What are the capabilities of Glamours?

[citadel97501]

Hello all,

I am currently playing a character who has glamours (not Greater Glamours) and I am trying to make sure I know what it can do, as the description is very vague?  Here are a few examples of things I think would be legal, but I wanted to get some opinions?

Invisibility: Veils that block sight?

Disguising Myself: This seems legitimate, as you should be able to change your clothing, and appearance to someone you have seen?

Disguising Others: Lets say I make someone look like their wearing the wrong gang colors?  Lets say warring gangs so I can use it as a Declaration?

Hiding Objects/Aspects: Can I conceal objects, such as hiding a hole in the floor, until they fall in, Declaration?

Causing Mental or Social Stress: Lets say I know the person has Arachnophobia and I make them see hundreds of spiders crawling out of the floor and up their legs.   

[Haru]

You should be able to do all those things, yes.

But it's maneuvers, not declarations. A declaration is something that always has been a fact, but wasn't important until you brought it up (and your character notices it). A maneuver is something the character actively does.

Hiding a hole in the floor is pretty much a veil (and therefor a block), too. In any case, you roll your deceit and someone else (someone who wants to see you or someone who passes the hole) can roll alertness or something similar against it, to see if they can pierce the veil.

[Tedronai]

You cannot affect another individual, or any objects that belong to that individual, without receiving some sort of permission from them.
This likely rules out the 'gang colours' trick except in cases of you betraying them.  It may also substantially complicate the 'hole in the floor' in many circumstances.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Glamours' major limitation is exactly what Tedronai said:

Seemings. You are able to cause someone or something to appear to be other than what it is—usually this is personal, but it may be used on other objects and people if they belong to you or have entered a pact with you. You may use your Discipline or Deceit skill to oppose any efforts to discover that the seeming is something other than real.

YS166, emphasis mine.  So you can't just go around throwing up illusions all over the place, unless you're somewhere that you own or control everything already. 

[citadel97501]

Does Greater Glamours allow you to create illusions around things you don't control, or without permission or does it still have the same restrictions?

[Tedronai]

I believe it is subject to the same restrictions, save that it allows the option to create non-illusory objects out of ectoplasm.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

Note that you can still use normal Holomancy without those restrictions, if you have it. Presumably, Glamours are more convincing than normal, non-ritual Holomancy.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Note that you can still use normal Holomancy without those restrictions, if you have it. Presumably, Glamours are more convincing than normal, non-ritual Holomancy.

Glamours is an innate ability.  It doesn't cause stress.  The entire effect is a deceit/discipline roll.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

Ah OK. That is much better.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Ah OK. That is much better.

Indeed, a clever player can basically use it to substitute Deceit for a whole mess of skills.  In our campaign, it's been used for "faerie gold," making worthless rocks or bits of metal seem like gold, or scraps of paper seem like cash.  It's also been used to hide, to grant a bonus to rapport and intimidate, to forge documents (psychic paper!), disguise and appear as police officer, and fake spellcasting.  It's an incredibly powerful power.

Greater Glamours is even better.  But I wish there was a better guideline for the constructs it creates.

[Taran]

Just ressin' this thread because I have a quick question(s):

When I use Glamours to make a veil do I have to add 2 extra shifts to see through the veil without suffering 1/2 the veils effect? Just wondering since that how it works for spells.

If so, would a stunt be sufficient enough to remove this penalty?

[Tedronai]

Glamours are not spells.  They do not function on the same mechanics.

Moreover, the roll to determine the strength of a Glamour-based veil is made only at the time of the perception roll made to pierce it, rather than set beforehand as with spells, or, really, any other block.

[Taran]

Glamours are not spells.  They do not function on the same mechanics.

Yeah, I was more wondering if a +6 deceit forced a player to choose a 4 shift veil that he could see through or a 6 shift veil that gave him a 3 shift block against his own perception or if it was just treated as a regular 6 shift veil with no side-effects.

Thanks.

O.k...so the party is sneaking past a dozing guard and The Changeling has told me in advance that he was using Glamours to veil the party so he rolls Deceit when the guard rolls his perception.

If the guard beats the Deceit, then everyone has to rely on their Stealth checks to get past the guard unnoticed.

[UmbraLux]

When I use Glamours to make a veil do I have to add 2 extra shifts to see through the veil without suffering 1/2 the veils effect? Just wondering since that how it works for spells.

I'd say so.  The base Glamours doesn't imply any changes to the way veils work.  Greater Glamours can be interpreted to be a reactionary roll.  But neither says anything about changing the standard 1/2 veil penalty for seeing out.

If so, would a stunt be sufficient enough to remove this penalty?

Probably not - unless it was situational.  Most stunts give a +1 bonus all the time or a +2 situationally...and this would be 2 shifts.  You could phrase a stunt to allow it in some wide situations though...in darkness comes to mind or possibly in artificial light.  Really depends on your character's background...how does it interact with his Glamours power?

[Tedronai]

I'd say so.  The base Glamours doesn't imply any changes to the way veils work.

Glamours sets out the effects it is capable of producing.
It describes one of these effects as a 'veil'.
It then gives rules for how to adjudicate that 'veil'.
It at no time references, in any way beyond mere shared terminology, the spellcasting rules, evocation/thaumaturgy veils or otherwise.

Greater Glamours can be interpreted to be a reactionary roll.

The text of Glamours is identical to that of Greater Glamours in that portion that defines its base mechanics.

But neither says anything about changing the standard 1/2 veil penalty for seeing out.

They don't need to specify a change.  They set out their own mechanics.
If they did use that rule, it would be the only rule necessary to understand the effects of Glamours which would need reference to the Spellcasting rules.

Probably not - unless it was situational.  Most stunts give a +1 bonus all the time or a +2 situationally...and this would be 2 shifts.  You could phrase a stunt to allow it in some wide situations though...in darkness comes to mind or possibly in artificial light.  Really depends on your character's background...how does it interact with his Glamours power?

'+2 to Deceit (or Discipline) when using Glamours for the purpose of veils to offset the shifts required to make the veil mono-directional' seems pretty solidly situational, to me.