Help me pick a leader

[renau1g]

Oh, if you go with a warlord, grab a greatspear so you have reach and can hide behind the fighter, making him feel more like the defender.

 

[bganon]

I second the archer warlord suggestion. The party already has two melee characters who can both dish out lots of damage. Add some ranged support and healing and you've got a very good support character. And as previously said, with warlord you can focus on powers that allow the other guys to shine, although the archer build isn't quite as "lazy" as some.

I think another advantage of going for a less melee-ready character is that you give the defender another way to be useful: by protecting you! You're durable enough not to need it constantly (which could get annoying), but not so durable that they can just ignore it when monsters target you. Of course, when monsters target you, that makes setting up flanks even easier, which is also fun for the rogue.

Paint the Bull's-Eye and Direct the Strike are perfect at-wills. Skirmishing Presence is probably pretty good, and going Str/Int, with Int as high as Str would probably fill a niche pretty well.

 

[Thatwackyned]

I would agree with going warlord for the simple fact that both your players are Martial characters, and thus staying with that theme makes the most logical sense. If you were to introduce a divine or arcane leader DMPC, you might be tempted to then introduce plot or story points that are divine or arcane based, and then the only character trained in the skills to deal with it is yourself. You end up focusing the roleplaying against yourself while your nephews watch. If you are all Martial characters, you'll be more inclined to keep the story in the veins that you all are emphasized in.

Now as far as what build of warlord... I would suggest a melee build for the simple fact that having a third PC in hand-to-hand gives your rogue a better chance to get into flanking, and thus get to use his Sneak Attack. With only two PCs in melee... the ability to gain Combat Advantage will be quite less likely for your rogue, and he might begin feeling as though one of his primary class abilities doesn't get to be used. On a similar note... one of your at-wills should definitely be Wolf Pack Tactics, so that you can assist your rogue even further into getting into flank.

Finally... I would concur that Tactical is probably the best build, if for no other reason than to take Commander's Strike, thereby letting both the rogue and fighter attack more often (at a substantial boost to power in addition). Whether you go eladrin for the Fey Step, or human for the third at-will (so that he has an second attack option besides just Wolf Pack Tactics, since your third should be Commander's Strike), that's probably a matter of personal taste (if there is a special effect off one of the other warlord at-wills that would complement the two PCs abilities).

Best of luck to you and your nephews!

I fully agree on keeping everything Hand to Hand. Allow the kids to have the fun. Use quotes like, "Hey boy, hit that." "Hey boy, heal that wound." It'll make it seem more enjoyable, allowing the nephews to do more in combat.

 

[Hedgemage]

You know, I was thinking of a warlord since that is a class I've played before. I'll have to look into the skirmishing warlord since I'm not too familiar with that build.

Do you think I might run into problems since the Warlord is the least 'healy' of the leaders?

My nephew playing the Dragonborn Fighter chose the glaive as his weapon, so he'll have quite a bit of advantage in positioning. Would a melee leader be best to help him herd enemies?

Oh, the Dragonborn's name is Johnathan, and the Halfling is Wolverine. Makes me remember the often odd names of my first characters.

 

[Garthanos]

You know, I was thinking of a warlord since that is a class I've played before. I'll have to look into the skirmishing warlord since I'm not too familiar with that build.

How about a princess build ;-)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...non-combatant-princess-how-abuse-warlord.html

 

[Mengu]

May I suggest a companion NPC (following some of the guidelines in DMG2)? I wouldn't bother with a PC, too many fiddly details, feats, powers, items, etc. I'd make it a ranged leader. Powers would be in the lines of:

(standard, at-will): Melee; +7 vs AC; 1d8+2 damage.
(standard, at-will): Ranged 10; +5 vs Will; 1d6+4 damage, and allies have combat advantage against the target until the end of your next turn.
(standard, at-will): Ranged 10; +5 vs Reflex; 1d6+4 damage, and ally within 5 makes saving throw.
(standard, encounter): Ranged 10; +5 vs Reflex; 1d6+4 damage, and an ally adjacent to the target may make a melee basic attack against the target.
(minor, twice per encounter): Target within 5 squares of you may spend a healing surge.

Then add a racial power, I'd probably make it an elf and add elven accuracy, so I can land the encounter power better. Then skin the powers however you like. You can give it an arcane flavor, or primal flavor, or divine flavor, whatever floats your boat. Add a few skills they might be missing such as Heal, Arcana, Religion, Nature, or the like. And give him the ability to cast rituals.

This is also much easier to scrap and redo if you need. You're not restricted by class powers, you can do whatever you want with it, and build it completely toward assisting the PC's in the best ways possible.

 

[Felon]

May I suggest a companion NPC (following some of the guidelines in DMG2)? I wouldn't bother with a PC, too many fiddly details, feats, powers, items, etc. I'd make it a ranged leader. Powers would be in the lines of:

This is a great suggestion. If the DM's going to be the only one playing the character, and its intended to be a passive, mentor-type character, NPC companion is the way to go.

 

[blargney the second]

How about a Lazy Warlord?

It's a warlord who never actually makes any attacks.

 

[Garthanos]

How about a Lazy Warlord?

It's a warlord who never actually makes any attacks.

that would be another incarnation of my princess... glad I am not the only one who enjoys the concept actually I was thinking I might be a bit odd.

 

[fba827]

actually I was thinking I might be a bit odd.

Oh, you are. For many other reasons. Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise!