Charm Person is a broken spell in 5e

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.

 Its not a hyperbole, its the logical conclusion of the target having to know who it was regardless of disguises and hidden identities.

But if you disagrees, walk me thru it. Bob goes to the shopkeeper disguised as Alice and charms him. How long does the sense last? How long does Bob avoid the shopkeeper before the shopkeeper loses his ability to know it was Bob? If Bob goes back tomorrow, does the shopkeeper know? What about next week? Next year? Whats the time limit?

*edit, saw this after replying*

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

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.

This actually makes it even weirder, because now you have to figure out what constitutes the *real* you. If we follow what you say here, then Bob, disguised as Alice, charms the shopkeeper, *but stays disguised as Alice* then the shopkeeper never knows the person he sees as Alice charmed him. He knows Bob charmed him, but Bob never goes to the shopkeeper as Bob, always Alice and keeps charming him, keeps getting the really nice discounts.

He even talks to Alice about it. "Somebody called Bob I've never met keeps charming me. No idea why or how. He's never come in here, never met me, but he keeps charming me. Isnt that really weird?" And Alice just goes, "yeah, so weird. Still got that 20% friends and family discount going?"

I once played a character who was always disguised. The game ended early so the other players never found out about it. But he would add disguises on top of his disguise. The other players knew him as Denth, a high elf, but he really was a drow named Vara. Except, never once in the game did he appear without his high elf dosguise. If he charmed the shopkeeper, would the shop keeper know Denth or Vara charmed him? 

I rule it as:Charm Person/Monster, even if cast 30 ft. away, should only count "you" as whatever sensory input & other info you gave the target.

Also, this whole argument only matters if the target is hostile after being charmed, which isn't certain:Heck, most targets are not going to need to ping who "you" are.

This whole discussion falls under DM fiat, because even AL games I've played in rule it inconsistently.

Which is why we need constant, consistent Sage Advice & Errata, & a place to ask questions for such that is constantly open & accessible.

Ok, how about this?

You're a shopkeep of some kind of general magic store. An elf walks in and you have a friendly interaction with them, giving them a slight discount on a set of potions before they leave. A few moments later, a human walks in and you end up selling a +1 sword for just a little above the cost it was to acquire it. You recall them being very nice, almost like a friend from long ago. Several minutes after the human leaves, a tiefling comes in. You've never met a tiefling before, and the townsfolk have always said not to trust them and you've been inclined to agree if the tales are true, but you feel like this one is a pretty alright person. The conversation is warm, and you end up selling a +1 shield for less than you were advertising. It's now been about an hour since that first elven customer came in and you are just musing with the tielfing about how you are going to tell everyone you know what a great guy they are and that the stories about tieflings are hogwash when Charm Person wears off (let's assume the player was not keeping track of time, but the DM was).

What the shopkeep ostensibly doesn't know during that hour is that all three customers are the same person in different disguises: the person who cast the spell. So... who does the shopkeep "know" charmed them when it wears off? The elf who cast a spell using verbal and somatic components within 30 feet of them? The tiefling who was present when the spell wore off? All three? None of them, really, and they would be able to pick you out of a crowd in the future no matter what form you had (for an indeterminant amount of time)?

If it's the elf because they are the one who was seen casting, what happens if it's cast with subtle spell?
If it's the tiefling because they were there when the spell wore off, what happens if they did keep track of time and left before the spell ended?
If it's all three, does the shopkeep then know it was one person, or do they think all three "people" charmed them individually?
If it's the last one, how long is this supposed to last?

I don't think there is an easy way to answer this without some inconsistencies one way or another. After hanging out in this thread, I think I've come around to "The target always knows they've been charmed, and if you are present when it ends, they know it was you. This information is immediate, but fleeting, like a ping that's gone as soon as you register it." But that's adding language that isn't in the spell effects (namely, that you must be present to be identified as the charmer, as the spell makes no mention of where the caster need be when it wears off for that part of the effect to function).

It really boils down to: Who are you? Who were you? Who have you been? And which of these matters most for the caster of the spell?

They would know they were charmed by each of them. The only real question for the DM would be if multiple charms were on the person somehow cast or dropped at the exact same time would a person recognize it as 3 spells or 1.  But in this case, the spell dropped and they recognize each of the people had charmed them, they realize it at the exact same time outside weird situations I think they would figure they were the same person no matter what the answer above is.

Now I guess if 3 people coordinated and cast charm person at the same time from a distance and in hiding at the same person and walked at different times with the spell dropping for each of them at the same time, would the person recognize the difference between the 2 scenarios. I don't think the rules cover such a niche situation and it would be a DM call. Personally I'd go with the target likely assumes it was the same person using change self and screwing with them for some reason as opposed to some weird conspiracy of charmers as they don't get that strong of a feeling about whether it is 3 spells or one. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

They would know they were charmed by each of them. The only real question for the DM would be if multiple charms were on the person somehow cast or dropped at the exact same time would a person recognize it as 3 spells or 1.  But in this case, the spell dropped and they recognize each of the people had charmed them, they realize it at the exact same time outside weird situations I think they would figure they were the same person no matter what the answer above is.

Now I guess if 3 people coordinated and cast charm person at the same time from a distance and in hiding at the same person and walked at different times with the spell dropping for each of them at the same time, would the person recognize the difference between the 2 scenarios. I don't think the rules cover such a niche situation and it would be a DM call. Personally I'd go with the target likely assumes it was the same person using change self and screwing with them for some reason as opposed to some weird conspiracy of charmers as they don't get that strong of a feeling about whether it is 3 spells or one. 

Ok, but now we're back to the OP (which I, admittedly, dismissed at first as a very strange contrivance like they were trying to game the system, when it, in fact, opens this spell to the scrutiny at didn't seem to get when it was written): What happens if the spell is cast without the target knowing and the caster never interacts with them? Sure it's not a particularly common scenario, but it doesn't have to be on purpose, either. What if the caster used subtle and was about to walk into the shop when they got waylaid, or noticed an assassin after them and decided to run before interacting with the shopkeep? The spell wears off and the shopkeep... "knows it was you"? That's what the spell text says, but it simply doesn't work in all scenarios without that perpetual beacon that everyone is complaining about (with reason... that is a pretty powerful effect for a level 1 spell to have).

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

They would know they were charmed by each of them. The only real question for the DM would be if multiple charms were on the person somehow cast or dropped at the exact same time would a person recognize it as 3 spells or 1. 

 This falls under multiple spell effects so cannot happen.

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

They would know they were charmed by each of them. The only real question for the DM would be if multiple charms were on the person somehow cast or dropped at the exact same time would a person recognize it as 3 spells or 1.  But in this case, the spell dropped and they recognize each of the people had charmed them, they realize it at the exact same time outside weird situations I think they would figure they were the same person no matter what the answer above is.

Now I guess if 3 people coordinated and cast charm person at the same time from a distance and in hiding at the same person and walked at different times with the spell dropping for each of them at the same time, would the person recognize the difference between the 2 scenarios. I don't think the rules cover such a niche situation and it would be a DM call. Personally I'd go with the target likely assumes it was the same person using change self and screwing with them for some reason as opposed to some weird conspiracy of charmers as they don't get that strong of a feeling about whether it is 3 spells or one. 

Ok, but now we're back to the OP (which I, admittedly, dismissed at first as a very strange contrivance like they were trying to game the system, when it, in fact, opens this spell to the scrutiny at didn't seem to get when it was written): What happens if the spell is cast without the target knowing and the caster never interacts with them? Sure it's not a particularly common scenario, but it doesn't have to be on purpose, either. What if the caster used subtle and was about to walk into the shop when they got waylaid, or noticed an assassin after them and decided to run before interacting with the shopkeep? The spell wears off and the shopkeep... "knows it was you"? That's what the spell text says, but it simply doesn't work in all scenarios without that perpetual beacon that everyone is complaining about (with reason... that is a pretty powerful effect for a level 1 spell to have).

 You would just be that guy i didn't see. it is not complicated imo. That is what you means. You is just a way to say that person even if you have no idea who they are. A shadowy figure is still you, someone i i never saw or interacted with and don't know anything about currently still falls under you. You does not mean you have access to more information than you normally would. The sentence would just be why would "you" cast a charm on me then leave without talking to me, that is so weird. But you would not know who you is. Just someone who is now the you in the sentence charmed you. All the spell is really saying is you know you were charmed and odds are they know by who since you likely interacted with them, they saw the spell being cast etc but if noy the you is just that guy, some shadowy figure etc which still falls under the definition of you.  

If you hear a noise but don't see anyone you could say i know you are out there, but that does not mean you know who you is. This is just how the word you is used. 

The unfounded extreme interpretation is the argument that the victim would always know the caster's identity forever going forward no matter how they disguise or transform themselves after the casting of Charm Person and the consequences had been resolved.

Again, the text of the spell says: "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you." It doesn't say "the target doesn't know it was Charmed by you if you were hidden, disguised, or invisible at the time." It also doesn't say "the target always knows your identity and recognizes you in the future no matter how you disguise or transform yourself." The charm effect lasts for a short time and the magical knowledge of the caster is given in the moment.

There is no reason to assume a disguise would hide your identity from being magically revealed to your target when you use Charm Person. Nor is there any reason to assume that person would know it was really you the next day if you walked in then having used something like Mask of Many Faces to make yourself look like Drizzt. They won't forget that you magically violated their mind yesterday but at the same time they have no way to know the next that you put on a new magical disguise and are standing right in front of them. Heck, the person could forget at some point with the passage of time.

I'm arguing there is a limited, commonsense interpretation of "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you." It's a rational position between the extremes of "the spell can't possibly give that information because reasons" and "well if the spell really works that way then it's a permanent identity revealer no matter what." I don't expect continuing to argue in circles about it is going to be fruitful at this point.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

The unfounded extreme interpretation is the argument that the victim would always know the caster's identity forever going forward no matter how they disguise or transform themselves after the casting of Charm Person and the consequences had been resolved.

Again, the text of the spell says: "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you." It doesn't say "the target doesn't know it was Charmed by you if you were hidden, disguised, or invisible at the time." It also doesn't say "the target always knows your identity and recognizes you in the future no matter how you disguise or transform yourself." The charm effect lasts for a short time and the magical knowledge of the caster is given in the moment.

There is no reason to assume a disguise would hide your identity from being magically revealed to your target when you use Charm Person. Nor is there any reason to assume that person would know it was really you the next day if you walked in then having used something like Mask of Many Faces to make yourself look like Drizzt. They won't forget that you magically violated their mind yesterday but at the same time they have no way to know the next that you put on a new magical disguise and are standing right in front of them. Heck, the person could forget at some point with the passage of time.

I'm arguing there is a limited, commonsense interpretation of "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you." It's a rational position between the extremes of "the spell can't possibly give that information because reasons" and "well if the spell really works that way then it's a permanent identity revealer no matter what." I don't expect continuing to argue in circles about it is going to be fruitful at this point.

Ok, so answer the question. If Bob disguised as Alice charms the shopkeeper, but only ever interacts with the shopkeeper as Alice, does the the shopkeeper know the person he sees as Alice is the one who charmed him? If he sees Bob later, never having met Bob, does he know that's the person who charmed him?

They are mutually exclusive unless you have a never ending, I always see an aura/spidey-sense/giant-shining-beacon-of-light-on-you after that person casts charm person.

I already answered the question. This is what I was talking about with the arguing in circles. Yes, obviously the shopkeeper knows it was Bob. That's what "When the spell ends, the target knows it was Charmed by you" means. The shopkeeper knows Bob did it. Because magic. The magic of the spell informs the victim who did the emotional manipulation in the moment the charm effect wears off.

Also, the shopkeeper did meet Bob. When you meet a person wearing a disguise you still meet that person.

But again, none of this means that the shopkeeper will magically recognize Bob if he walks in using a different disguise later.

Ok, so the shopkeeper doesnt know Alice, who Bob is disguised as, is the person who charmed him? So Bob, staying disguised as Alice, is never known as the person who is charming the shopkeeper?