Boards›Concepts & Creations

New support champ(not named yet)

killerkok·12/13/2016, 5:06:23 PM·1 votes·377 views

So what I was thinking is there is a need for a fun to play anti carry support.

The concept is the champ would be a very squishy assassin type champ that gets extra gold reward for hitting champs with basic attacks. How I was thinking it would work is if the champ hasn't killed any minions in a time period your next basic attack agaist another champ would give you gold. You however do not collect the gold unless you make it back to base without death. Kinda you build up gold like draven but can't cash in until you make it to fountain.

This would be the basic idea for the champ here are some suggestions for kit.

Q would inpower your basic attacks based on your ap and would make your next couple of autos do bonus magic damage. The reason why I am thinking so scaling is because it fits the support items better.

W would be a shield that you give off an aoe slow or silence to give some peel for the ADC and some durability. Also helps for the in and out play style

The e is a dash similar to shens taunt but without the taunt. After a number of basic attacks I was thinking 3 you can recast the dash so like I said in and out.

For the ult I was liking the idea of a time trap so similar to bards and zonyas affect but as a trap both allies and enemy's can activate the trap only allies can see it. Two traps can be placed at once but you can have up to two traps ready to use.

I think this would be a really fun champ and am completely open to ideas.

2 Comments

Redesignated12/14/2016, 1:44:30 AM1 votes

A squishy melee-range support that wants to land basic attacks — highly unlikely to work as a support. You'd get punished for trying to utilize your passive, and you'd crumble faster than the other melee supports you'd prefer to be dueling. You would lose trades even with the Q you proposed, just because tanks are more durable. Having to use your entire selection of basic abilities to successfully perform one round of skirmishing would be very hard to balance for a supportive champion.

The general design of the passive is flawed; if the gold generation is substantial enough, they'd be better of going top lane and fighting other melee fighters one-on-one, and then leveraging their extra income to compensate for their frailty — basically winning by getting richer faster. If it's not substantial enough for it to matter, there's no reason for it to even be there.

W being an AoE slow on a basic ability is what we have on Ivern's Triggerseed right now, which is a part of why he's considered kinda broken. It used to be on Karma's R+E before they decided that had to go, too. I'm not opposed to the idea of it, however; having shields do more than just be shields is pretty neat. Having it be an AoE silence, though, would be a bit much.

E would need a secondary cooldown between resets or would be a little over the top.

Now, the R — a trap that inflicts stasis and that you can only see coming via control ward or red trinket is incredibly powerful, especially depending on the activation radius, effect radius, time to react before being trapped, stasis duration… It's not necessarily impossible for something like this to work, but it would be a pretty big chunk of the champion's overall power distribution. The Q and E are relatively low-power, though, which means extra impact could be placed here; if the W is a slow instead of a silence, that's also true.

There are some interesting ideas here that I like, but I feel like they're not necessarily what you'd be wanting all together on a support. The only real supportive or utility abilities are the W and R, and by being frail and melee-range, you'd be sacrificing most of your ability to make use of your passive and Q unless you can burn your entire rotation. That would mean either heavy mana burn for a trade that would need to be strong — something that would put you more toward solo-laning than supporting, with the rest of these abilities — or light mana costs for a trade that would be weak — something that, given how little you provide in utility and support, would render you a non-entity.

I'm also not sure how exactly this is an anti-carry, from reading it. Would you care to elaborate on that?