Knightly Aura

A passive sig? Can it be?

Cap is...technically 100 with 10 free of CD.

Lvl 1. Passive Sig. Runeknight's armor protects him from 10 damage per attack with a cap of 20 damage per turn. Regenerates each turn.

Reasoning: The 20 reduction is the equivalent of 20 points toward the cap. The free action equals another 20 points which puts me at 40. I'd like to use the 10 points free of CD from my Lvl 2 PU to put the point total at 30. Currently, this is still 10 over the max for a passive SigAttk so I would like to petition the fact that the damage reduction is separated into two pools of 10 and not one pool of 20 is a nerf within itself. My reasoning being that if Runeknight is not attacked twice, the second pool of 10 is void. I believe my reasoning is sound, but it is up to you folks.
That means it can reflect up to 60 damage, right? Think that's a bit much.
Oh? Suggestions? Perhaps a lowered cap on the reflect?
Formula is damage negation + damage reflected.

With 60, it's 60 + 60 = 120 potential.

Also, this seems a little ripoffish of the Reflect NCP.

Just some thoughts. I think Majin's got this.
No worries. Perhaps we'll change it around. Once per turn, as a free action, Runeknight can halve the damage from a single attack directed against him. If said attack would have caused a status effect, Runeknight can shrug off the effects with ease.
.................... And what are you bumping? You didn't write out any new stats. Kind of wasting my time here.
Check post right before my bump. I proposed a new idea. I haven't bothered to update the first post as I am unsure of whether or not it will fly.

Edited first post for your benefit.
I saw perhaps, suggesting the idea was still incomplete. Also, still gonna say its too much. No actions to use, can be used once per turn, and has no limit to how much it can block. Nope.
Eon gave me a great idea.
Burp...Er, bump.
0 action: At least 20 damage equivalent.

0 turn CD: Must be severely under 40 damage.

10 free damage.

20 damage reduction.

The difficulty, you understand, is that there's no precedent for this.
I completely understand the difficultly in getting such an idea approved, especially without precedent. What, keeping in mind the nature of the SigAttk, do you think should be changed to be approved? What the the point equivalent of 20 damage reduction?
Bleh, given the self-nerf clause and moderate agreement on 0 CD = 20 damage, I'll give this a tentative approval.