Glamour like evocation?

[Radijs]

I was wondering. Does the creation of glamours inflict stress to the caster like evocation or channeling does?

[Cadd]

Nope :p It's not spellcasting;)
On the other hand, by default you can't actually attack with glamours either.

[Taran]

You can do physical blocks and maneuvers with them, though.

[Wolfhound]

Do others use the Evocation modifiers for Veils for Glamour based Veils as well? (2 shifts for a zone, 2 shifts to make it see through, etc.) or something else (The Glamour is just declared to be "there" and if somebody might conceptually have a chance to see through it roll Deceit/Discipline opposed test - i.e. something derived from the text in the Glamours and Greater Glamours power description)

[Taran]

Not me.  I just use it as a stealth replacement.  So, the latter example you presented.

[cold_breaker]

Yeah. Glamours is not actually spell casting. It can be emulated with spell casting. So, Molly for instance wouldn't have glamours: she'd have evocation with a speciality in glamours probably. Mauve on the other hand would have glamours, but not necessarily evocation.

[Hick Jr]

Actually, I would give Molly the Glamours power and one stunt that increased her facility with veils using the power, alongside her normal spell casting. I would give it to her for the same reason that you'd give Injun Joe True Shapeshifting- it's easier to model like that.

[cold_breaker]

Actually, I would give Molly the Glamours power and one stunt that increased her facility with veils using the power, alongside her normal spell casting. I would give it to her for the same reason that you'd give Injun Joe True Shapeshifting- it's easier to model like that.

True, but in this case you'd be using a different set of rules. Molly WOULD take stress from using her glamours, so refinements would be more realistic than the glamours power.

Of course, you could always give evocation and glamours, then a stunt to use them in combanation and provide a discount on that stunt with a caveat that it counts as evocation and thus causes stress. Again though, this pushes back into the 'just as complicated' catagory.

Personally, I'd just go with the 'powers as rotes' method - create a spell possible through refinements and focii and turn it into a rote spell. Injun Joe would have a powerful rote that gives him true shapeshifting, while Molly has a rote that gives her glamours for the scene. This way, they have powerful abilities that last till the end of the scene rather than a one shot glass cannon like Dresden.

As a disclaimer: I probably wouldn't even allow these type of spells as evocation without it being a rote spell, and probably require an aspect like Molly or Injun Joe use.

[Wolfhound]

I have a tremendous number of Fae in our Campaign so a thread like this is of particular interest to me. Out of curiosity, a GM-to-GM (or players who care about systems) "what's your thought process" question

What do you feel mechanically (crunch, not fluff) the 2 Points worth of Refresh invested Glamours allows vs say Channeling Photomancy which is the same cost (and comes with bonus granting Focus Items)?

For example: The ability to perform Sense based "Blocks" and "Maneuvers" without a Stress cost, but cannot perform "Counterspell" or "Attack"

[cold_breaker]

I have a tremendous number of Fae in our Campaign so a thread like this is of particular interest to me. Out of curiosity, a GM-to-GM (or players who care about systems) "what's your thought process" question

What do you feel mechanically (crunch, not fluff) the 2 Points worth of Refresh invested Glamours allows vs say Channeling Photomancy which is the same cost (and comes with bonus granting Focus Items)?

For example: The ability to perform Sense based "Blocks" and "Maneuvers" without a Stress cost, but cannot perform "Counterspell" or "Attack"

I think the trade off is flexibility. Photomancy can be used extremely flexibly at the cost of stress - you could redirect light, focus it into a burning point (laser anyone?) or other things for the creative mind. Glamours only allow you to fool the senses and that's it. So yeah, no using light as a weapon, no counterspelling, no creative uses that aren't based in deceiving another.

[Taran]

If it's justified I could see glamours as a mental attack.

Assuming you know something personal about your target and show some kind of illusion that would cause them harm...then again, you might be able to do that with photomancy, but photomany as evocation is "quick and dirty".  You're not going to get complex illusions with it.  Glamours, I feel, can do more.  Make it look like you have 6 goons backing you up - stuff like that.  And you can do it all on the fly. Spirit can't really do that on the fly. You'd need photomancy rituals to do more complex stuff.

Glamours don't disappear when they're peirced either.  Spells do.