Weird subtle spell charm interactions - how would you rule it?

[whateew]

This is not a new topic, and there is sage guidance on this: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/16/how-does-this-work-if-you-disguised-yourself-before-charm-person-spell/ gives some details on how you might rule magic charming - they know it's the "you" who interacted with the victim, whatever "you" present as. In light of the new abberant mind sorcerer however, I feel this raises some weird questions when coupled with telepathy.

Say I subtle spell charm person someone, before spending a bonus actions to form a telepathic link. The entire time, I do not speak with the person (or even am hidden from them), so they would not have any reason to think my character would have casted the spell. I then leave the vicinity, before telepathically communicating with them - while surprising to anyone else, the charm means they regard this voice as "a friendly acquaintance." After the spell ends, you then approach this person - would they suspect you of the charm? Or the "you" they were presented with was a mystical voice, not this innocuous looking person? What would you rule?

[bid]

RAW, you are you.

RAF, you could fake out being Clark Kent who is totally not Superman.

[whateew]

RAW, you are you.

RAF, you could fake out being Clark Kent who is totally not Superman.

I know dnd has a policy of "spells do what they say they do," but here it's messy - how deeply do they know it's you? Is it infallible? Or is it surface deep, at least somewhat - the "you" who looks like the caster, or the "you" who speaks like the caster, etc. The usual "mask of many faces" X friends trick suggests "you" is somewhat skin-deep, and it makes it interesting to ask what telepathy gives away.

[greenstone]

I rule that mental communication is always in your voice; it can't be disguised.

When you meet the target in person and use your real voice, they will recognise your voice as the one in their head that they inexplicably regarded as a friendly aquaintance.

To pull off the situation above, you would need to disguise your voice at all times when interacting physically with the target.

[whateew]

I rule that mental communication is always in your voice; it can't be disguised.

When you meet the target in person and use your real voice, they will recognise your voice as the one in their head that they inexplicably regarded as a friendly aquaintance.

To pull off the situation above, you would need to disguise your voice at all times when interacting physically with the target.

This makes a lot of sense - telepathic communication, unless somehow stated, represents your "true" identity. However, one of my first ever DMs described a GOOlocks telepathy as if your mind is being grasped by a dark force or tentacle, and this description has always stuck with me. Either way, if your character never speaks to that victim, would you rule that they'd never find out?

Perhaps this gives a nice niche for the actor feat - lying to deceived people (or even impersonating some other voice).

Interestingly, unlike other telepathy, this (and the telepathic feat) requires you to speak a language that someone understands. It might lead you to ask - if you can choose the language, why not the tone?

[Segev]

I think the most straight-forward answer is that they need not recognize that both the strangely compelling, trustworthy, or friendly mental voice and the strangely endearing, innocent, or likable person they met five minutes after hearing the telepathic voice are the same person.

[Mastikator]

I don't see the messy part. The creature you charmed knows it was charmed by you. It doesn't need to see you do it, or know what a "charm person" spell is. It just infallibly knows it was charmed by you.

[da newt]

I've always assumed that the person who was charmed knows precisely who charmed them on a magic / instinctual level - disguises or hiding or subtle are irrelevant, they recognize you as the person who forcibly messed with their mind and emotions without their permission / consent - they don't know how or why they know it was you, they just do.

They don't know what the person who charmed them looked like while they cast the charm, or what the charmer sounded like when they cast the charm - they know it was you who manipulated them. Even if you never spoke to them or were never seen by them, it makes no difference - they identify you as the culprit.

[whateew]

I don't see the messy part. The creature you charmed knows it was charmed by you. It doesn't need to see you do it, or know what a "charm person" spell is. It just infallibly knows it was charmed by you.

Messy? No. But what you sacrifice for clarity, I feel really doesn't suit a lot of situations. Take da newts (very well worded!) post, stipulating


I've always assumed that the person who was charmed knows precisely who charmed them on a magic / instinctual level - disguises or hiding or subtle are irrelevant, they recognize you as the person who forcibly messed with their mind and emotions without their permission / consent - they don't know how or why they know it was you, they just do.


They clarify that even if a sorcerer subtle casts a spell, while unseen, and then does not engage at all with the victim, they still know with absolutely certainty (not even plausible deniability) that this person charmed them.

Consistent? Yes. But what other spell works like this? Why would this specific enchantment very specifically cause such a strong connection? This doesn't conflict RAW, but also isn't explicitly stated by RAW either (and certainly isn't RAI from the sage advice). It could just as easily been "oh shoot, I only trusted that voice because I was charmed!" as much as it could be "this person, with certainty, charmed me."

The only other example I can think of is the friends cantrip, where it states "they realised you used magic to influence their mood, and they become hostile to you." For me, this reads like a suggestion of how someone would act, but not a necessity - if I a friend asked me to cast friends to show my new magicks, they wouldn't become hostile in any way as it wore off. Why take such a suggestion literally? To me, it feels like the charm person stipulation term is more like "it realises it's behaviour was irrational, and from that determines it was charmed." Saying it instead has complete certainty is of course a matter of opinion, but it feels a bit weird to me.

[Segev]

The Friends cantrip is messy because it is grossly unclear if there is magic identifying the true caster to the victim and if the hostility is magically compelled or merely a stated natural reaction to the realization they were whammied.

For Charm, again, I see no need to even determine if the Charmed guard recognizes the Mysterious Masked Man and the Mild Mannered Noble are the same person. He is Charmed by them both if both arehe same person, but he need not know if all the people he is Charmed by are one person using one effect or a dozen people using their own Charm effects. He just knows he cannot bring himself to attack them and that they all seem to do really well on social rolls with him. Including rolls to convince him they are different people, if they are so inclined.

[whateew]

The Friends cantrip is messy because it is grossly unclear if there is magic identifying the true caster to the victim and if the hostility is magically compelled or merely a stated natural reaction to the realization they were whammied.

For Charm, again, I see no need to even determine if the Charmed guard recognizes the Mysterious Masked Man and the Mild Mannered Noble are the same person. He is Charmed by them both if both arehe same person, but he need not know if all the people he is Charmed by are one person using one effect or a dozen people using their own Charm effects. He just knows he cannot bring himself to attack them and that they all seem to do really well on social rolls with him. Including rolls to convince him they are different people, if they are so inclined.

Oh, I like this interpretation a lot. It's very focused on the victim, and gives some room for dnd as an RPG to be interesting.