyone?). In short, the others need to be able to cover social stuff and support, and at least one should be a full caster.
Man, I feel like I should be writing this in the Tips & Tactics board. Oh well.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Sounds like a great group to play with, planning backstories and characters to have a solid story of their own to bring into your world. My own group is prepping characters for a new campaign our DM has been planning and my daughter and I are playing characters who know each other when the party forms. We've been friends for a while, both searching for that "thing" we were meant to do. Some grand adventure. Our other players are making characters who will be new to us (and each other) but ironically, be the ideal fit for our party. We are all chatting a bit collaboratively, to try and bring the most rounded group we can, while having a combination of newcomers joining an established duo.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, but it is something worth noting in session 0 that you don't want this to turn into the twins show or something similar. It's possible (likely?) they have no intent of being the spotlight, but more a collective part of a bigger team. You may find them pushing one of the other players story to the forefront, coming in as helpers who want to assist others who maybe DON'T have a sibling to help them.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.