Glamor

[phiwum]

The Glamor spell as written is a little vague on some details, so I thought I'd ask here.

Suppose a wizard wants to look like a strong, battleaxe-wielding barbarian. Now, I assume that the wizard's clothing will change to the required leather loincloth or whatnot, but what about other accoutrements? Does his staff look like a battleaxe? Or does he have to find a battleaxe and ditch the staff to complete the ensemble?


Can Glamor make him look like he's carrying any item he wants, even though he's empty-handed?

It's a thrown spell which can only be ended with Remove Thrown Spell or when the wizard wills it away, so you can cast it on allies. More interestingly, you can cast it on anybody. Your blind date turned out to be a terrible, self-centered boor? Let him live the next few weeks (or longer) as an old spinster and see how he likes it. The really attractive prostitutes are too expensive? A glamor spell and a cheap hooker will do the trick, though you'll want to consider the effects of the 10 fatigue cost. And so on.

I tend to think that the clothing should change, because otherwise the spell is too limited. This would apply to armor too. I'm leaning to saying that things carried in hand appear as they really are. I have no principled reasons for these choices. It just feels right.

[phiwum]

I noticed that Helborn wrote a post of houserules which said that glamor applied to clothing and gear.

I might accept that gear in hand or worn at the time of casting could be all glamored up, but I'm a wee concerned about the battleaxe-wielding thug who appears to be holding a parasol. He could be a real problem (and I don't relish explaining the massive slice for 13 points of damage that the parasol just delivered). The wimpy dagger-wielding goblin who looks like a battleaxe user is less of an issue.

[hcobb]

Extending Glamor to clothing would negate the use of the disguise talent which is supposed to be used with the spell as per ITL 44.

[Shostak]

I'd say Glamor extends to clothing and worn items.

Originally Posted by hcobb

Extending Glamor to clothing would negate the use of the disguise talent which is supposed to be used with the spell as per ITL 44.

Glamor is not specifically mentioned under Disguise, but it is pretty clear from the spell's description that it is far more effective than the skill--certainly more so than the -1d benefit illusory additions to disguise confer.

[phiwum]

Yes, there seems to be an oddity in the text of Glamor and Disguise. Glamor by itself gives no die roll to penetrate, other than for those with Mage Sight. Disguise with Glamor gets a die roll, which makes it strictly worse than Glamor.

But I don't think Glamor allows you to impersonate a specific person. It allows you to change your appearance, but not to appear as a particular person. You couldn't be the Duke and maybe you couldn't be a non-specific member of the Duke's guards (though I'm not sure about that).

Anyway, if I'm right on that, it would explain how Disguise is less effective than Disguise + Glamor and Disguise + Glamor is not really less effective than Glamor, since Glamor doesn't play the same role.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by phiwum

You couldn't be the Duke

Read Tollenkars Lair please

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Shostak

I'd say Glamor extends to clothing and worn items.
Glamor is not specifically mentioned under Disguise, but it is pretty clear from the spell's description that it is far more effective than the skill--certainly more so than the -1d benefit illusory additions to disguise confer.

I think you're mistaken, Shostak. On ITL 44, it says

If a wizard casts a Glamor or shape-shift to perfect your
physical appearance, you roll one fewer dice.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I think you're mistaken, Shostak. On ITL 44, it says If a wizard casts a Glamor or shape-shift to perfect your
physical appearance, you roll one fewer dice.

Thanks for pointing that out. It looks like I need to download an updated ITL PDF, since the one I'm using says "If a wizard casts an illusion or shape-shift to perfect your
physical appearance, you roll one fewer dice."

My apologies, Master Cobb!

[Kieddicus]

I don't let Glamour change any items or cloths. Though it will slightly alter them to avoid any clipping with the Glamour spell.

[phiwum]

There's a certain simplicity to that. So, the clothing still appears the same, but is adjusted to fit the new appearance?

I don't know, that does simplify matters and allows for Disguise to really be different than Glamor by itself. It would lead to oddities sometimes. If you changed into a large wolf, you would be a large, clothed wolf unless you went nekkid. If you were holding a sword, it would appear as if there was a sword attached to one of the paws. (I'm assuming you don't have to crawl to be in wolf form, but maybe I'm wrong.)

That's Henry's solution too, I think. It's simple in application and the principle is fairly clear. The body changes appearance and clothing changes only enough to fit the illusory body.

Far as I can tell, the only restriction on Glamor is in terms of size (and that is asymmetrically about growth, not shrinkage). I wonder if you could turn into a mustard jelly in appearance (clothed, per your rules) or a table (with a leather tablecloth perhaps) or should the spell be restricted to humanoid or maybe quadrapedal forms?

Thanks, Kiediccus. Getting other opinions does help me figger out how I want to play it. I have a certain NPC wizard with Glamor who likes to go incognito and I need to know how much effort it takes him to change into another form. Questions about the mustard jelly and table are just musings. I don't have a use in mind for those, but they're not hard to imagine.


ETA: Maybe Glamor is to Shapeshifting as Illusion or Image is to Summoning. Glamor is just an illusory shapeshift. If so, the following text is suggestive.

Furthermore, your clothes will not shift or vanish – you’ll need new ones.

This is, of course, more restrictive than Kiediccus's suggestion.

Shapeshifting says limitations on forms is up to the GM, which presumably applies to Glamor, too. No mustard jellies in my game. I think quadrapeds would be okay.