Help Build Advantage: Being attacked requires a Will roll

[sir_pudding]

It's not Stunning.

And that is way over constructed. It doesn't need Independence or Detect. Triggers don't need special senses.

[AlexanderHowl]

While being injured is a valid trigger (Powers, p. 106), I do not think that someone preparing to attack the character is a valid trigger for an attack from a character (at least, not without a supernatural ability that determines intent). Detect is required to sense the intent of an attacker before they complete the attack while Independence is required to have the combination of Detect and the Affliction make the attack without a conscious effort on the part of the character (in effect, the Detect and the Affliction are always running, it is just that the default position of the Affliction is that it uses its Selective Area to attack nothing until the Detect warns it of the intent to attack the character). I just prefer Stunning to Daze in this case.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

While being injured is a valid trigger (Powers, p. 106), I do not think that someone preparing to attack the character is a valid trigger for an attack from a character (at least, not without a supernatural ability that determines intent). Detect is required to sense the intent of an attacker before they complete the attack while Independence is required to have the combination of Detect and the Affliction make the attack without a conscious effort on the part of the character (in effect, the Detect and the Affliction are always running, it is just that the default position of the Affliction is that it uses its Selective Area to attack nothing until the Detect warns it of the intent to attack the character). I just prefer Stunning to Daze in this case.

I see your point about the accessibility/trigger, however I think that by keeping attack tightly defined it does remain a valid accessibility/trigger.

Any sort of 'mental preparation' or 'undefendable suprise attack' techniques used will work to circumvent it and I think that's ok. It achieves the primary requirement of making it require a will roll to attack the individual if you are looking at them.

Notably if the advantage LACKED the accessibility then everyone who is observing the character would require a will roll or loose their action that turn; including people who might be attacking the character directly, about to tip a statue onto them, or about to close their eyes and swing wildly- so while advantageous in that it is no longer affecting random schmoes, it is still a limitation as it is not as combat effective, and it is tracking something that a combatant would be able to track (things you can defend against, so long as they have combat reflexes it would cover the same set)

[Brandy]

To go a completely different direction, merely as food for thought:

The character described is harder to hit because you cannot look at them directly. If you like simple solutions, a mildly modified invisibility does much - though admittedly not all - of what the OP wants.

[AlexanderHowl]

Yes, that might be Invisibility (Accessibility, People Trying To Attack Character, -20%; Affects Machines, +50%; Can Carry Objects, Heavy, +100%) [92]. Of course, you could instead have Invisibility (Affects Machines, +50%; Can Carry Objects, Heavy, +100%; Reflexive, +40%; Selective Area, +20%; Switchable, +10%) [128], which would represent you turning invisible whenever someone tries to attack you, but you could also turn invisible whenever you wished.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Yes, that might be Invisibility (Accessibility, People Trying To Attack Character, -20%; Affects Machines, +50%; Can Carry Objects, Heavy, +100%) [92]. Of course, you could instead have Invisibility (Affects Machines, +50%; Can Carry Objects, Heavy, +100%; Reflexive, +40%; Selective Area, +20%; Switchable, +10%) [128], which would represent you turning invisible whenever someone tries to attack you, but you could also turn invisible whenever you wished.

In my own games, I'd keep it much simpler. Invisibility with the Glamour enhancement. Nothing in the OP makes me think its switchable, that it would require can carry objects, or that it requires affects machines.

[Edges]

OP here. This has been very helpful so far. I have some questions and clarifications.

IDHMBWM but I seem to remember that Sir Pudding is right and that Emination goes off on the your turn. No? Would it be more like an Aura? Also, it affects any number of people trying to attack in a turn. I'm not sure if all of the builds take this into account.

I am definitely not looking for an Invisibility build (though kudos for the creative approach). For one thing, It's not obvious to an attacker that they can avoid the effect by looking away. That might take an IQ roll to determine which they could roll after the first attack (or something like that... this wouldn't need to be included in the build). Also, the attacker can still see what the target is doing the whole time if they are looking. If someone else lands an attack, the "do nothing" attacker can see that happen. If the target moves, types in a security code, or whatever while the attacker in affected, the attacker still gets to see all that.

The flavor text behind the ability is awe. I've considered using Awe (the variant of Terror) as the base advantage and modifying it to only give one result. But I wasn't sure how to do that. Affliction or Mind Control may be easier; I don't know.

Starslayer makes a good case for limiting it to 16 yards. But we may need to add a small enhancement to account for attackers with Telescopic Vision, Clairvoyance, etc.

Stun may be the wrong direction as the ability only causes the attacker to Do Nothing. They don't get -4 to active defenses. So it's actually weaker than Stun. Builds that make it cost more than Stun might be weird. While I like Daze builds, they could cost more than Stun. I'm not sure how to handle that.

Some builds might need a reduced duration limitation. Daze, for instance usually lasts for minutes, IIRC. I like the Mind Control build of oneofmanynameless (I invite others to look at it and see if it would work). But doesn't Suggestion usually last a while? The ability in question only affects the attacker for a second. One could keep trying second after second to attack someone. Against an attacker with a high Will, this advantage is pretty worthless after all (unless we incorporate a Will penalty).

[An added wrinkle to this duration issue is this: Someone with Altered Time Rate could potentially land some attacks and not others all in the space of a second. The Will check is intended to be on a per-maneuver basis. So multiple attacks in a single maneuver (be it through AoA, Rapid Strike, Extra Attack, etc.) would only require one Will roll. This is a complication. I wouldn't want any of you good and generous point-tinkerers to give up the challenge because of this point. So ignore this wrinkle if you like. It could perhaps be waived away as a feature as it would affect those with Decreased Time Rate equally.]

Originally Posted by JMason

Depending on what the OP wants, "attack" will need to be defined better, otherwise you'll end up with endless exceptions. Does pushing a statue over the target count? What about shooting a chandelier to fall on them? Can you set fire to the building they are in? Can you shake their hand with a glove that has a contact poison on it? Can you offer them a strong drink? Etc.

How broad this protection is, and what exactly triggers the "Do Nothing" is going to effect that accessibility limitation.

"Intent to harm" is a workable definition for "attack." And remember, it is limited by having the target in the attacker's field of vision. Pushing over a statue would count unless you can do so without looking at the target (which could perhaps be fairly easy). Shooting a chandelier would be harder to do without being able to see the target. Setting fire to a building would be easy unless you were looking at the target through a window as you were lighting the fire. Shake hands with a poison glove? You need to roll unless you don't know the glove is poisonous. Strong drink? If you were giving it with the intent to harm, you have to roll vs Will. If you were giving it as a friend or bartender with the intent to serve, no roll. The GM decides what counts if it's not obvious.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by Edges

"Intent to harm" is a workable definition for "attack." And remember, it is limited by having the target in the attacker's field of vision. Pushing over a statue would count unless you can do so without looking at the target (which could perhaps be fairly easy). Shooting a chandelier would be harder to do without being able to see the target. Setting fire to a building would be easy unless you were looking at the target through a window as you were lighting the fire. Shake hands with a poison glove? You need to roll unless you don't know the glove is poisonous. Strong drink? If you were giving it with the intent to harm, you have to roll vs Will. If you were giving it as a friend or bartender with the intent to serve, no roll. The GM decides what counts if it's not obvious.

Intent to harm as per AlexanderHowl 's concern probabaly goes outside of anything that could be captured by a trigger/accessibility and goes into having to have a separate ability to detect intent to harm that then is linked to the defensive power.

I happen to have that on one of my PCs already, so the build is already complete:

Detect "things that will cause me harm"; 54 ;Analyzing, cosmic No die roll required, increased range (no limit), reflexive

You would want to change:
The Detect to "Those with INTENT to cause me harm"
Make it second nature instead of reflexive (so that there is a constant search for those intending to cause harm).
Reduce the range to whatever the 'see face' range is

Then you tie it to the emanation via a 10% link, and it will auto-activate any time someone with intent to cause you harm enters the detection range.

I would call the 'telescopic vision works to effective 16 yards' a special effect, since it would also make those with nearsightedness or blurry vision less susceptible.

[munin]

Instead of trying to magically determine intent to harm, what if you just afflicted something like Total Pacifism (Accessibility, One Individual, -80%; Feature: Can be resisted with Will roll but failure dazes for 1 turn) [-6] on everybody around you.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by munin

Instead of trying to magically determine intent to harm, what if you just afflicted something like Total Pacifism (Accessibility, One Individual, -80%; Feature: Can be resisted with Will roll but failure dazes for 1 turn) [-6] on everybody around you.

The issue I can see with that one is that there is a 'double-clutch'.

People can detect the clawing at their mind of the initial attempt to ensorcel them, that they can then try to break it later is moot.

This further means that individuals can resist first and then attack, and if they make that first resistance roll then they don't need subsequent ones.

It will also be setting off 'mental attack detectors' (whatever those look like if they exist at all) all the time.

Some of that can be countered with low signature, but it just continues to up the complexity of the build.