Charm Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by the beholder for 1 hour, or until the beholder harms the creature.
The charmed condition is described as:
A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.
How much does this actually do? I think a lot of people mistakenly assume Charmed does more than it does: that it works like the spell Dominate Person. But it doesn't compel the target to follow orders. Many monsters have abilities that impose the Charmed condition, and state additional effects that apply while the target is Charmed in this way. But the Beholder's just does what it says on the tin.
If my players put a Charmed effect on an NPC, then if they attempt to persuade, intimidate, or deceive the creature, I give them advantage on the roll. But I don't usually attempt Persuasion or Intimidation checks against my players, because that would ordinarily violate their agency. However, should I do so while the PC is Charmed? I could have the Beholder speak a request to the PC, and the Beholder would roll Persuasion with advantage, contested by the PC's Insight. If the Beholder gets a higher roll, the player would be compelled to play their player in cooperation with the Beholder's request. I'd probably give a bonus to the player's roll if it was something clearly dangerous to the PC or their allies. Basically it would be similar to the Beholder being able to cast Suggestion at will while the Charmed effect persists, except the Beholder has to pass a contested check for it to be effective.
If my players put a Charmed effect on an NPC, then if they attempt to persuade, intimidate, or deceive the creature, I give them advantage on the roll. But I don't usually attempt Persuasion or Intimidation checks against my players, because that would ordinarily violate their agency. However, should I do so while the PC is Charmed?
It really depends on how willing they are to roll (or roleplay) with the charm. If they run around telling the rest of the party, "Hey, do we really need to fight? This Mike Wazowski guy seems cool, maybe we can talk it out" and only use their action to cast healing spells and such, then I wouldn't think it needed anything more. The charm ray is just to neutralize a foe in a fight until it's their turn to get wiped out.
If the player instead looks for every loophole they can find to try and get around the charm and still get in some licks... then yeah, they're going to be getting some timely "advice" from the beholder they'll have trouble not taking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You've got the right idea. Honestly, just having 1 less character trying to hurt the beholder is pretty helpful for the beholder.
But you should absolutely be rolling the occasional persuasion/deception/intimidation check on PCs. Not in a "you must do this" way, but in a "you want to" way. Like the beholder may not be able to convince you to hurt your friends, but it may get you to hold them back ("you want to help it"). And bear in mind that trying to convince a creature would take the beholder's turn and the beholder knows this.
Charm Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by the beholder for 1 hour, or until the beholder harms the creature.
The charmed condition is described as:
A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.
How much does this actually do? I think a lot of people mistakenly assume Charmed does more than it does: that it works like the spell Dominate Person. But it doesn't compel the target to follow orders. Many monsters have abilities that impose the Charmed condition, and state additional effects that apply while the target is Charmed in this way. But the Beholder's just does what it says on the tin.
If my players put a Charmed effect on an NPC, then if they attempt to persuade, intimidate, or deceive the creature, I give them advantage on the roll. But I don't usually attempt Persuasion or Intimidation checks against my players, because that would ordinarily violate their agency. However, should I do so while the PC is Charmed? I could have the Beholder speak a request to the PC, and the Beholder would roll Persuasion with advantage, contested by the PC's Insight. If the Beholder gets a higher roll, the player would be compelled to play their player in cooperation with the Beholder's request. I'd probably give a bonus to the player's roll if it was something clearly dangerous to the PC or their allies. Basically it would be similar to the Beholder being able to cast Suggestion at will while the Charmed effect persists, except the Beholder has to pass a contested check for it to be effective.
That would be a serious buff to the ray - do so at your own peril. What charm does in battle is the first bullet - the second bullet is usually irrelevant, with some specific niche corner cases, like an Inquisitive Rogue. If you buff charm to work this way, you'll also be buffing charm in the hands of your players - Charm Monster doesn't normally do anything in battle other than the first bullet, but you'll be opening it up to suggestion spam. I don't recommend it.
Charm Ray. The targeted creature must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by the beholder for 1 hour, or until the beholder harms the creature.
The charmed condition is described as:
A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.
How much does this actually do? I think a lot of people mistakenly assume Charmed does more than it does: that it works like the spell Dominate Person. But it doesn't compel the target to follow orders. Many monsters have abilities that impose the Charmed condition, and state additional effects that apply while the target is Charmed in this way. But the Beholder's just does what it says on the tin.
If my players put a Charmed effect on an NPC, then if they attempt to persuade, intimidate, or deceive the creature, I give them advantage on the roll. But I don't usually attempt Persuasion or Intimidation checks against my players, because that would ordinarily violate their agency. However, should I do so while the PC is Charmed? I could have the Beholder speak a request to the PC, and the Beholder would roll Persuasion with advantage, contested by the PC's Insight. If the Beholder gets a higher roll, the player would be compelled to play their player in cooperation with the Beholder's request. I'd probably give a bonus to the player's roll if it was something clearly dangerous to the PC or their allies. Basically it would be similar to the Beholder being able to cast Suggestion at will while the Charmed effect persists, except the Beholder has to pass a contested check for it to be effective.
That would be a serious buff to the ray - do so at your own peril. What charm does in battle is the first bullet - the second bullet is usually irrelevant, with some specific niche corner cases, like an Inquisitive Rogue. If you buff charm to work this way, you'll also be buffing charm in the hands of your players - Charm Monster doesn't normally do anything in battle other than the first bullet, but you'll be opening it up to suggestion spam. I don't recommend it.
As I said, I already allow the PCs to make use of the second bullet with Charm Person.
I don't think it would work that well with Charm Monster, since most monsters don't understand speech or have the intelligence to be persuaded. But of course if they do, then the players are welcome to try to talk them out of a fight. It won't work if their suggestion just goes completely against the monster's interests, just like the Suggestion spell doesn't allow you to command absolutely anything. But if there is a chance to change the monster's mind, then they can do it and they have advantage. It's just hard to figure out how this would work on the players, when the players probably aren't going to admit there's a chance to change their minds.
I utterly hate any spell that takes away the player's ability to decide what to do. I said player there intentionally, because it's not the character that is the true target, it's the person running it. You take away the "agency" of both the player, and their character away. The stuff is already in the game, so I just have to deal with it, and so far, I've never used such a monster.
Player characters are not monsters (I hope) so I think they aren't affected in any way by a spell that says "monster" in it. When it says "person" then what they do is up to the person. A Beholder gets advantage on their Ability Checks. I'll watch what the player does, and award them if they find a good way to wiggle out of what the Beholder expected them to do.
I utterly hate any spell that takes away the player's ability to decide what to do. I said player there intentionally, because it's not the character that is the true target, it's the person running it. You take away the "agency" of both the player, and their character away. The stuff is already in the game, so I just have to deal with it, and so far, I've never used such a monster.
I'll just say that taking away some options from a player is not taking away their agency. Giving them zero options takes away their agency
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I utterly hate any spell that takes away the player's ability to decide what to do. I said player there intentionally, because it's not the character that is the true target, it's the person running it. You take away the "agency" of both the player, and their character away. The stuff is already in the game, so I just have to deal with it, and so far, I've never used such a monster.
I'll just say that taking away some options from a player is not taking away their agency. Giving them zero options takes away their agency
I don't really want to get into that argument. I agree with Geann that it's not that fun, but it is clearly part of the game with some other monsters' charm abilities. I'm just trying to figure out which side of the gray line the Beholder falls on that.
I utterly hate any spell that takes away the player's ability to decide what to do. I said player there intentionally, because it's not the character that is the true target, it's the person running it. You take away the "agency" of both the player, and their character away. The stuff is already in the game, so I just have to deal with it, and so far, I've never used such a monster.
Player characters are not monsters (I hope) so I think they aren't affected in any way by a spell that says "monster" in it. When it says "person" then what they do is up to the person. A Beholder gets advantage on their Ability Checks. I'll watch what the player does, and award them if they find a good way to wiggle out of what the Beholder expected them to do.
I get where you’re coming from, but I disagree that a charm is really doing that. It’s a temporary effect, it’s not permanently telling them they have to act a certain way. It’s a chance for them to rp something a little different for a few minutes while the issue is getting resolved. You can also look at it as a different kind of damage. A player can’t say they choose for their character to dodge the fireball.
As I said. I loath charm spells. Every time I've been a player and had one used on me, if I fail my save, I'm a robot. I might as well hand my character to the DM and go grab a drink, because I'm not playing my own character. I avoid them when I DM, but I have to deal with them, and I do. If I run a monster that Charms, I'll use it as intelligently as I think the monster can, and Beholders are quite bright, so they will use the heck out of it. That's going to be a BBEG and nothing less. I intend to award Inspiration to any player who wiggles out of a Charm spell with a clever trick. Sure, it's damage of a kind, and I'll suffer from it when I must, but hey, I have some of that sort of thing in my real life, a type of damage I can't control or resist and it sucks.
Maybe a player can't choose to dodge a Fireball, but they can choose not to, and people like to have people charmed do stuff like that.
One of the examples in the Suggestion spell is for a Paladin to give his mount to the first beggar he meets. I'd never allow that. It's preposterous that anyone would consider that reasonable. The Command spell says if someone orders you to Grovel, you fall prone. You can't grovel while standing?
Anyone is always free to do anything in their game that is fun for everyone, and I would never say that for people who find it fun to be charmed shouldn't get to enjoy that, but not in my game, thanks all the same.
As I said. I loath charm spells. Every time I've been a player and had one used on me, if I fail my save, I'm a robot. I might as well hand my character to the DM and go grab a drink, because I'm not playing my own character. I avoid them when I DM, but I have to deal with them, and I do. If I run a monster that Charms, I'll use it as intelligently as I think the monster can, and Beholders are quite bright, so they will use the heck out of it. That's going to be a BBEG and nothing less. I intend to award Inspiration to any player who wiggles out of a Charm spell with a clever trick. Sure, it's damage of a kind, and I'll suffer from it when I must, but hey, I have some of that sort of thing in my real life, a type of damage I can't control or resist and it sucks.
Maybe a player can't choose to dodge a Fireball, but they can choose not to, and people like to have people charmed do stuff like that.
One of the examples in the Suggestion spell is for a Paladin to give his mount to the first beggar he meets. I'd never allow that. It's preposterous that anyone would consider that reasonable. The Command spell says if someone orders you to Grovel, you fall prone. You can't grovel while standing?
Anyone is always free to do anything in their game that is fun for everyone, and I would never say that for people who find it fun to be charmed shouldn't get to enjoy that, but not in my game, thanks all the same.
You are playing charm wrong. Unless it specifically says you obey their commands, you don't. You just have a new friend. It is a great RP opportunity. And even if you are controlled, it is still great RP, and you can try to maliciously comply (story at the end).
Suggestion is not charm, just charm-like. It is pretty powerful and if you weaken it a bit so characters don't give away sentimental or valuable things, that's fine by me. Also, look up the definition of grovel: "to creep with the face to the ground, crawl."
Story: In AL once, one of the PCs got charmed and the DM said "you see this character as your friend who you would do anything for," or something along those lines. Then as the fight is starting, the charmer tells the PC to "kill their friends," and oh boy, did the whole table enjoy me pointing that out.
Yeah, one time an enemy had charmed my character and said, "Kill the wizard." Should have been more specific, spellcasting NPC. Unfortunately my friends broke the charm before I could do the dramatic thing.
TBH, malicious compliance seems inappropriate for basic Charmed, which is supposed to make you aligned with their goals, not a programmable robot that must comply with the letter of their commands, no more, no less. But malicious compliance feels clever for players and allows them to steal their agency back, which feels good, so I'll allow it.
I have had charm spells used against me and the DM required me to act like a robot. I don't do that. When someone maliciously complies, I give them Inspiration for it, just like in your story.
The suggestion spell is pretty potent, there's a lot you can get with a well worded one. When it comes to a Paladin's mount, even a normal Warhorse costs 400 gold pieces, and that's a kind outrageous thing to expect a Paladin to give away, I guess it depends on how much treasure they have, because with 400 gold you could live like an Aristocrat for over a month, so... maybe. It's also quite possible that the Paladin used Find Steed, and those can't actually be given away.
There's more than one way to grovel. One way is to stand there, shake your hands, and whine. The Japanese way is to keep bowing over and over while apologizing profusely. If someone says "cringe", I'll stand there and do it. If someone says "Creep" well, maybe I'll stand there and get insulted, maybe I'll creep along on the ground.
When a creature is Charmed, aside from the exact definitions of the condition for rules purposes, it's best to just tell the player: "You look at the (charmer). You realise that actually they're your friend. They look fantastic. You'd like to have their approval."
I've never had a problem with a player whose character got charmed and had this instruction. They've always found it really fun.
Charm in combat is a difficult one. Taking from the Charm Monster, "If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it." So logically replacing some wording: ""If the character fails the saving throw against the Beholder's Charm Ray, it is charmed by the Beholder until the effect ends or until the Beholder or its companions do anything harmful to the character."
The wording intention is for harmful to mean a damaging attack, spell or effect, or one that otherwise adversely affects the character - for instance, paralysing them. But you could argue that 'do anything harmful' includes "Disintegrate my wife" or "Death Ray my friend." The moment the Beholder uses an attack against the creature's close ally, I'd allow them to repeat the saving throw. The magical Charm effect doesn't override the character's beliefs, personality or relationships with others - only how it sees the Beholder. If I see a friendly acquaintance trying to disintegrate my much older friends, that effect is going to waiver.
Because the mechanics for it are difficult, I'd actually replace the eye ray with a Ray of Majesty that simply says "You cannot bear to attack or cast harmful spells at the Beholder" and not have it affect any other actions.
One of the examples in the Suggestion spell is for a Paladin to give his mount to the first beggar he meets. I'd never allow that. It's preposterous that anyone would consider that reasonable.
Many paladins are lawful good. It is both lawful and good to give to the poor. You could make an argument that it's not the goodest thing, because it would be better for the paladin to keep their mount and ride it to victory over the forces of evil. But I don't think that Suggestion requires the action to be the most aligned with your alignment. The action most aligned with your alignment is exactly how you would play your character without being Charmed.
I think a good rule for Suggestion would be that if the player can make the case that it conflicts with their alignment, they don't have to do it. So a lawful neutral character wouldn't give away their steed, since neutral characters don't go out of their way to do good for no return. And likewise you couldn't Suggest that a neutral good character or a lawful evil character murder an innocent stranger, because that is an unlawful evil act. But you could Suggest that to a neutral evil character.
Charm < Suggestion < Command < Dominate. With Command and Dominate, the order doesn't have to be compatible with alignment. Suggestion forces you to do something as long as it's compatible with your alignment and not inevitably harmful to yourself or your friends. Charm does the same, I think, but only if the caster succeeds on their advantaged Persuasion check against your Insight.
Just as some DMs say, "Is that what an <X Y alignment> character would do?" as a gentle reminder when you do something against your alignment, I think you can say, "Is that something an <X Y alignment> character wouldn't do?" if they try to refuse a Charm or Suggestion. And maybe you can let the player make the final decision, but that's a good prompt to try to keep the player honest.
When a creature is Charmed, aside from the exact definitions of the condition for rules purposes, it's best to just tell the player: "You look at the (charmer). You realise that actually they're your friend. They look fantastic. You'd like to have their approval."
I've never had a problem with a player whose character got charmed and had this instruction. They've always found it really fun.
Charm in combat is a difficult one. Taking from the Charm Monster, "If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it." So logically replacing some wording: ""If the character fails the saving throw against the Beholder's Charm Ray, it is charmed by the Beholder until the effect ends or until the Beholder or its companions do anything harmful to the character."
The wording intention is for harmful to mean a damaging attack, spell or effect, or one that otherwise adversely affects the character - for instance, paralysing them. But you could argue that 'do anything harmful' includes "Disintegrate my wife" or "Death Ray my friend." The moment the Beholder uses an attack against the creature's close ally, I'd allow them to repeat the saving throw. The magical Charm effect doesn't override the character's beliefs, personality or relationships with others - only how it sees the Beholder. If I see a friendly acquaintance trying to disintegrate my much older friends, that effect is going to waiver.
Because the mechanics for it are difficult, I'd actually replace the eye ray with a Ray of Majesty that simply says "You cannot bear to attack or cast harmful spells at the Beholder" and not have it affect any other actions.
I'm wary of extending the definition of harmful. You could take it even further, and say, "Making me use a 5th-level spell slot is harmful to me."
Here's the thing about harming your friends. Charm should make you see the charmer as at least as close of a friend as your party members. So if the charmer attacking your party makes you distrust the charmer, then your party attacking the charmer should likewise make you distrust your party.
In real life, if a fight breaks out among your friends, you're likely to try to stop both sides with minimal harm to both. So I think as long as the charmer is not trying to get you to escalate the fight or let your friends die, its suggestions should be received as reasonable. For example, if the Beholder were to ask you to cast a Wall of Stone with you and it on one side, and the rest of your party on the other, it would seem quite reasonable.
I use charm as a way to stop one creature from attacking another, and nothing more. When an ability is supposed to mimic Suggestion, it will reference Suggestion or specify additional effects on top of the base charm effect.
Whether it's a level 1 spell or a monster ability, giving extra power to the charm effect is not something I would advise. Using a first level spell slot to convince an enemy to waste their fifth level spell slot - or even to use it against the goals of the rest of the party - is far beyond the intended use. To me it also oversteps agency boundaries - roleplaying someone who is duped or charmed is one thing, actively wasting your resources on things the player doesn't want to do would make many people justifiably angry or resentful.
And lastly when you turn basic charm into Suggestion or dominate, you ruin the chance to scale up to those conditions later in the campaign. At the time you actually face or obtain Dominate Person, it should be an amazing new thing, not something you've basically experienced since tier 1. If you want this kind of thing to feature in your campaign, I'd suggest starting the campaign at a higher level where it is appropriately scaled with other conditions you might face.
I'll have the player set the DC. I tell them what the Beholder is trying to persuade them of, and they say how high of a DC they think that would be. Then the Beholder rolls with advantage and they play out what they committed to. That way if you really don't want to comply, you can set the DC impossibly high. But if you think your character might on some day fall for that, then you can allow the dice to decide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So a Beholder's Charm Ray has this description:
The charmed condition is described as:
How much does this actually do? I think a lot of people mistakenly assume Charmed does more than it does: that it works like the spell Dominate Person. But it doesn't compel the target to follow orders. Many monsters have abilities that impose the Charmed condition, and state additional effects that apply while the target is Charmed in this way. But the Beholder's just does what it says on the tin.
If my players put a Charmed effect on an NPC, then if they attempt to persuade, intimidate, or deceive the creature, I give them advantage on the roll. But I don't usually attempt Persuasion or Intimidation checks against my players, because that would ordinarily violate their agency. However, should I do so while the PC is Charmed? I could have the Beholder speak a request to the PC, and the Beholder would roll Persuasion with advantage, contested by the PC's Insight. If the Beholder gets a higher roll, the player would be compelled to play their player in cooperation with the Beholder's request. I'd probably give a bonus to the player's roll if it was something clearly dangerous to the PC or their allies. Basically it would be similar to the Beholder being able to cast Suggestion at will while the Charmed effect persists, except the Beholder has to pass a contested check for it to be effective.
It really depends on how willing they are to roll (or roleplay) with the charm. If they run around telling the rest of the party, "Hey, do we really need to fight? This Mike Wazowski guy seems cool, maybe we can talk it out" and only use their action to cast healing spells and such, then I wouldn't think it needed anything more. The charm ray is just to neutralize a foe in a fight until it's their turn to get wiped out.
If the player instead looks for every loophole they can find to try and get around the charm and still get in some licks... then yeah, they're going to be getting some timely "advice" from the beholder they'll have trouble not taking.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You've got the right idea. Honestly, just having 1 less character trying to hurt the beholder is pretty helpful for the beholder.
But you should absolutely be rolling the occasional persuasion/deception/intimidation check on PCs. Not in a "you must do this" way, but in a "you want to" way. Like the beholder may not be able to convince you to hurt your friends, but it may get you to hold them back ("you want to help it"). And bear in mind that trying to convince a creature would take the beholder's turn and the beholder knows this.
That would be a serious buff to the ray - do so at your own peril. What charm does in battle is the first bullet - the second bullet is usually irrelevant, with some specific niche corner cases, like an Inquisitive Rogue. If you buff charm to work this way, you'll also be buffing charm in the hands of your players - Charm Monster doesn't normally do anything in battle other than the first bullet, but you'll be opening it up to suggestion spam. I don't recommend it.
It would be, however in this combat it's not just going to be the Beholder, and the PC can just attack other enemies.
As I said, I already allow the PCs to make use of the second bullet with Charm Person.
I don't think it would work that well with Charm Monster, since most monsters don't understand speech or have the intelligence to be persuaded. But of course if they do, then the players are welcome to try to talk them out of a fight. It won't work if their suggestion just goes completely against the monster's interests, just like the Suggestion spell doesn't allow you to command absolutely anything. But if there is a chance to change the monster's mind, then they can do it and they have advantage. It's just hard to figure out how this would work on the players, when the players probably aren't going to admit there's a chance to change their minds.
I utterly hate any spell that takes away the player's ability to decide what to do. I said player there intentionally, because it's not the character that is the true target, it's the person running it. You take away the "agency" of both the player, and their character away. The stuff is already in the game, so I just have to deal with it, and so far, I've never used such a monster.
Player characters are not monsters (I hope) so I think they aren't affected in any way by a spell that says "monster" in it. When it says "person" then what they do is up to the person. A Beholder gets advantage on their Ability Checks. I'll watch what the player does, and award them if they find a good way to wiggle out of what the Beholder expected them to do.
<Insert clever signature here>
I'll just say that taking away some options from a player is not taking away their agency. Giving them zero options takes away their agency
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't really want to get into that argument. I agree with Geann that it's not that fun, but it is clearly part of the game with some other monsters' charm abilities. I'm just trying to figure out which side of the gray line the Beholder falls on that.
I get where you’re coming from, but I disagree that a charm is really doing that. It’s a temporary effect, it’s not permanently telling them they have to act a certain way. It’s a chance for them to rp something a little different for a few minutes while the issue is getting resolved.
You can also look at it as a different kind of damage. A player can’t say they choose for their character to dodge the fireball.
As I said. I loath charm spells. Every time I've been a player and had one used on me, if I fail my save, I'm a robot. I might as well hand my character to the DM and go grab a drink, because I'm not playing my own character. I avoid them when I DM, but I have to deal with them, and I do. If I run a monster that Charms, I'll use it as intelligently as I think the monster can, and Beholders are quite bright, so they will use the heck out of it. That's going to be a BBEG and nothing less. I intend to award Inspiration to any player who wiggles out of a Charm spell with a clever trick. Sure, it's damage of a kind, and I'll suffer from it when I must, but hey, I have some of that sort of thing in my real life, a type of damage I can't control or resist and it sucks.
Maybe a player can't choose to dodge a Fireball, but they can choose not to, and people like to have people charmed do stuff like that.
One of the examples in the Suggestion spell is for a Paladin to give his mount to the first beggar he meets. I'd never allow that. It's preposterous that anyone would consider that reasonable. The Command spell says if someone orders you to Grovel, you fall prone. You can't grovel while standing?
Anyone is always free to do anything in their game that is fun for everyone, and I would never say that for people who find it fun to be charmed shouldn't get to enjoy that, but not in my game, thanks all the same.
<Insert clever signature here>
You are playing charm wrong. Unless it specifically says you obey their commands, you don't. You just have a new friend. It is a great RP opportunity. And even if you are controlled, it is still great RP, and you can try to maliciously comply (story at the end).
Suggestion is not charm, just charm-like. It is pretty powerful and if you weaken it a bit so characters don't give away sentimental or valuable things, that's fine by me. Also, look up the definition of grovel: "to creep with the face to the ground, crawl."
Story: In AL once, one of the PCs got charmed and the DM said "you see this character as your friend who you would do anything for," or something along those lines. Then as the fight is starting, the charmer tells the PC to "kill their friends," and oh boy, did the whole table enjoy me pointing that out.
Yeah, one time an enemy had charmed my character and said, "Kill the wizard." Should have been more specific, spellcasting NPC. Unfortunately my friends broke the charm before I could do the dramatic thing.
TBH, malicious compliance seems inappropriate for basic Charmed, which is supposed to make you aligned with their goals, not a programmable robot that must comply with the letter of their commands, no more, no less. But malicious compliance feels clever for players and allows them to steal their agency back, which feels good, so I'll allow it.
I have had charm spells used against me and the DM required me to act like a robot. I don't do that. When someone maliciously complies, I give them Inspiration for it, just like in your story.
The suggestion spell is pretty potent, there's a lot you can get with a well worded one. When it comes to a Paladin's mount, even a normal Warhorse costs 400 gold pieces, and that's a kind outrageous thing to expect a Paladin to give away, I guess it depends on how much treasure they have, because with 400 gold you could live like an Aristocrat for over a month, so... maybe. It's also quite possible that the Paladin used Find Steed, and those can't actually be given away.
There's more than one way to grovel. One way is to stand there, shake your hands, and whine. The Japanese way is to keep bowing over and over while apologizing profusely. If someone says "cringe", I'll stand there and do it. If someone says "Creep" well, maybe I'll stand there and get insulted, maybe I'll creep along on the ground.
<Insert clever signature here>
When a creature is Charmed, aside from the exact definitions of the condition for rules purposes, it's best to just tell the player: "You look at the (charmer). You realise that actually they're your friend. They look fantastic. You'd like to have their approval."
I've never had a problem with a player whose character got charmed and had this instruction. They've always found it really fun.
Charm in combat is a difficult one. Taking from the Charm Monster, "If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it." So logically replacing some wording: ""If the character fails the saving throw against the Beholder's Charm Ray, it is charmed by the Beholder until the effect ends or until the Beholder or its companions do anything harmful to the character."
The wording intention is for harmful to mean a damaging attack, spell or effect, or one that otherwise adversely affects the character - for instance, paralysing them. But you could argue that 'do anything harmful' includes "Disintegrate my wife" or "Death Ray my friend." The moment the Beholder uses an attack against the creature's close ally, I'd allow them to repeat the saving throw. The magical Charm effect doesn't override the character's beliefs, personality or relationships with others - only how it sees the Beholder. If I see a friendly acquaintance trying to disintegrate my much older friends, that effect is going to waiver.
Because the mechanics for it are difficult, I'd actually replace the eye ray with a Ray of Majesty that simply says "You cannot bear to attack or cast harmful spells at the Beholder" and not have it affect any other actions.
Many paladins are lawful good. It is both lawful and good to give to the poor. You could make an argument that it's not the goodest thing, because it would be better for the paladin to keep their mount and ride it to victory over the forces of evil. But I don't think that Suggestion requires the action to be the most aligned with your alignment. The action most aligned with your alignment is exactly how you would play your character without being Charmed.
I think a good rule for Suggestion would be that if the player can make the case that it conflicts with their alignment, they don't have to do it. So a lawful neutral character wouldn't give away their steed, since neutral characters don't go out of their way to do good for no return. And likewise you couldn't Suggest that a neutral good character or a lawful evil character murder an innocent stranger, because that is an unlawful evil act. But you could Suggest that to a neutral evil character.
Charm < Suggestion < Command < Dominate. With Command and Dominate, the order doesn't have to be compatible with alignment. Suggestion forces you to do something as long as it's compatible with your alignment and not inevitably harmful to yourself or your friends. Charm does the same, I think, but only if the caster succeeds on their advantaged Persuasion check against your Insight.
Just as some DMs say, "Is that what an <X Y alignment> character would do?" as a gentle reminder when you do something against your alignment, I think you can say, "Is that something an <X Y alignment> character wouldn't do?" if they try to refuse a Charm or Suggestion. And maybe you can let the player make the final decision, but that's a good prompt to try to keep the player honest.
I'm wary of extending the definition of harmful. You could take it even further, and say, "Making me use a 5th-level spell slot is harmful to me."
Here's the thing about harming your friends. Charm should make you see the charmer as at least as close of a friend as your party members. So if the charmer attacking your party makes you distrust the charmer, then your party attacking the charmer should likewise make you distrust your party.
In real life, if a fight breaks out among your friends, you're likely to try to stop both sides with minimal harm to both. So I think as long as the charmer is not trying to get you to escalate the fight or let your friends die, its suggestions should be received as reasonable. For example, if the Beholder were to ask you to cast a Wall of Stone with you and it on one side, and the rest of your party on the other, it would seem quite reasonable.
I use charm as a way to stop one creature from attacking another, and nothing more. When an ability is supposed to mimic Suggestion, it will reference Suggestion or specify additional effects on top of the base charm effect.
Whether it's a level 1 spell or a monster ability, giving extra power to the charm effect is not something I would advise. Using a first level spell slot to convince an enemy to waste their fifth level spell slot - or even to use it against the goals of the rest of the party - is far beyond the intended use. To me it also oversteps agency boundaries - roleplaying someone who is duped or charmed is one thing, actively wasting your resources on things the player doesn't want to do would make many people justifiably angry or resentful.
And lastly when you turn basic charm into Suggestion or dominate, you ruin the chance to scale up to those conditions later in the campaign. At the time you actually face or obtain Dominate Person, it should be an amazing new thing, not something you've basically experienced since tier 1. If you want this kind of thing to feature in your campaign, I'd suggest starting the campaign at a higher level where it is appropriately scaled with other conditions you might face.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think I just came up with a good solution.
I'll have the player set the DC. I tell them what the Beholder is trying to persuade them of, and they say how high of a DC they think that would be. Then the Beholder rolls with advantage and they play out what they committed to. That way if you really don't want to comply, you can set the DC impossibly high. But if you think your character might on some day fall for that, then you can allow the dice to decide.