Guardian Force

[ampoliros]

If we use the dispel mechanic as you describe it, I submit that the spell becomes far less useful if it's "dispel" vs "counter magic". (reactionary vs preventative)

You are forgetting the +2 to all saving throws, a kind of magic counter in and of itself. And saving throws go beyond countering magic, so the save bonus is better, IMO.

I think the Guardion needs to be the bonus to saving throws and a "reactionary" dispel, or just a counter magic like Sorcery had in MoM without the saving throw bonus.

[Aaron]

I like the idea of limiting the guardian's affect to a specific area on the battlefield. This certainly adds a tactical element. I also like the idea of an instant attempted countermeasure on any spells cast against units being protected by the guardian. This could be a tricky mechanic to implement but it's probably worth looking into.

[WyldeRhide]

You are forgetting the +2 to all saving throws, a kind of magic counter in and of itself. And saving throws go beyond countering magic, so the save bonus is better, IMO.

I think the Guardion needs to be the bonus to saving throws and a "reactionary" dispel, or just a counter magic like Sorcery had in MoM without the saving throw bonus.

I wasn't specifically addressing that point, but I hadn't forgotten about it.

As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), +resist is a per-unit roll whereas the Guardian's effect is a single pass/fail for the incoming spell. The balancing will have to be figured out: the Guardian has a, say 40% chance of negating the spell for every unit in a 5x5 area, whereas the +2 is (again, say) +20% chance to "resist" (which can be "save for half damage" or "negate").

So, the Guardian effect (if it's preventative) will completely stop all damage (to those protected) from an Area of Effect spell. However, the +20% would give each unit a better chance of saving for half damage (but still taking damage).

If the Guardian's effect is reactionary, it wouldn't affect incoming instantaneous damage spells at all (though it might dispel any DoT aspect of the spell).

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------

I like the idea of limiting the guardian's affect to a specific area on the battlefield. This certainly adds a tactical element. I also like the idea of an instant attempted countermeasure on any spells cast against units being protected by the guardian. This could be a tricky mechanic to implement but it's probably worth looking into.

I think my personal "ideal" version of the spell would be something like:

When the Guardian is active, all friendly units receive a +2 to resist rolls.
Units in the Guardian's AoE (3x3, 5x5, whatever) receive the benefits of his aura. The Guardian's aura acts as a shield, with an X% chance of dispelling incoming spell effects. (This means if a Fireball is cast that would encompass units in the Guardian's aura, only the spell effect inside the aura is cancelled. Units outside the aura would still have to save for half.) The Aura works like Counter Magic, blocking even spells that have no saving throw.

[Aaron]

I like it. It will need to cost a bit of mana though, lol.

[Aaron]

OK, sadly we have to change this up to some extent. The problem is that it's really a summoning spell now. The reason that's a problem is because we'll need a model for it. (And we're generally having summoned creatures do double duty as wandering monsters.)

So, we need to decide if this spell merits that kind of effort and flesh out the summoned creature OR make the spell a battlefield effect instead.

Thoughts?

[kilobug]

Can we get out with a simple model, maybe ghost-like ? So much faster to design than a full-blown unit with textures and everything.

[Troy_Costisick]

Can we get out with a simple model, maybe ghost-like ? So much faster to design than a full-blown unit with textures and everything.

Yeah, which ever taxes the art department less. Personally, I don't mind the battlefield enchantment version.