Hi everyone! I need some help, I am really new to D&D and need some assistance. I've been playing for a couple months now trying to host 1 weekly session that generally gets cancelled due to 1 player having unforeseen life stuff happen or another. Either way I'm pulling through as the DM for the group (About 4 PC's) and I've ran about 10 sessions (One campaign with 6 sessions along with 2 "one"-shots and 2 more attempted one shots that were never finished, and I am trying to wrap up the campaign and start a second one now that I have more experience. The problem is that 2 players want to both play the same class (Rogue), the thing is 1 player (Wanted Rogue first) feels like they wouldn't be helping if there was another Rogue in the group, the second player has played Rogue every single time (always Thief) and was first to play the class. The second player feels like its unfair that rogue is being "taken from them".

At the moment I have told the second player to just let the other person play rogue and he can play something else and could even multiclass into rogue as long as they don't take it too far.

What would you do in this situation?

Side Note: We play remotely through Discord/DnDBeyond/Owlbear, I've known these people for 4+ years and are great friends.

Let them both play what they want, in this case rogue. Roleplay, subclass, background, ideals, flaws, bonds, etc. will, or should at least, result in completely different characters even though they're the same base class.

You could even suggest they write it into their backstory and characters. Are they partners? Rivals? Could be a lot of fun.

Yeah I agree with 1WngdAngle. Enforce different subclasses but I would also encourage the one who "always" plays a Thief to choses something different. You can also talk to them about multi-classing as well. One could go fighter and the other ranger or something with magic. There's a lot of possibilities that still bring diversity of class to the table. 

Quote from KnightOfTheMop >>

  the thing is 1 player (Wanted Rogue first) feels like they wouldn't be helping if there was another Rogue in the group, 

 
I don't understand this.

This can only be the case if both players:

Chose same Subclass

Chose same skills

Chose same expertise

RP the same way

Have the same background

Have the same backstory

Have the same ability scores

Have the same items

-- I seriously doubt that's the case.

An Arcane Trickster plays very differently than an Assassin, which is again different from a Thief. Somebody with expertise in investigation, lockpicking, perception and insight, will be considerably different to somebody with expertise in stealth, sleight of hand, acrobatics, and deception. 

So the idea that a player cannot "help" if somebody else is also a rogue is baseless and... well stupid or ignorant. I'm sorry, I have no better description. You just can't come to this conclusion unless you have not even taken a slight peek at all at the class or any character creation section (thus ignorant) or fail so horribly at even the most basic level of logical understanding of how so many differing options are available beyond just main class (thus stupid). 

You can have two rogues be WILDLY different. And this is incredibly obvious. So I must assume he's not saying that because he believes it, but rather because he's a baby who wants to be the only rogue.

----

So, in light of what you have presented my answer to "what would I do" is : tell player 1 to grow up and go read the class properly. Then declare, they can both be Rogues.

Mostly playing the same class doesn't cause problems, though there are occasional things where backup is useless (e.g. disarming traps) so best to suggest different focus within a class.

Let them both play Rogues. This isn’t an MMO, everyone can play what they want, and roleplay, not class, is what makes a character unique. Trying to talk one out of it will just lead to them having less fun and potentially getting upset with you. Anyway, the Lies of Locke Lamora is an amazing book, and all the characters are Rogues!

Much depends on what the other players have for characters.  Rogues are not all that good at healing, so if the party doesn't have one, this might be an issue.  It is somewhat unlikely that nobody in the party has decent access to heals, but it is possible.  Barring that, let them both play Rogues.  I can't see why that would be a problem.

Yeah if you're worried about party composition, don't be. 5e is very forgiving when it comes to team comp, to the point where it's no longer necessary to have one "tank", one "striker", one "healer", and one "support" in every party like it was in 4e.

Not to mention, 5e is versatile enough that with a little creativity, you could play a rogue that fits with one or more of any of the party "roles". I once played an Inquisitive Rogue with the Ritual Master and Healer feats that functioned as a decent support, and an Arcane Trickster can work as a pretty good battlefield controller. Basically, your two players can play with wildly different playstyles in the same class without ever stepping on each other's toes, no problem. 

I agree with the consensus, let them both play what they want. Ask them to play different subclasses -- this hopefully is not an issue.

However, one concern I have is this idea that player 2 thinks that player 1 is "taking rogue away" from him. Player 2 "always plays rogue," and player 1 presumably knows this, since you all know each other well. Did player 1 actually do this on purpose? To upset player 2? This could indicate a player-issue rather than a character issue.

The thing that concerns me is not so much player 1, but rather, that player 2 is going to be unhappy to play "one of the rogues" instead of THE rogue. If player 2 always wants to be the scout, the trap-disarmer, the sneak, the spy, in the party, and now can only do it half the time because player 1 is doing it the other half, that could be an issue.

It does sound like it's time for player 2 to take a turn at another class, but maybe rogue is the only thing 2 likes to play. You probably should sit down with you and both players, OOC, and talk this out like reasonable adults. Otherwise, "just let them both play rogue" may not work.

Bio, I think the "taking Rogue away" was if the DM had Player 1 be the only Rogue. It's Player 1 who wanted to be the "only" rogue. 

My point remains: This needs to be solved player-to-player. If the 1st player feels like it's not worth playing a rogue if there are others in the party (and may feel, with some justification, that player 2 will inevitably be the "better" rogue du to experience), and player 2 feels like anything that prevents playing a rogue is cramping his style, or may even be miserable playing anything other than a rogue, then they have a problem. They need to talk it out.

Again, based on OP, Player 2 has no problem with Player 1 being a Rogue. Their only problem is if the DM is telling them they can't be a Rogue. And rightly so. If a DM told me "Wizards are allowed, and I've known for years it's your fave class, but I'm going to say you can't be one, but I'll let somebody else be one" - I'd tell them to shove it and go find a game with a better DM. 

"Nobody can be X class" = absolutely fine.

"Anybody can be X class except you" = **** you.

This is a Player 1 issue and a DM issue. It one that is solved by the DM allowing two people to be rogues and telling Player 1 to stop being a baby.

I could just as easily argue that player 2 is being a baby if he can't play *any* class in D&D but a rogue over and over again.

It's easy to see how Player 1 might want to be *the* rogue in the party, and might credibly argue that player 2 has gotten to be *the* rogue over and over again, and I'd like the chance to do those cool things all by myself *just this once*. 

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. In my opinion wanting to play your favourite class in a game where the class is permitted for others is not being a baby. I am just not a fan of forcing somebody to make choices that will end up less fun for them where their preference is perfectly normal D&D. There isn't anything wrong with wanting to play the same class each time. If other people want to the play that class - they still can. 

A DM going "only one person can choose X class" is not OK with me.

A player going "only I can be this class" is even less OK with me.

A player going "I want to be X class even if somebody else is already" is perfectly fine with me. 

D&D 5th Edition allows enough diversity within single classes and enough balancing tools for DM to be able to run decent and balanced encounters regardless of what classes the party chose. There have been "all rogue" and "all bard" and "all wizard" games I've seen and played in where it all went perfectly fine. Even the Wizard can be a healer with the right choices. As can an Arcane Trickster Rogue. Healing Potions can be easier to get if somebody has herbalism kit proficiency, which anyone can gain, so even without any "healers", you can still have healing. But then, a DM knowing there's no healers can also adjust encounters and the rate of play to let them recover as needed. The wonder of D&D 5th Edition is that you no longer need to care about "party roles" - anyone can be any class, even everyone be the same class, and still have varied characters, offering different things with different playstyles and still be able to play balanced encounters. So any DM going "only one can be this class" is simply not following the spirit of D&D 5th edition and is just deliberately making things less fun for no justifiable reason.

My view is built from personal experience and the words of the people who made this edition, spanning my 3+ years of playing this edition. This doesn't mean my view is what everyone should agree with, but it does mean it's not ever going to change. 

I'm curious as to why Player 2 always wants to be the rogue and the same subclass. Is it comfort? Does that player feel there is an advantage? Does the Player like the damage output? Talk to that person and find out why rogue is a go to and the player feels it is "being taken away." That's a pretty strong reaction.

I agree. Let both play rogues and both play different subclasses. As a DM you can create encounters where both of them shine in different ways. Spend time with Player 1, discuss the types of rogue there are and see what appeals. There are some great subclasses that can really make a game interesting. There are plenty of parties out there made up of a single class but different subclasses - bards and clerics come to mind. It's fun. 

What classes will the other players be taking? 

@KnightOfTheMop I'm curious to know if you came to a resolution and what the results were with your group.

Thanks for your feedback everyone,

before I get to my decision I will say, player 2 is highly considering not going rogue anyway and playing a different class.

I will talk to player 2 and say I will allow him to play Rogue alongside player 1, but to note that it might be less fun for player 2, I will say that if he does choose rogue that the 2 cannot play the same subclass and to be careful of stealing the spotlight from each other. Maybe you could make it fun to role-play, you could be party rivals or maybe even buddies, but to just be careful not to create the same rogue, and that character personality is more important than class choice. It is now a talk between you and player 1, please do not just pick a rogue without talking to him about this.

I will talk to player 1 and tell him that I have allowed player 2 to also be a rogue if he so chooses, I will tell him that he will not be the same subclass as him and that you could even incorporate it into your backstory a bit, you could be rogue friends or maybe rivals meeting for a common goal, if begrudgingly, from now on it is a talk between you and player 2.

to answer some other questions, I think player 2 plays thief because he doesn’t like the other flavors of rogue, even if he hasn’t used a thief ability once.

The reason I came to my original conclusion (not let player 2 main rogue) was that he played rogue so much and had shown interest in other classes, and that the kinder thing to do was to let your friend play the class that he had already gotten to use, it may be  important to note that player 1 had expressed interest in rogue before player 2 had expressed interest or played the class, he just never got the chance to play it as he only has 1 character.

Player 2 did not "take" rogue from Player 1 on purpose, he simply thought the class sounded fun and thought that it wouldn't be as fun if another person was playing the same class, again we are ALL new to D&D and TTRPGs in general, my players do not role play very much or even really have much of a backstory, I still need to work on them a little bit lol.

 I cannot get any response from the players as of yet due to one of them being out of town for a few days.

I plan on giving Player 1 first dibs on subclass due to expressing interest first, he has already shown immense interest in Arcane Trickster, I assume Player 2 will want to play Thief again but I will suggest maybe scout or assassin or maybe swashbuckler.

As expressed previously, we are all good friends and meet up every day through discord when possible to play video games other than RPGs.

I do not know what classes others will be playing yet, The next campaign will include another of our friends (For a total of 5 people) one of which is interested in a Wizard or Artificer, one is wanting to be a Cleric or Paladin, and the other is completely unknown.


If the arguing goes too far and doesn't stop, I might just have to say no rogue for either of them unless they come to a conclusion, the point of the game is to have fun, and if someone truly isn't having fun then what is the point in that person even playing.

As the others said, there can be more than one, this isn’t Highlander. In one of the campaigns I am in as a regular player, I’m playing a Bard7/Sorcerer2, someone else is Bard5/Rogue3 and someone else is Rogue3/Cleric5. Three PCs, but technically 2 bards and 2 rogues. No problemo until we all reach for the lock picks at the same time, but earlier in the dungeon it was super helpful that there were multiple lockpickers because the door had two locks that needed to be simultaneously jiggered to rotate and that was per PC, and we needed to hav everyone through so we worked it where two jiggered from the outside to let one in, then one from the inside and another from outside to get the second one in, and then two jiggering from the inside to get the third through. (Multiple PCs proficient with lockpicks? The DM threw a complicated door that required three lockpickers at us.)

Another campaign I’m in also has two rogues played by husband and wife IRL. Their backgrounds are connected where one was a smuggler or something and the other a fence I think. In high school I was in a party of nothing but Thieves. It was fun, we were all prospects for the same guild. (That was 2e, the only 2 “Rogue Subclasses” back then were Thieves and Bards, and you could only be a bard if you rolled high enough stats. It was a different game back then.) The campaign I am currently DMing has 2 Fighters, a Barbarian. And a Hexblade. (So basically it’s a party full of fighters, just different flavors.)

As others said, this isn’t an MMO, you don’t need a tank and a white mage and a…. I mean, you can if you want to, but you don’t need it Nono, this is a TTRPG. (“We do wha’ we wan,’ we do wha’ we wan.’ Cash us outside, how ‘bout dat?”)

Why does P2 think rogue is “theirs” that it could be stolen, and did P1 ask first trying to call “dibs” before P2 could? Why do you think you need to micromanage the party composition yourself? Because these issues are gonna continue to be a problem if not resolved. Not just between them, but for the whole group. That kind of mindset will inevitably lead to recurring instances like this one.

Why do they, or you,  think only one person can (or should) do a thing and everyone else has to do a different thing? Is it coming from an MMO experience? If so, UA gotta understand that this game doesn’t necessarily work like that. That’s not anything close to what an average D&D campaign is like most of the time. Or did you all get that impression somewhere else? Like, have youse all been spending too much time over in the D&D Wiki and been brainwashed? I’m not saying your group can’t or shouldn’t play it like an MMO, just to not get locked into that mindset because it will inevitably become a bigger issue as instances like this happen more and more.

Why do they, or at least P2, think any class can be “claimed,” or that you have to call “dibs” on something? What’s going on there? Sharing is caring, or as I occasionally have to remind my dogs, “everybody gets a turn.” Because if they all think they are entitled to proprietary claims on stuff that’s gonna end up in a pseudo-feudal nightmare for the group eventually. Or is it just P2? In that case, why does P2 think that? What gave them the impression that anything other than the character sheet directly in front of them at that time is “theirs” at all? Have they been spending too much time over in the D&D Wiki and been brainwashed? Because that also needs to get cleared up or it will continue to rear it’s head.

The first thing you need to do is figure out how many conversations this should be, and how many people you need to include. Is this is mostly for P2 and a little for P1, is all of it for both off them? Do Ps 3 & 4 have the same misconceptions, because then thIs becomes a table wide discussion. Is it one conversation about PC roles and party composition for and a separate private conversation with P2 about proprietary claims and sharing? Do the others also need to know they can’t “claim” something like permanent access to an entire class? Because all of those who’s and why’s will determine the, when’s and how’s of the conversation(s). (You said you play remotely so I assume “where” is limited to the interwebs.)

However, if it were me….

 I hope that helps.

I'm with the consensus that generally overlapping classes in 5e is not really a problem.  The published adventures aren't written in a way that presumes character class "coverage" and a DM running their own show should, I feel, create content that engages the party composition.  So you may need a rogue who is more a hustler/"face" and another rogue who provides overwatch from rooftop with the missile weapons, for instance.

I also think two rogues in the party will actually encourage both players to explore braver options to distinguish themselves in terms of expertise, subclassing and maybe multi class dips if they make sense.  So rather than a seeing the party handicap by having a twofer in the class department, you actually might wind up with one of your more dynamic parties with interesting capacities.

There is nothing wrong with duplicate classes. In the case of rogues, there is serious advantages to both of them getting into melee with the same target.

I've played in games where the whole party was the same class.

Don't worry about it.