Charm Person is a broken spell in 5e

Quote from Wysperra >>

Charm Person

It says in the spell description quite clearly that the person knows that it was the caster. Doesn't matter what they look like, smell like, or anything. They know.

Basic spell descriptions are not written to account for every possible scenario

The basic charm person scenario is that the caster and the target can see each other, and neither one is disguised or masked by some sort of illusion. "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you" refers to that scenario

Any complicating factors, like the caster using disguise self, are why the game has a DM to judge how that impacts things

If you want to try and convince your DM that the target is bestowed with some caster-specific form of Truesight when the charm ends, more power to you

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

Charm Person

It says in the spell description quite clearly that the person knows that it was the caster. Doesn't matter what they look like, smell like, or anything. They know.

 

Basic spell descriptions are not written to account for every possible scenario

The basic charm person scenario is that the caster and the target can see each other, and neither one is disguised or masked by some sort of illusion. "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you" refers to that scenario

Any complicating factors, like the caster using disguise self, are why the game has a DM to judge how that impacts things

If you want to try and convince your DM that the target is bestowed with some caster-specific form of Truesight when the charm ends, more power to you

Even the spell description doesn't really imply that much imo. So while yes like many things its a DM call. Its also just not how language works. If you throw a rock at me, and I see it I know you threw a rock at me. But i might give an ass description of you, if you were in a lineup I might pick the wrong guy, if you were in shadows so I just saw a shadowy figure while you are still standing in the shadows before I fully see you the sentence would still be I know you threw that rock at me, and after that you ran off before i got a clear look I'd likely never know who you were. But I'd know that shadowy figure who i called you was the person who threw the rock at me.

The statement When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you. just does not cover what people are describing. 

The target knowing they were magically manipulated and who did it is a magical effect of the spell itself. The magic allows the caster to emotionally manipulate someone for a short time but then the game's up and the immediate consequence is that the same magic rats out the caster to their target. Frankly, I find comparing this magic-induced consequence to truesight lands a little too close to reductio ad absurdum. If we're willing to suspend disbelief and accept magical emotional manipulation, it's inconsistent to disbelieve that the same magic could impart the consequence that the victim of the magical emotional manipulation would be made aware of exactly  who did the deed.

If a player attempted this at my table I would adjudicate it such that not only does the victim know they were manipulated and by whom, per rules as written, but some additional consequence would arise from trying to pull magical shenanigans to avoid paying the magical price for casting a magic spell.

Reductio ad absurdum? And saying that a 1st level spell imparts knowledge that trumps other (often higher level) spells like Alter Self, Invisibility, Polymorph or even Plane Shift doesn't strike you as absurd? And then going even further and stating that Charm Person somehow imposes additional consequences for casting said higher level spells? 

You do you, boo. You are free to run your game as you like

Logically, the only way you can rule that the person has a supernatural sense to know it was you through any disguise also works in the players' favor in the ways described above, allowing the players to use Charm Person once to then know for sure it's really them forever in case of things like doppelgangers.

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

Charm Person

It says in the spell description quite clearly that the person knows that it was the caster. Doesn't matter what they look like, smell like, or anything. They know.

 

Basic spell descriptions are not written to account for every possible scenario

The basic charm person scenario is that the caster and the target can see each other, and neither one is disguised or masked by some sort of illusion. "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you" refers to that scenario

Any complicating factors, like the caster using disguise self, are why the game has a DM to judge how that impacts things

If you want to try and convince your DM that the target is bestowed with some caster-specific form of Truesight when the charm ends, more power to you

 

Even the spell description doesn't really imply that much imo. So while yes like many things its a DM call. Its also just not how language works. If you throw a rock at me, and I see it I know you threw a rock at me. But i might give an ass description of you, if you were in a lineup I might pick the wrong guy, if you were in shadows so I just saw a shadowy figure while you are still standing in the shadows before I fully see you the sentence would still be I know you threw that rock at me, and after that you ran off before i got a clear look I'd likely never know who you were. But I'd know that shadowy figure who i called you was the person who threw the rock at me.

The statement When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you. just does not cover what people are describing. 

But you admitted that there were different ways to interpret that statement just a few posts ago. And now you are arguing that this is the only way to read it?

That's what I don't get. Should it be a magical connection able to pierce the most dedicated subterfuge? Meh, I'll work with whatever my DM says. Just don't sit there are try to tell me that there are multiple ways to interpret is, but actually this is the only way to interpret it.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Frankly, I find comparing this magic-induced consequence to truesight lands a little too close to reductio ad absurdum.

Do you have a better name for a magical ability to see through any disguise or illusion?

Do you have a better name for a magical ability to see through any disguise or illusion?

Yes.

"Magic"

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

Charm Person

It says in the spell description quite clearly that the person knows that it was the caster. Doesn't matter what they look like, smell like, or anything. They know.

 

If you want to try and convince your DM that the target is bestowed with some caster-specific form of Truesight when the charm ends, more power to you

 I'm fairly certain that more often than not the PC is the one casting the spell, so they wouldn't need to convince the GM in this manner.

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

Charm Person

It says in the spell description quite clearly that the person knows that it was the caster. Doesn't matter what they look like, smell like, or anything. They know.

 

Basic spell descriptions are not written to account for every possible scenario

The basic charm person scenario is that the caster and the target can see each other, and neither one is disguised or masked by some sort of illusion. "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you" refers to that scenario

Any complicating factors, like the caster using disguise self, are why the game has a DM to judge how that impacts things

If you want to try and convince your DM that the target is bestowed with some caster-specific form of Truesight when the charm ends, more power to you

 

Even the spell description doesn't really imply that much imo. So while yes like many things its a DM call. Its also just not how language works. If you throw a rock at me, and I see it I know you threw a rock at me. But i might give an ass description of you, if you were in a lineup I might pick the wrong guy, if you were in shadows so I just saw a shadowy figure while you are still standing in the shadows before I fully see you the sentence would still be I know you threw that rock at me, and after that you ran off before i got a clear look I'd likely never know who you were. But I'd know that shadowy figure who i called you was the person who threw the rock at me.

The statement When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you. just does not cover what people are describing. 

But you admitted that there were different ways to interpret that statement just a few posts ago. And now you are arguing that this is the only way to read it?

That's what I don't get. Should it be a magical connection able to pierce the most dedicated subterfuge? Meh, I'll work with whatever my DM says. Just don't sit there are try to tell me that there are multiple ways to interpret is, but actually this is the only way to interpret it.

Anything can be interpreted in multiple ways, and I don't see what I said here really changing that position. But if one of the obvious ways it can be interpreted is also the way the designers say it was intended I'd go with that as the ruling. Feel free to rule it however you want, but I don't intend for charm effects to give people a specific version of true sight for free. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

Charm Person

It says in the spell description quite clearly that the person knows that it was the caster. Doesn't matter what they look like, smell like, or anything. They know.

 

Basic spell descriptions are not written to account for every possible scenario

The basic charm person scenario is that the caster and the target can see each other, and neither one is disguised or masked by some sort of illusion. "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you" refers to that scenario

Any complicating factors, like the caster using disguise self, are why the game has a DM to judge how that impacts things

If you want to try and convince your DM that the target is bestowed with some caster-specific form of Truesight when the charm ends, more power to you

 

Even the spell description doesn't really imply that much imo. So while yes like many things its a DM call. Its also just not how language works. If you throw a rock at me, and I see it I know you threw a rock at me. But i might give an ass description of you, if you were in a lineup I might pick the wrong guy, if you were in shadows so I just saw a shadowy figure while you are still standing in the shadows before I fully see you the sentence would still be I know you threw that rock at me, and after that you ran off before i got a clear look I'd likely never know who you were. But I'd know that shadowy figure who i called you was the person who threw the rock at me.

The statement When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you. just does not cover what people are describing. 

But you admitted that there were different ways to interpret that statement just a few posts ago. And now you are arguing that this is the only way to read it?

That's what I don't get. Should it be a magical connection able to pierce the most dedicated subterfuge? Meh, I'll work with whatever my DM says. Just don't sit there are try to tell me that there are multiple ways to interpret is, but actually this is the only way to interpret it.

 

Anything can be interpreted in multiple ways, and I don't see what I said here really changing that position. But if one of the obvious ways it can be interpreted is also the way the designers say it was intended I'd go with that as the ruling. Feel free to rule it however you want, but I don't intend for charm effects to give people a specific version of true sight for free. 

 Honestly, as was inferred, that enambles me as a caster to remove Doppelgangers as a possible threat merely by charming my party members while level 1.  Then they will always know that "I" charmed them, and not that thing that looks and sounds exactly like me if one appears.

Quote from RolandtheCrownbreaker >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

Charm Person

It says in the spell description quite clearly that the person knows that it was the caster. Doesn't matter what they look like, smell like, or anything. They know.

 

Basic spell descriptions are not written to account for every possible scenario

The basic charm person scenario is that the caster and the target can see each other, and neither one is disguised or masked by some sort of illusion. "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you" refers to that scenario

Any complicating factors, like the caster using disguise self, are why the game has a DM to judge how that impacts things

If you want to try and convince your DM that the target is bestowed with some caster-specific form of Truesight when the charm ends, more power to you

 

Even the spell description doesn't really imply that much imo. So while yes like many things its a DM call. Its also just not how language works. If you throw a rock at me, and I see it I know you threw a rock at me. But i might give an ass description of you, if you were in a lineup I might pick the wrong guy, if you were in shadows so I just saw a shadowy figure while you are still standing in the shadows before I fully see you the sentence would still be I know you threw that rock at me, and after that you ran off before i got a clear look I'd likely never know who you were. But I'd know that shadowy figure who i called you was the person who threw the rock at me.

The statement When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you. just does not cover what people are describing. 

But you admitted that there were different ways to interpret that statement just a few posts ago. And now you are arguing that this is the only way to read it?

That's what I don't get. Should it be a magical connection able to pierce the most dedicated subterfuge? Meh, I'll work with whatever my DM says. Just don't sit there are try to tell me that there are multiple ways to interpret is, but actually this is the only way to interpret it.

 

Anything can be interpreted in multiple ways, and I don't see what I said here really changing that position. But if one of the obvious ways it can be interpreted is also the way the designers say it was intended I'd go with that as the ruling. Feel free to rule it however you want, but I don't intend for charm effects to give people a specific version of true sight for free. 

 Honestly, as was inferred, that enambles me as a caster to remove Doppelgangers as a possible threat merely by charming my party members while level 1.  Then they will always know that "I" charmed them, and not that thing that looks and sounds exactly like me if one appears.

yup. players can turn quite a few disadvantages into advantages. In this case I can say it would be a bigger advantage to me as across every wizard I played and I play a lot in 5e/5.5 I almost never cast charm person, its a mid/weak spell that is best out of combat but the cost is high enough not to make it worth it. especially since suggestion which is massively better across the board is only one level higher. But we have dealt with people/creatures imitating party members fairly frequently. 

My 2 cents:

The spell has 2 main effects:

1. The target treats you as a friendly acquaintance.
2. The target knows that you charmed them.

In both of these cases, the target is not aware of your true form, or who you are, whether you were disguised, etc. They simply get an idea put in their head that you are their friend, which later fades and they realise that you put that idea there.

The spell requires a fundamental magically-placed idea of you to be placed in their heads to work. You cannot expect the spell to work on you whilst you're disguised as someone else, but then not work on you because you're disguised as someone else.

However, if you're disguised, then they are not likely to be able to get back at you - they will be looking for the other person. They might even gripe to you as their next customer about the last one pulling a fast one, and not know it's you.

The only fact they have is that you charmed them. Who they think you are is up to their senses - what you looked like, acted like, sounded like, dressed like, etc.

So to my mind, it doesn't give them any knowledge of who you are (any more than re-meeting a stranger you recognise would grant you knowledge of them, beyond "We've met before"). What it does tell them is that the person they have been interacting with has charmed them.

On the edge cases where someone casts this and then doesn't interact with them, they would probably become aware of having been charmed, but lack the context for who - not that it would matter that much!

I tend to agree: it's not that they magically know "you" charmed them, it's that there's this person they found themselves liking and charmed by, and when the spell ends they know they were being magically influenced by that person. This does imply that if you charm someone and never interact with them they wouldn't know they were charmed, but I really can't see how that's abusable.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

I tend to agree: it's not that they magically know "you" charmed them, it's that there's this person they found themselves liking and charmed by, and when the spell ends they know they were being magically influenced by that person. This does imply that if you charm someone and never interact with them they wouldn't know they were charmed, but I really can't see how that's abusable.

 I'd disagree. They'd likely feel the magic wear off and know they were charmed, but it may cause confusion since they won't be able to think of any interaction where the charm did anything. In that case, it may cause suspicion due to the sensation without gain.

Quote from sabin76 >>

huh, huh!

Like I said, he often shoots from the hip in those tweets, and has been contradicted when sage advice has come out on more than one occasion. I think this is why they don't give it much weight. Especially now with 2024 out and him not holding a position in the company any more, as Maedra pointed out.

 He *did* have his position when these rules came out though. And I do get that he can be wrong. But I would say if given the odds of the guy who was in charge of the rules being wrong about their intent, vs random people reading the rules being wrong about their intent, I will always bet on the random people until confirmed otherwise.

And yes, knowing it was you, regardless of disguises, is effectively truesight to see 1 person. You were disguised, as Bill when you charmed him, but he knows it was actually you, Bob who charmed him. To make that work, he either now knows who Bob is and information about Bob's identity even though he never met Bob. Or, he gets a magic highlighter on Bob saying "this is who charmed you" whenever he sees Bob now. Which means, if Bob is disguised as Bill, the target can point to Bill (disguise) as the person who charmed him. He can point to Bob (not disguised) as the person who charmed him. He can point to Bill disguised as Bob as the person who did NOT charm him. He can point to Sarah (who Bob is now disguised as) as the person who charmed him. He can point to the bat flying around (Bob wild shaped or polymorphed) as the person who charmed him. Once you charm someone, that person would *always* know who you are and be able to identify you, regardless of form or disguise you take in the future.

But lets take it even a step further. You use suggestion to make the bad guy charm you then dispell it. You now always recognize the bad guy no matter what? You can always pick the bad guy out of a crowd knowing, this is who charmed me, regardless of any disguises, wild shapes, etc.? 

Honestly, this is much more convoluted than just going, yeah, he knows that the person he *perceived* interacting with him is the one who charmed him. Its very clean and very straightforward, and doesnt depend on a level 1 charm person being a permanent locate creature spell.

I don't think the hyperbole is necessary. The spell text doesn't say the victim will always and forever know who that person is no matter what they look like or transform into after the fact. But by the same token, I don't see any asterisk there that says "When the spell ends, the target knows* it was Charmed by you. ... *but not really." Call it intuition, call it psychic resonance - call it Spidey Sense for all I care - after the spell ends, the person who's been manipulated gets a magical sense that this is the person that magically manipulated them. I don't expect that magical radar to last next year or just next week or even the next day. It's not some permanent magical tether binding the two souls together. But I do expect that the spell does what it says it does and the victim does know who manipulated them, and the spell doesn't say that can be overridden with disguises, invisibility, or other shenanigans.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I don't think the hyperbole is necessary. The spell text doesn't say the victim will always and forever know who that person is no matter what they look like or transform into after the fact. But by the same token, I don't see any asterisk there that says "When the spell ends, the target knows* it was Charmed by you. ... *but not really." Call it intuition, call it psychic resonance - call it Spidey Sense for all I care - after the spell ends, the person who's been manipulated gets a magical sense that this is the person that magically manipulated them. I don't expect that magical radar to last next year or just next week or even the next day. It's not some permanent magical tether binding the two souls together. But I do expect that the spell does what it says it does and the victim does know who manipulated them, and the spell doesn't say that can be overridden with disguises, invisibility, or other shenanigans.

If they have such a sense and it doesn't tell when such a sense ends, it doesn't end. Your conclusion is flawed in its premise.

My premise and my conclusion are consistent in that both reject unfounded extreme interpretations. Nothing about the sentence "When the spell ends, the target knows it was charmed by you" indicates this knowledge will be perpetually refreshed afterward, creating a permanent one-way identity-revealing bond until the magical equivalent of the heat death of the universe. The magical manipulation happens in the moment and the magical knowledge of who did the manipulation is given in the moment. The argument from incredulity that this amounts to permanent, irrevocable, single-person truesight is fallacious.

Giving up your identity as the caster after the charm effect ends is the magical cost of this spell. This takes place in a fantasy world where using magic to manipulate someone's emotions is possible. It's inconsistent to accept that suspension of disbelief but then claim that the victim magically knowing who manipulated them beggars belief. There's no carve out in the spell text that says the victim won't know you did it if you were disguised, hidden, or invisible by mundane or magical means. The spell absolutely doesn't say that if you were disguised as someone else your victim will think that other person did it. And the text also doesn't say this one-time identification makes it impossible to hide your identity from that person in the future.

If you use charm person to get a better price from a shopkeeper today they'll know it was you once the charm wears off even if you were disguised or invisible when you did it. And I expect they wouldn't want you coming back. If tomorrow you went back to the same shop costumed up like the mascot Gritty they would have no reason to suspect it's you because nothing in the spell text indicates they have knowledge of what you've done after you magically emotionally violated them yesterday. Does that mean the shopkeeper could hold a grudge against you, fixate on the image they have in their mind of you, and put up a "this person is not welcome here" poster in their shop, and that some unrelated person who uses Mask of Many Faces to take on your appearance could then get kicked out when trying to shop there because the shopkeeper is holding that grudge against you? Yeah, and that's a story hook that could be interesting and/or hilarious, honestly.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Giving up your identity as the caster after the charm effect ends is the magical cost of this spell.

No, the magical cost of the spell is one first-level spell slot. A higher slot if you upcast

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Nothing about the sentence "When the spell ends, the target knows it was charmed by you" indicates this knowledge will be perpetually refreshed afterward, creating a permanent one-way identity-revealing bond until the magical equivalent of the heat death of the universe.

The spell has a listed duration of one hour. No other duration is listed

Spells do what they say they do. If your interpretation of "When the spell ends, the target knows it was charmed by you" is that the target has a magical knowledge of the caster that ignores any disguise or illusion, then that knowledge has no listed duration and would indeed last until the heat death of the universe

If you find that absurd, then perhaps you should reconsider what the actual "unfounded extreme interpretation" is here