Does Charm Person Tell Targets Anything They Don't Already Know?

[NecessaryWeevil]

This is probably an "ask your DM" question but I'm curious about the consensus on this forum.

Charm Person says that after the spell ends "the creature knows it was charmed by you."

A) A cloaked figure in a dimly lit tavern uses Subtle Charm Person on Jim the Waiter and asks him to spill the beans about the illegal gambling ring in the back room. Does Jim learn that the cloaked figure was Bob the Sorceror or gain any ability to subsequently pick him out of a crowd?

B) Bob the Sorceror, hiding in a bush, uses Subtle Charm Person on Stinky the Kobold, but then decides it's too risky, and continues hiding in the bush, without interacting with Stinky at all, until the spell wears off. Does Stinky learn anything at all? Does he learn that Bob Charmed him, and what does it mean to "learn" that if he is unaware of Bob's name, presence, or even existence?

[nweismuller]

My ruling I've used in my games, and your mileage may vary, is that the subject of charm person is aware that the emotional reaction they had in interactions with the person who charmed them was not a natural product of their own mind, and is thus unnatural (and probably the fault of the person who charmed them). This does not add any additional information about that person they interacted with. If they never had an interaction with the person who charmed them, I'd rule that, if they're aware of anything, they're aware of having 'felt funny' without something to put their finger on what was off.

Their reaction afterwards to being charmed will usually, but not always, be quite negative. (If the charm was basically just used to de-escalate what would otherwise be a violent situation based on a misunderstanding and it's clear that this is what it was used for, they're liable to be quite a bit more forgiving than more... manipulative uses.)

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I don't see that the target learns anything it doesn't know legitimately. At the end it knows it was magically influenced. But if it never saw your face or interacted with you then it has no idea who you are.

[Tanarii]

Even more fun is what happens if you're disguised successfully as someone else, and use Friends or Charm Person on someone? /evilgrin

[NecessaryWeevil]

Even more fun is what happens if you're disguised successfully as someone else, and use Friends or Charm Person on someone? /evilgrin

Yep! Those sorts of shenanigans got me thinking of these questions in the first place: what exactly does "by you" mean in this context?

[Schwann145]

Even more fun is what happens if you're disguised successfully as someone else, and use Friends or Charm Person on someone? /evilgrin

Warlocks with Mask of Many Faces/Master of Myriad Forms are quite a menace. /evilgrin

[TaiLiu]

Yep! Those sorts of shenanigans got me thinking of these questions in the first place: what exactly does "by you" mean in this context?
For sure. My reading is harsher than most. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you"—you, and not who you're pretending to be. So it does possibly give a target novel information. Honestly, I don't really like this interpretation, but I can't read it as anything else.

[Segev]

For sure. My reading is harsher than most. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you"—you, and not who you're pretending to be. So it does possibly give a target novel information. Honestly, I don't really like this interpretation, but I can't read it as anything else.

The way to read it without that interpretation is to treat it colloquially.

"Bob, the merchant found out you swindled him with a fake 'magic dagger!' What are we going to do!?"
"He found out I swindled him, but he thinks I am a blond adventurer in shining full plate, not a redheaded sorcerer in a tunic and trousers!"

The spell lets him know that you — the person he inexplicably liked and trusted more than he should—charmed him. He did not learn who you are beyond what you told him. He did not learn that your disguise was a disguise. But if he ever does somehow recognize you as the person who he was magically compelled to like and trust, he will also recognize that you charmed him, because he knows that the reason for that lapse in skepticism was due to being charmed by that person.

[Ionathus]

The way to read it without that interpretation is to treat it colloquially.

"Bob, the merchant found out you swindled him with a fake 'magic dagger!' What are we going to do!?"
"He found out I swindled him, but he thinks I am a blond adventurer in shining full plate, not a redheaded sorcerer in a tunic and trousers!"

The spell lets him know that you — the person he inexplicably liked and trusted more than he should—charmed him. He did not learn who you are beyond what you told him. He did not learn that your disguise was a disguise. But if he ever does somehow recognize you as the person who he was magically compelled to like and trust, he will also recognize that you charmed him, because he knows that the reason for that lapse in skepticism was due to being charmed by that person.

Yep, I agree with this interpretation. Charm Person wouldn't have the ability to impart, like, "soul knowledge" that identifies the charmer through all layers of deception, disguise, and illusion. It just trips an alarm in the target's head that "hey, that last interaction wasn't normal, they were manipulating you magically."

[NecessaryWeevil]

For sure. My reading is harsher than most. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you"—you, and not who you're pretending to be. So it does possibly give a target novel information. Honestly, I don't really like this interpretation, but I can't read it as anything else.

Out of curiosity, what do you think would happen in my examples above?

[Demonslayer666]

No, I would not have Charm Person give any additional information other than they were magically influenced.

How I would rule as a DM:
A) The waiter knows it was the cloaked figure that magically influenced him because of their request.
B) The kobold doesn't know anything about you, but knows they were magically influenced. They might guess someone was nearby and start looking.

[TaiLiu]

The way to read it without that interpretation is to treat it colloquially.

"Bob, the merchant found out you swindled him with a fake 'magic dagger!' What are we going to do!?"
"He found out I swindled him, but he thinks I am a blond adventurer in shining full plate, not a redheaded sorcerer in a tunic and trousers!"

The spell lets him know that you — the person he inexplicably liked and trusted more than he should—charmed him. He did not learn who you are beyond what you told him. He did not learn that your disguise was a disguise. But if he ever does somehow recognize you as the person who he was magically compelled to like and trust, he will also recognize that you charmed him, because he knows that the reason for that lapse in skepticism was due to being charmed by that person.
The trouble is that I am reading it colloquially. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you." Not who it first saw when the effect occurred or anything like that. You. If I'm Ava and I disguise myself as Billy, and then I cast charm person on Carol? Well, when the spell ends, Carol knows she was charmed by me, not Billy.

[Segev]

The trouble is that I am reading it colloquially. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you." Not who it first saw when the effect occurred or anything like that. You. If I'm Ava and I disguise myself as Billy, and then I cast charm person on Carol? Well, when the spell ends, Carol knows she was charmed by me, not Billy.

That's not "colloquial." That's "(overly) literal."

[TaiLiu]

That's not "colloquial." That's "(overly) literal."
I do interpret things literally, so maybe that's why I'm not understanding your interpretation. But I think my interpretation is colloquial and has force behind it.

Take the following sentence in ordinary language: "Don't take cookies from the cookie jar! Mom will know it's you." When the speaker says that, they mean you and not who you've tried to disguised yourself as. Maybe the cookie thief will try to pretend that the dog did it. But if what the speaker is saying is true, then that won't work. Mom will see right through it.

Similarly: "Be careful with that spell. When it ends, that person who you charmed will know it's you." When the speaker says that, they mean you and not who you've tried to disguise yourself as. How exactly are people reading it so that it doesn't mean "you" in the same sense? Maybe I'm missing something. But it's not obvious to me.

[Schwann145]

I do interpret things literally, so maybe that's why I'm not understanding your interpretation. But I think my interpretation is colloquial and has force behind it.

Take the following sentence in ordinary language: "Don't take cookies from the cookie jar! Mom will know it's you." When the speaker says that, they mean you and not who you've tried to disguised yourself as. Maybe the cookie thief will try to pretend that the dog did it. But if what the speaker is saying is true, then that won't work. Mom will see right through it.

Similarly: "Be careful with that spell. When it ends, that person who you charmed will know it's you." When the speaker says that, they mean you and not who you've tried to disguise yourself as. How exactly are people reading it so that it doesn't mean "you" in the same sense? Maybe I'm missing something. But it's not obvious to me.

There are just so many details missing that this comparison doesn't even begin to work. Here's two massive ones:
You have a standing relationship with mom.
The list of potential suspects for mom to consider is incredibly limited.

If your entire interaction with a person happens while (successfully) disguising yourself as someone else, and when the charm spell used wears off they know they have been charmed, it's not because the gods descend to earth and whisper into their ear that they've been duped, and not only that but the duper was wearing a disguise and actually looks like X.

You feel the effects of the magic upon you, but since you're charmed, it doesn't register as a problem. Once the charm wears off, you still remember feelings the magical effects and now know you were charmed with a clear head.
That's it.
In fact, the reason you know who charmed you at all is because of spell components - you could see and hear the magic being worked before it took effect on you. If the caster could disguise the casting (with, for example, metamagic like Subtle Spell) then you wouldn't know at all who worked the magic. You might suspect, but you very likely couldn't prove it.

[Witty Username]

No cat has two tails,
A cat has one more tail than No cat,
Therefore a cat has three tails.
--
They know they were charmed, by you. To them, what does 'you' mean.
Do they learn your name? Apperance? Location?
Like say if you are disguised, and your charm ends, does the target see though your disguise? Or do they know you did it, but the person you are disguised as did not, so they still trust you, because you are not apparently who charmed them.

Like say if you were charmed by a wizard that has an identical twin, can you now tell with perfect certainty which is which, without knowing the wizard had a twin in the first place?

'You' is what you look like, how you act, how they recognize you. You are your disguise.

[TaiLiu]

There are just so many details missing that this comparison doesn't even begin to work. Here's two massive ones:
You have a standing relationship with mom.
The list of potential suspects for mom to consider is incredibly limited.

If your entire interaction with a person happens while (successfully) disguising yourself as someone else, and when the charm spell used wears off they know they have been charmed, it's not because the gods descend to earth and whisper into their ear that they've been duped, and not only that but the duper was wearing a disguise and actually looks like X.

You feel the effects of the magic upon you, but since you're charmed, it doesn't register as a problem. Once the charm wears off, you still remember feelings the magical effects and now know you were charmed with a clear head.
That's it.
In fact, the reason you know who charmed you at all is because of spell components - you could see and hear the magic being worked before it took effect on you. If the caster could disguise the casting (with, for example, metamagic like Subtle Spell) then you wouldn't know at all who worked the magic. You might suspect, but you very likely couldn't prove it.
You make two claims, which I'm gonna address in reverse order:


The comparison doesn't work.
The creature knows who charmed it because of some external factor outside of the spell itself.


First, (b). I don't think being able to perceive the spell components (or any other external factor) is the reason why the creature knows that it was charmed by you. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you" is (frustratingly) part of the spell itself. This sentence would be redundant otherwise, since the DM would likely reasonably rule that it would know it was you, since it saw you cast and it inexplicably liked you.

If we disagree about (b), then that's our central disagreement. And maybe it's why I seem to have a different reading of the spell than most people here.

Second, (a). Yes, both points are true. I'm also unsure why they ruin the comparison.


No cat has two tails,
A cat has one more tail than No cat,
Therefore a cat has three tails.
--
They know they were charmed, by you. To them, what does 'you' mean.
Do they learn your name? Apperance? Location?
Like say if you are disguised, and your charm ends, does the target see though your disguise? Or do they know you did it, but the person you are disguised as did not, so they still trust you, because you are not apparently who charmed them.

Like say if you were charmed by a wizard that has an identical twin, can you now tell with perfect certainty which is which, without knowing the wizard had a twin in the first place?

'You' is what you look like, how you act, how they recognize you. You are your disguise.
Yeah, I agree there's a lot of ambiguity about what "you" means. That's another frustration with how the spell is worded. I wish they just didn't have that sentence in the spell at all. Then I would be in agreement with all of you.

I think "you" rules out certain scenarios but (as you show) there's still a lot of scenarios consistent with "you." I disagree that "you are your disguise," though. I don't think that's the right interpretation for spell.

[Segev]

"You" are the person who the target felt an unnatural trust and liking for, and who he could not bring himself to attack no matter what. He knows he was Charmed by that person.

Nothing in the spell says he magically can sense your presence and identity through all disguises past and future. He knows he was Charmed by that person he saw and interacted with.

I know it was Morticia Addams who pulled Uncle Nicnak's winter wardrobe out of storage. I did not recognize Angelica Houston in John Wick 3 until she was pointed out to me, so I would not have been able to say, "Ah, that is the real live person who pulled Uncle Nicnak's winter wardrobe out of storage."

Same for you: the target knows 'you' as the handsome figure in shining armor that your disguise made you appear to be. He knows that shining, handsome person Charmed him. If he sees you as a beggar on the street and fails to see through the disguise(s), he will not realize the beggar is the person who Charmed him.

[Anymage]

The sentence immediately before the part about the creature knowing that it was charmed by you is "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance." If the relevant "you" is some soul-level knowledge, they'd be friendly to your real self and not this person you're disguised as. Conversely, if you wanted to take advantage of someone and leave someone else facing the consequences, all you need to do is rob some place while wearing a Hat of Disguise. (Although since the residents of D&D worlds know that disguise magic is a thing, they'll likely have both mundane and magical methods of their own to get to the bottom of things so a low level spell slot isn't a guarantee that gets you off the hook.)

[Aimeryan]

This is one of those poorly worded 5e descriptions that would be a shockingly glaring error under many other publications, but is standard fare in 5e. 5e 'prides' itself on simple English, however, forgets that English is anything but simple. Definitely not the devs being lazy.

Yeah, if you are the DM rule it how you want. If you are a player, argue with your DM how you want it to play out, and then the DM can blame players for being difficult - it is totally not on the publication.

Its a first level spell - its not giving the target encylopedic disguise-busting abilities. The 'you' here likely just refers to the target knowing their behaviour was subject to outside interference when they interacted with the caster (i.e., 'you'). Remember, it doesn't do this for interactions with anyone that is not the caster. If they don't know information about the caster, they still don't. If the caster is in a lineup but has changed appearance greatly enough, they aren't going to be able to pick the caster out. However, if the caster was in a group of people they will know which interactions they were charmed for and thus know which one was cast the Spell.

[theNater]

Take the following sentence in ordinary language: "Don't take cookies from the cookie jar! Mom will know it's you." When the speaker says that, they mean you and not who you've tried to disguised yourself as. Maybe the cookie thief will try to pretend that the dog did it. But if what the speaker is saying is true, then that won't work. Mom will see right through it.
But if the cookie thief subsequently disguises themself, whether Mom will be able to identify them depends on the quality of the disguise. This statement does not give Mom a supernatural power to recognize the cookie thief in a different context.


Similarly: "Be careful with that spell. When it ends, that person who you charmed will know it's you." When the speaker says that, they mean you and not who you've tried to disguise yourself as. How exactly are people reading it so that it doesn't mean "you" in the same sense? Maybe I'm missing something. But it's not obvious to me.
In keeping with the previous example, a person in disguise is still the same person. But knowing that the spellcaster did a thing doesn't make the target supernaturally able to recognize the spellcaster in a different context.

[kyoryu]

Its a first level spell - its not giving the target encylopedic disguise-busting abilities. The 'you' here likely just refers to the target knowing their behaviour was subject to outside interference when they interacted with the caster (i.e., 'you'). Remember, it doesn't do this for interactions with anyone that is not the caster. If they don't know information about the caster, they still don't. If the caster is in a lineup but has changed appearance greatly enough, they aren't going to be able to pick the caster out. However, if the caster was in a group of people they will know which interactions they were charmed for and thus know which one was cast the Spell.


This is how I'd interpret it.

I think if it gave that kind of supernatural, disguise-piercing knowledge, that would be explicitly called out.

[Luccan]

My interpretation of that clause as a DM is rooted in how annoying I find the limits on Enchantment as a player in 5e. So in the first example they know a stranger charmed them, but if you're in a disguise they don't know anything beyond what their eyes could tell them about you and in the second I'd probably rule that the goblin is alerted to some kind of mystical presence once the spell wears off, but not who or from where. Any other interpretation is, in my view, a great way to ensure the player never casts the spell again, because it's basically just a great way to make enemies and get swarmed by foes.

And for what? Advantage on a handful of checks? You specifically not getting targeted by one creature, but remaining a valid target for every other enemy and the charmed creature can still murder your friends? It's very clear they didn't want players running around mind-controlling vast armies or whatever, but the consequences of their nerf far outweigh the benefits (believe it or not, most people didn't enslave all their enemies in previous editions when that was actually possible. The term we use in D&D for characters that do that is Evil and since the vast majority of PCs are Good or Neutral, that's usually deterrent enough).

[Tanarii]

One thing that occurred to me Charm person is different from friends. So it could be possible to rule them differently based on in-world justification.

For example:

With Friends, they become hostile to you. There is no knowledge involved. If you were disguised, or become disguised later, they could still be hostile to you without even knowing why. why? Because Magic. You've permanently changed their attitude to you, it's magically enforced now. How does it pierce disguises? Because Magic, when they interact with you the magic automatically kicks in and enforces the new attitude. It doesn't identify that it's you the person that once cast friends on them, they have no way to know this is someone they've even met before. They are just hostile

Meanwhile charm person gives them knowledge. If it were to work regardless of your appearance when casting or in the future, that means that the magic is giving them knowledge each time they interact with you, explicitly telling them that this is you, the person who tried to charm them once. Possibly they can't distinguish between different people that tried to charm them once, possibly they can. But in either case it's positively identifying you as someone they've met, who tried to cast charm person on them.

Edit: This certainly prevents Disguise Self shenanigans. But IMO those are really the only way to make these spells useful anyway. Otherwise they're better used to make enemies.

[Monster Manuel]

It doesn't identify that it's you the person that once cast friends on them, they have no way to know this is someone they've even met before. They are just hostile

Ooh, I never thought about that, but it makes sense and I kind of love it. The target of a Friends spell ends up hostile to you, because magic, and they may have no idea why...they just hate you for no apparent reason.

I tend to interpret Charm Person as if the "by you" clause isn't there, because I don't think this was intended to describe the spell as providing any special knowledge to the target, it was just a bit of natural language muddying the rules intent. I assume that the spell means to say that when the spell ends, the target knows they were charmed. They also know and remember everything that happened while they were charmed (because the spell description says nothing to the contrary), so of course they will be able to intuit that the person who asked them to unlock the gate, for whom they had an unreasonable affection, was the one who charmed them. The spell does not tell them anything more about that person than they already know.

I would argue that in the case of a subtle spell (the victim didn't see who cast it), with the entire party subsequently interacting with the charmed person, the person would be able to identify who in that group had put them under a charm. That's where the "by you" clause comes into play. But they would have to see and interact with the caster to know that. If the caster made no attempt to conceal their identity, and the victim ran into the caster again at some future point, they would remember that the caster was the one who charmed them, but it would just be a normal memory the same as remembering "yeah, that's the guy that punched me", not some ability imparted by the spell to identify the caster. It would be way easier to just cut out the "by you" entirely, and they know they were charmed, but have to guess as to who it was. But it is what it is.

In the OP examples, Jim the waiter can know that he was charmed and would never have ratted out his mob bosses otherwise, but he knows nothing about who did the charming aside from what he saw with his own eyes, which was an unnaturally likeable guy in a cloak asking him pointed questions. Stinky the Kobold knows he was charmed, and is probably pretty freaked out by that because he thought he was alone, but knows nothing else. At least, that's my read.

[Segev]

Nah. Friends should follow the same logic as Charm Person: after the spell ends, the target knows that guy he was just talking to used magic to influence him. This makes him angry at that person.

Even at this, Friends is badly written: why does everyone respond with hostility rather than just reciprocating?

Sometimes I wonder if Charm Person shouldn't have been the cantrip with one minute duration and ONLY the Charmed condition and the "they know you charmed them" clause, and Friends should be the first level spell that lasts an hour and comes with the 'friendly acquaintance' clause, still only working on thlse who aren't hostile to you but also no longer making people hostile.

Break the Charm on hostile action, to keep it from being overpowered.

[Chronos]

Someone (I thought it was in this thread, but I can't find it) raised the possibility that a certain class of entertainer (high-end prostitutes and the like) might use Charm Person or similar magics on their customers, with the customer's full knowledge and consent, in order to more effectively entertain the customer. One could envision Friends being used in the same way... except for the whole hostility thing. The rule-writers didn't seem to contemplate that someone might have one of these spells used on them willingly.

[Unoriginal]

Even at this, Friends is badly written: why does everyone respond with hostility rather than just reciprocating?

I always thought they were magically made hostile by the backlash.

As in, you could cast Friend on a willing target and they would still turn hostile once the charm wears off.

[Segev]

I always thought they were magically made hostile by the backlash.

As in, you could cast Friend on a willing target and they would still turn hostile once the charm wears off.
Which, given the lack of save and how hostility can be manipulated to your advantage, too, is also very powerful for a cantrip.

[Keravath]

As most folks replying to this thread, I interpret "you" in charm person or friends to be whoever the character appears to be - i.e. "you" from the perspective of the person affected by the spell, not an absolute "you" that identifies the caster wherever or whatever form they might assume. It could be read either way and I prefer this to a literal interpretation since it makes more sense to me. However, since it is "magic" (tm), the DM can go with whichever interpretation they prefer and justify it on that basis if they need a justification.

In terms of "hostile", it means exactly that - the person affected by the spell will be irritated and not disposed to do you any favors. It is possible they might attack whoever they thought was affecting them but more often than not they wouldn't. Hostile doesn't necessarily mean "enraged to the point of attacking without though of consequences" or "so incredibly hostile that they don't think about the situation or allies of the creature that affected them". Hostile means "unfriendly; antagonistic." and that is how I would play it.
'

[Tanarii]

Hostile is a game term that sets DCs for charisma Checks made, per the DMG. It means they're at most be willing to do as asked as long as there are no sacrifices involved (DC 20).

[TaiLiu]

"You" are the person who the target felt an unnatural trust and liking for, and who he could not bring himself to attack no matter what. He knows he was Charmed by that person.

Nothing in the spell says he magically can sense your presence and identity through all disguises past and future. He knows he was Charmed by that person he saw and interacted with.

I know it was Morticia Addams who pulled Uncle Nicnak's winter wardrobe out of storage. I did not recognize Angelica Houston in John Wick 3 until she was pointed out to me, so I would not have been able to say, "Ah, that is the real live person who pulled Uncle Nicnak's winter wardrobe out of storage."

Same for you: the target knows 'you' as the handsome figure in shining armor that your disguise made you appear to be. He knows that shining, handsome person Charmed him. If he sees you as a beggar on the street and fails to see through the disguise(s), he will not realize the beggar is the person who Charmed him.
Yes, I agree with all of this. I certainly never claimed that charm person magically grants the charmed creature illusion-piercing powers—merely that tricks involving subtle spell or disguise person don't prevent the creature from knowing that it was you.


But if the cookie thief subsequently disguises themself, whether Mom will be able to identify them depends on the quality of the disguise. This statement does not give Mom a supernatural power to recognize the cookie thief in a different context.
Yes, that's right. But I don't think I claimed that Mom has any supernatural powers. So I'm not sure I understand your point.


In keeping with the previous example, a person in disguise is still the same person. But knowing that the spellcaster did a thing doesn't make the target supernaturally able to recognize the spellcaster in a different context.
Yes, I agree.

[theNater]

The trouble is that I am reading it colloquially. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you." Not who it first saw when the effect occurred or anything like that. You. If I'm Ava and I disguise myself as Billy, and then I cast charm person on Carol? Well, when the spell ends, Carol knows she was charmed by me, not Billy.


Yes, that's right. But I don't think I claimed that Mom has any supernatural powers. So I'm not sure I understand your point.

But Carol seems to get some supernatural powers here. Suppose Carol has never met you before, doesn't know anything about you, and has only ever seen you in your Billy disguise. Further, you leave hurriedly shortly after charming her, so you're miles away when the spell ends. What, exactly, does she know? Does she know your name is Ava? Can she pick you out of a lineup? Will she recognize you if you're disguised as Billy? What if you're disguised as Duncan, does that change her ability to recognize you?

My take is that she correctly knows you charmed her, but by incorrectly believing you to be Billy, she now wrongly believes Billy charmed her. And if she somehow learns that it could not have been Billy, she still knows that you charmed her, but the only other thing she knows about you is that you are a person who was disguised as Billy for a time.

Edit: I think I've figured out where the issue is. You've added a clause. The spell does not tell the target who they were not charmed by. So Carol can know she was charmed by you and believe she was charmed by Billy if she thinks you are Billy.

[Luccan]

I'm imagining a set-up with the "perfect knowledge" interpretation where mages are all expected to cast Charm Person on certain willing volunteers, whose primary job is to keep a watch for illusions and such meant to conceal a person's identity.

[Angelalex242]

Enchantment magic is intrigue magic. The best way to use it is to let the player do disguises and let someone else take the fall for their charm magic.

Warlocks with mask of 1000 faces who take friends or charm want to make other people take the fall for their charming. Bards surely do too. Subtle spelling Sorcerers will want to get someone else to take the fall. All of them have means to do that.

[TaiLiu]

But Carol seems to get some supernatural powers here. Suppose Carol has never met you before, doesn't know anything about you, and has only ever seen you in your Billy disguise. Further, you leave hurriedly shortly after charming her, so you're miles away when the spell ends. What, exactly, does she know? Does she know your name is Ava? Can she pick you out of a lineup? Will she recognize you if you're disguised as Billy? What if you're disguised as Duncan, does that change her ability to recognize you?
Carol knows that I charmed her. That’s it. The spell doesn’t specify what happens in specific situations like this. If I’m somehow forced to keep the clause in, my ruling would be that:


No, she knows I charmed her, but not my name.
No, she knows I charmed her, but not how I look like.
Same as (2).
No—she doesn’t have any special ability to recognize me.


But it would obviously be easier to just remove the clause.


My take is that she correctly knows you charmed her, but by incorrectly believing you to be Billy, she now wrongly believes Billy charmed her. And if she somehow learns that it could not have been Billy, she still knows that you charmed her, but the only other thing she knows about you is that you are a person who was disguised as Billy for a time.
The trouble is that she knows I charmed her. I’m not Billy, so it’s unclear to me why she would believe that Billy did it when she knows that I did it.

I agree that she could possibly reason out that I was someone disguised as Billy.


Edit: I think I've figured out where the issue is. You've added a clause. The spell does not tell the target who they were not charmed by. So Carol can know she was charmed by you and believe she was charmed by Billy if she thinks you are Billy.
But I’m not Billy. She knows who charmed her, which is me. I agree that the spell doesn’t say who she wasn’t charmed by. But I’m not sure how that’s relevant. Trying to reason it out:


Carol knows that I charmed her.
I am not Billy.
Therefore, Carol knows that Billy wasn’t the one who charmed her.




I'm imagining a set-up with the "perfect knowledge" interpretation where mages are all expected to cast Charm Person on certain willing volunteers, whose primary job is to keep a watch for illusions and such meant to conceal a person's identity.
For some reason, your username seems familiar to me. I don’t know why.

What’s the difference between knowledge and perfect knowledge? What comes to mind is omniscience, which I assume is not what you mean. Also, how are you reading the spell? It’s not clear to me that the spell lets you watch for illusions.

[Schwann145]

Carol knows that I charmed her.
I am not Billy.
Therefore, Carol knows that Billy wasn’t the one who charmed her.


But, during your interaction with Carol, you were Billy. And, importantly, charm spells are not divination spells - why would enchantment spells be revealing such information?

[theNater]

2. I am not Billy.
Carol does not know this, and therefore cannot use it to draw conclusions.

[TaiLiu]

But, during your interaction with Carol, you were Billy. And, importantly, charm spells are not divination spells - why would enchantment spells be revealing such information?
Maybe that's another important point of disagreement. I wasn't Billy—I was disguised as Billy, which is different. It would certainly be odd if I were Billy disguised as Billy. It's strange to say that I'm disguised as myself.

Charm person reveals information because that's how the spell works. It lets the charmed individual know it was me who charmed them. The solution is to simply remove that aspect of the spell.


Carol does not know this, and therefore cannot use it to draw conclusions.
It's not really about Carol. It's about me, Ava. I'm not Billy. Carol knows who charmed her, so she knows it's me. Knows. It'd be one thing if she believed it was me, but she knows, which is part of the trouble.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear here—maybe this part doesn't make sense. Lemme know if that's the case.

[Segev]

No, Carol knows you - the person who she thinks was Billy - Charmed her. The only way she knows that you weren't Billy is if she saw through your impersonation of Billy by some means other than having been subjected to the charm person spell. She knows she was Charmed, and she knows it was you - the person who she thinks was Billy - who did it. Therefore, she thinks Billy did it, as long as she is convinced that that was Billy with whom she was interacting.

If Batman utterly flubs a grab-a-goon roll, and people see him snatch Gordon Goonson from the shadows, people know it was Batman who did it. That doesn't mean that they know it was that nicely-dressed man they meet the next day at the gala who introduces himself as "Bruce Wayne." They know Batman did it. They don't know that Batman is Bruce Wayne, so they don't know Bruce Wayne did it.

Similarly, if the reason they saw the grab of Gordon Goonson was that it was actually Superman disguising himself as Batman and trying to go slowly enough not to break Gordon's neck when he grabs him, but they don't realize it's not Batman, they'll still know it was "that guy dressed just like Batman" who, to them, is Batman, who did it. They don't learn "that wasn't Batman" just by virtue of seeing Superman dressed impeccably as Batman doing the maneuver.

If you're disguised as Billy when you cast charm person on Sandy, Sandy knows, if you're still interacting with her, that it's you-the-guy-she-thinks-is-Billy-right-here-and-now who Charmed her. If you had walked away before the spell ended, she still would know it was you - but she would also still believe you to be Billy. And, if she saw you as yourself tomorrow, she wouldn't know that you were the person she thought was Billy unless she somehow pierced the disguise.

Repeating the core point: The target knows it was you who Charmed him, but he doesn't know who you are any more than he would without the spell having been cast. If he can't pick you out of a line-up based on things other than the charm person spell, the fact he knows "you" Charmed him won't enable him to pick you out of that line-up.

[theNater]

It's not really about Carol. It's about me, Ava. I'm not Billy. Carol knows who charmed her, so she knows it's me. Knows. It'd be one thing if she believed it was me, but she knows, which is part of the trouble.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear here—maybe this part doesn't make sense. Lemme know if that's the case.
Yeah, this is what's throwing me. I don't understand what Carol knows or thinks here, because she has no mental conception of "you" to attach to the person who charmed her. Is there just a blank spot in her mind?

[Telok]

I'm not sure if I'm being clear here—maybe this part doesn't make sense. Lemme know if that's the case.

The difference is that the "knows who you are" clause is being interpreted as relative or absolute by different people. The "plain English" leaves that up to the reader to discover that from the context and examples given in the text of the spell.

The scenario in question can be reduced to: "A mysterious cloaked and hooded figure casts a spell, then leaves. Later that day the victim realizes they were magically charmed." Leaving the question "What does the victim know about the mysterious stranger?". The spell states the victim knows they were charmed by the caster, possibly by magically imparting the information to the victim since it works 100% even if the victim never saw or spoke to the caster.

Except the text doesn't say "the caster". It says "you". It's not "the victim knows that the person who cast the spell magically charmed them" but "the victim knows that you magically charmed them". Which has a different emphasis in plain usage. It's like the difference between saying "the cop saw a blue sports car run the red light" and "the cop saw you run the red light". It implies that there's an unmistakable identification happening. But because it's "plain English" the blah blah of the spell isn't stated and the reader is left to get all that from the you know.

[OvisCaedo]

If a hooded stranger you've never met openly mugs you, you know that "they" did it, but have no idea who "they" are. Similarly, knowing that it was "you" who did something doesn't mean the victim in question would have any idea who "you" are.

[lall]

A - Can pick him out of crowd.
B - Knows he was charmed and could pick the perpetrator out of a crowd.

[Chronos]

Put it this way: Suppose that you charm someone, and then don't have the sense to get away from them before the duration is up. They'll be able to point to you and say "You! You were the one who charmed me!", even if lots of different people tried to chat them up in that time. Possibly followed by "Guards! Arrest that person!". That's "the subject will know that you were the one who charmed them", and it's one way in which Charm Person is inferior to Enhance Ability or just having good Charisma skills.

For an even more direct application of "The subject knows who used magic on them", if instead of Charm, you use Lightning Bolt, then they'll also know who did it, because there will be a glowing, crackling line through the air straight to you. Charm Person doesn't provide anything that obvious when it's cast, but it's just as obvious when it ends.

But just because you can say, in the moment, "That's the person who used magic on me!", doesn't mean that, in either case, you'll be able to pick them out later, especially if disguises are involved.

[CapnWildefyr]

No, Carol knows you - the person who she thinks was Billy - Charmed her. The only way she knows that you weren't Billy is if she saw through your impersonation of Billy by some means other than having been subjected to the charm person spell. She knows she was Charmed, and she knows it was you - the person who she thinks was Billy - who did it. Therefore, she thinks Billy did it, as long as she is convinced that that was Billy with whom she was interacting.
{snip}
Repeating the core point: The target knows it was you who Charmed him, but he doesn't know who you are any more than he would without the spell having been cast. If he can't pick you out of a line-up based on things other than the charm person spell, the fact he knows "you" Charmed him won't enable him to pick you out of that line-up.

Exactly. You've nailed it over and over.

TaiLiu - consider: Why would a spell grant a greater advantage to the victim of it than it provides in benefits to the caster? I mean, charm person is low level. Somehow learning the identity of a disguised spellcaster would be higher level than that (true sight?). The charm spell requires interaction for the caster to benefit, so why would the victim get benefits not available from that interaction? I see it like when you're running a cash register, and someone hands you a $10 and asks for two tens for a 20, and you do it. Two minutes later, you realize you've been had. You "know" who did it, but know nothing more than what the original interaction provided. It's not like you get the other person's drivers license.

[Segev]

Except the text doesn't say "the caster". It says "you". It's not "the victim knows that the person who cast the spell magically charmed them" but "the victim knows that you magically charmed them". Which has a different emphasis in plain usage. It's like the difference between saying "the cop saw a blue sports car run the red light" and "the cop saw you run the red light". It implies that there's an unmistakable identification happening. But because it's "plain English" the blah blah of the spell isn't stated and the reader is left to get all that from the you know.

"The cop saw you run the red light!" still leaves room for the cop to be mistaken. Maybe he saw your twin brother. Maybe he saw the guy who came in ahead of you at the you-lookalike contest racing away from the scene of the impersonation. Maybe you are the spitting image of Ronald Reagan, and the cop saw somebody wearing one of those Ronald Reagan masks that people wear when robbing banks in movies. The glimpse was quick; he saw Ronald Reagan's face, and now he sees you have that face.

"The cop saw you run the red light!" the prosecutor might claim in all seriousness and without risk of being accused of lying. That doesn't mean the cop was infallible, was correct, or can't be fooled by a disguise.

The colloquial, plain, common English use of the phrase only suggests that the target knows the person they felt Charmed by actually did Charm them. That's it. They gain no special knowledge that Batman using a charm person spell stored in his Bat Ring of Spell Storing is also Bruce Wayne, even if they meet Bruce Wayne the next day. Unless Batman used a very long-duration version of the spell on him, and the target still is Charmed when he meets Bruce Wayne, in which case he'll know Batman and Bruce Wayne both Charmed him when the spell wears off. Assuming Batman interacted with him at all; if not, he'll probably only know Bruce Wayne did.

I would go so far as to say that he may NOT realize he was Charmed if he never interacts with you while the spell is ongoing, simply because he has no "you" to attach the realization that he was Charmed to.

[Telok]

"The cop saw you run the red light!" still leaves room for the cop to be mistaken. Maybe he saw your twin brother. Maybe he saw ... Maybe...

I would go so far as to say that he may NOT realize he was Charmed if he never interacts with you while the spell is ongoing, simply because he has no "you" to attach the realization that he was Charmed to.

Oh I can see that side of it. But the use of "you" first person instead of "the caster" third person indicates a personal connection and implies more than just surface perception. Possibly my local or personal "colloquial English" might be different from yours*. So I can also see the "magic makes it so" acting as a perfect identification. Personally I just don't use Charm Person and the like in 5e because they're written in a vague manner that causes issues at our table when they're used. I'm not personally advocating either reading, I just understand how both can happen.

* example: in my area "outside" has an additional meaning based on geography and international borders that must be inferred from context and this definition doesn't exist outside. If I wrote a rpg setting based on my locale and used local "plain English" I'd need an additional page of glossary in the back for a half dozen or dozen alternate uses of words that are unique to the area. This is extreme, but a good example.

[Tanarii]

Oh I can see that side of it. But the use of "you" first person instead of "the caster" third person indicates a personal connection and implies more than just surface perception. Possibly my local or personal "colloquial English" might be different from yours*. So I can also see the "magic makes it so" acting as a perfect identification. Personally I just don't use Charm Person and the like in 5e because they're written in a vague manner that causes issues at our table when they're used. I'm not personally advocating either reading, I just understand how both can happen.Agreed. It's entirely possible to interpret it as magic makes is so any time they encounter you, they "just know" that you've attempted to charm them in the past. They won't know the circumstances if you no longer look like the person they saw cast the spell at the time (assuming they did), or gain any other information. But it could be read as they'll always have that information when they interact or perceive you.

I don't favor that interpretation though. I do kinda like it more with the Friends wording on hostility, just because persistent inexplicable hostility when confronted with a disguised you is far more entertaining to me conceptually.


* example: in my area "outside" has an additional meaning based on geography and international borders that must be inferred from context and this definition doesn't exist outside. If I wrote a rpg setting based on my locale and used local "plain English" I'd need an additional page of glossary in the back for a half dozen or dozen alternate uses of words that are unique to the area. This is extreme, but a good example.oh please do explain, that's interesting!

Do you mean you live close to an international border so "outside" might mean on the other side of the border? And in a valley or forest or the like so that "outside" might mean not inside that geographic feature?

[Telok]

oh please do explain, that's interesting!

Do you mean you live close to an international border so "outside" might mean on the other side of the border? And in a valley or forest or the like so that "outside" might mean not inside that geographic feature?

Moar tangent!

Alaska. The rest of the USA is "outside". Well, except Hawaii & Samoa. We like them, so they get proper names along with other countries. Then we have stuff like "chinook" referring to both a fish and weather, and 'native Alaskan' has a massive massive legally significant difference from what 'native Texan' or 'native New Yorker' would. The mountain is Denali, there are a non-trivial amount of locals who won't know what you're talking about if you say "Mt. McKinley". Heck, I just realized we use 'the mountain' sometimes and just assume everyone uses the same point of reference.

Those are just a couple big obvious ones.

[Segev]

Oh I can see that side of it. But the use of "you" first person instead of "the caster" third person indicates a personal connection and implies more than just surface perception. Possibly my local or personal "colloquial English" might be different from yours*. So I can also see the "magic makes it so" acting as a perfect identification. Personally I just don't use Charm Person and the like in 5e because they're written in a vague manner that causes issues at our table when they're used. I'm not personally advocating either reading, I just understand how both can happen.

* example: in my area "outside" has an additional meaning based on geography and international borders that must be inferred from context and this definition doesn't exist outside. If I wrote a rpg setting based on my locale and used local "plain English" I'd need an additional page of glossary in the back for a half dozen or dozen alternate uses of words that are unique to the area. This is extreme, but a good example."You" are "the caster." I don't think any spell written in the second person style of 5e ever says "the caster;" they always say "you."

[Chronos]

More on that tangent:

That sounds sort of like how, in Montana, "Californian" means "from any state or province not bordering Montana". Someone from Florida, Maine, Ohio, or Ontario would all be "Californians" (or other, less-polite, variants of that term).

[TaiLiu]

No, Carol knows you - the person who she thinks was Billy - Charmed her. The only way she knows that you weren't Billy is if she saw through your impersonation of Billy by some means other than having been subjected to the charm person spell. She knows she was Charmed, and she knows it was you - the person who she thinks was Billy - who did it. Therefore, she thinks Billy did it, as long as she is convinced that that was Billy with whom she was interacting.

If Batman utterly flubs a grab-a-goon roll, and people see him snatch Gordon Goonson from the shadows, people know it was Batman who did it. That doesn't mean that they know it was that nicely-dressed man they meet the next day at the gala who introduces himself as "Bruce Wayne." They know Batman did it. They don't know that Batman is Bruce Wayne, so they don't know Bruce Wayne did it.

Similarly, if the reason they saw the grab of Gordon Goonson was that it was actually Superman disguising himself as Batman and trying to go slowly enough not to break Gordon's neck when he grabs him, but they don't realize it's not Batman, they'll still know it was "that guy dressed just like Batman" who, to them, is Batman, who did it. They don't learn "that wasn't Batman" just by virtue of seeing Superman dressed impeccably as Batman doing the maneuver.

If you're disguised as Billy when you cast charm person on Sandy, Sandy knows, if you're still interacting with her, that it's you-the-guy-she-thinks-is-Billy-right-here-and-now who Charmed her. If you had walked away before the spell ended, she still would know it was you - but she would also still believe you to be Billy. And, if she saw you as yourself tomorrow, she wouldn't know that you were the person she thought was Billy unless she somehow pierced the disguise.

Repeating the core point: The target knows it was you who Charmed him, but he doesn't know who you are any more than he would without the spell having been cast. If he can't pick you out of a line-up based on things other than the charm person spell, the fact he knows "you" Charmed him won't enable him to pick you out of that line-up.
I agree with your core point. I just disagree with some auxiliary ones, like the suggestion that Carol would think I'm Billy. "Carol knows that I, Anna, charmed her" and "Carol thinks Billy charmed her" are mutually exclusive beliefs.

Maybe you have a have a point. Maybe charmed individuals just have contradictory beliefs. That's possible. It sure doesn't feel right, though.


Yeah, this is what's throwing me. I don't understand what Carol knows or thinks here, because she has no mental conception of "you" to attach to the person who charmed her. Is there just a blank spot in her mind?
The spell's pretty vague about what "the creature knows it was charmed by you" means. It's possible that it's an attempt at balancing the spell and preventing disguise self and subtle spell tricks. But in some situations, it's really ambiguous.


The difference is that the "knows who you are" clause is being interpreted as relative or absolute by different people. The "plain English" leaves that up to the reader to discover that from the context and examples given in the text of the spell.

The scenario in question can be reduced to: "A mysterious cloaked and hooded figure casts a spell, then leaves. Later that day the victim realizes they were magically charmed." Leaving the question "What does the victim know about the mysterious stranger?". The spell states the victim knows they were charmed by the caster, possibly by magically imparting the information to the victim since it works 100% even if the victim never saw or spoke to the caster.

Except the text doesn't say "the caster". It says "you". It's not "the victim knows that the person who cast the spell magically charmed them" but "the victim knows that you magically charmed them". Which has a different emphasis in plain usage. It's like the difference between saying "the cop saw a blue sports car run the red light" and "the cop saw you run the red light". It implies that there's an unmistakable identification happening. But because it's "plain English" the blah blah of the spell isn't stated and the reader is left to get all that from the you know.
Yeah, I think this is right. Although I'm not sure what you mean about relative and absolute knowing.

[Segev]

I agree with your core point. I just disagree with some auxiliary ones, like the suggestion that Carol would think I'm Billy. "Carol knows that I, Anna, charmed her" and "Carol thinks Billy charmed her" are mutually exclusive beliefs.

Maybe you have a have a point. Maybe charmed individuals just have contradictory beliefs. That's possible. It sure doesn't feel right, though.


It isn't contradictory; my core point is that they don't know, "It was you, Anna, who Charmed them." They know "It was you, whom they believe to be whom ever they believe you to be, who Charmed them."

They gain no special knowledge about you other than that you Charmed them. Anything else they glean is due to their own observations or other factors unrelated to the spell. (Heck, because of the advantage you have on all social interaction checks while they are Charmed by you, it is easier to convince them that you are Billy, if you want to.)

If you used charm person on me through this forum, when the spell ended, I would know that it was the poster TaiLiu who Charmed me. I wouldn't know anything else about you, TaiLiu, than I do now, however, and if you convinced me that you were Lady Gaga, I would believe it was Lady Gaga who had been posting as TaiLiu and who had Charmed me.

[KorvinStarmast]

The way to read it without that interpretation is to treat it colloquially.

"Bob, the merchant found out you swindled him with a fake 'magic dagger!' What are we going to do!?"
"He found out I swindled him, but he thinks I am a blond adventurer in shining full plate, not a redheaded sorcerer in a tunic and trousers!"

The spell lets him know that you — the person he inexplicably liked and trusted more than he should—charmed him. He did not learn who you are beyond what you told him. He did not learn that your disguise was a disguise. But if he ever does somehow recognize you as the person who he was magically compelled to like and trust, he will also recognize that you charmed him, because he knows that the reason for that lapse in skepticism was due to being charmed by that person. This.

No, I would not have Charm Person give any additional information other than they were magically influenced. This.
That's not "colloquial." That's "(overly) literal." Agree.

I do interpret things literally, so maybe that's why I'm not understanding your interpretation. But I think my interpretation is colloquial and has force behind it. It has the force of overliteralism in it, perhaps. Why? Because the following way of thinking through the problem fits the intention of enchantment as a kind of magic much better ...

This is how I'd interpret it.

I think if it gave that kind of supernatural, disguise-piercing knowledge, that would be explicitly called out. It would.


Enchantment magic is intrigue magic. The best way to use it is to let the player do disguises and let someone else take the fall for their charm magic.
But that's asking people to understand the narrative conventions of the genre, and more than a simple bit of text.

[theNater]

Maybe you have a have a point. Maybe charmed individuals just have contradictory beliefs. That's possible. It sure doesn't feel right, though.
Human beings are absolutely capable of holding contradictory beliefs even without being charmed. In Carol's case, it would be especially easy for her to hold these contradictory beliefs, as she doesn't have the tools necessary to identify them as contradictory.

[Tanarii]

Human beings are absolutely capable of holding contradictory beliefs even without being charmed.
I'd even call that a normal and healthy state of mind. :smallamused:

[theNater]

I'd even call that a normal and healthy state of mind. :smallamused:
Well, the human brain is one and a half kilograms of meat trying to cope with a functionally boundless world filled with wondrous complexity. Somethings gotta give, and perfect self-consistency is relatively low priority.

[TaiLiu]

It isn't contradictory; my core point is that they don't know, "It was you, Anna, who Charmed them." They know "It was you, whom they believe to be whom ever they believe you to be, who Charmed them."

They gain no special knowledge about you other than that you Charmed them. Anything else they glean is due to their own observations or other factors unrelated to the spell. (Heck, because of the advantage you have on all social interaction checks while they are Charmed by you, it is easier to convince them that you are Billy, if you want to.)

If you used charm person on me through this forum, when the spell ended, I would know that it was the poster TaiLiu who Charmed me. I wouldn't know anything else about you, TaiLiu, than I do now, however, and if you convinced me that you were Lady Gaga, I would believe it was Lady Gaga who had been posting as TaiLiu and who had Charmed me.
I think we just interpret "the creature knows it was charmed by you" differently. Maybe we just have different views on what knowledge and personal identity are.

The creature knows it was me. That means the creature has (at minimum) a true justified belief that it was me. In many D&D worlds, it seems correct to say that personal identity is connected to the soul. To say that the creature knows it was charmed by me is to say that the creature has a true justified belief that a particular soul charmed it.

Well, Billy has a different soul than me, so it could not think that it was Billy. By definition, it believes it was me, Anna (since knowledge is a kind of belief). Furthermore, the creature has good reason to believe this (i.e. it's justified) and in fact it's true. So it's really unclear to me where Billy could fit into this... unless that sentence were removed.


It has the force of overliteralism in it, perhaps. Why? Because the following way of thinking through the problem fits the intention of enchantment as a kind of magic much better ... But that's asking people to understand the narrative conventions of the genre, and more than a simple bit of text.
Sure, but the game's bound by mechanical restraints, too. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you"—why is this sentence necessary if the creature can be fooled by subtle spell or disguise self? Without it, wouldn't it just naturally follow that the creature (a) would think the culprit was you if you didn't bother hiding it, (b) wouldn't know who charmed it if you subtly cast it, or (c) think it was done by someone else if you disguised yourself?

It's this sentence that complicates things. Why is it here? One hypothesis consistent with its presence is that it's meant to weaken the spell and prevent certain kinds of shenanigans.


Human beings are absolutely capable of holding contradictory beliefs even without being charmed. In Carol's case, it would be especially easy for her to hold these contradictory beliefs, as she doesn't have the tools necessary to identify them as contradictory.
Sure. I'll also expand your thesis to humanoids more broadly. I mentioned that it was possible already, so you know I already agree with this statement.

[theNater]

I think we just interpret "the creature knows it was charmed by you" differently. Maybe we just have different views on what knowledge and personal identity are.

The creature knows it was me. That means the creature has (at minimum) a true justified belief that it was me. In many D&D worlds, it seems correct to say that personal identity is connected to the soul. To say that the creature knows it was charmed by me is to say that the creature has a true justified belief that a particular soul charmed it.

Well, Billy has a different soul than me, so it could not think that it was Billy. By definition, it believes it was me, Anna (since knowledge is a kind of belief). Furthermore, the creature has good reason to believe this (i.e. it's justified) and in fact it's true. So it's really unclear to me where Billy could fit into this... unless that sentence were removed.
But in the normal course of events, Carol has no way to distinguish your soul from Billy's (otherwise the disguise would have been pointless in the first place). Even if she gains some insight into your soul, she still has no insight into Billy's, so there's no reason for her not to assume the soul that charmed her is Billy's.


Sure, but the game's bound by mechanical restraints, too. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you"—why is this sentence necessary if the creature can be fooled by subtle spell or disguise self? Without it, wouldn't it just naturally follow that the creature (a) would think the culprit was you if you didn't bother hiding it, (b) wouldn't know who charmed it if you subtly cast it, or (c) think it was done by someone else if you disguised yourself?
No, I'd think the target wouldn't know they had been charmed at all.


Sure. I'll also expand your thesis to humanoids more broadly. I mentioned that it was possible already, so you know I already agree with this statement.
I guess I'm just confused as to why it doesn't feel right to you. I had assumed you thought such internal contradictions could only be the product of magic.

[Segev]

I think we just interpret "the creature knows it was charmed by you" differently. Maybe we just have different views on what knowledge and personal identity are.

The creature knows it was me. That means the creature has (at minimum) a true justified belief that it was me. In many D&D worlds, it seems correct to say that personal identity is connected to the soul. To say that the creature knows it was charmed by me is to say that the creature has a true justified belief that a particular soul charmed it.

Well, Billy has a different soul than me, so it could not think that it was Billy. By definition, it believes it was me, Anna (since knowledge is a kind of belief). Furthermore, the creature has good reason to believe this (i.e. it's justified) and in fact it's true. So it's really unclear to me where Billy could fit into this... unless that sentence were removed.

Nothing in the colloquial use of the word "you" in the context of "somebody knows you did something" suggests that the person who knows you did something gains special knowledge of your soul.

"He knows you were scamming him," is a perfectly fine thing to say about the event of you scamming "him," even if he has zero idea who you are. If you were dressed as Elvis Presley, he knows you were scamming him, and he knows that whoever you are, you were dressed as Elvis Presley. Whether he can later identify you when you're dressed as Count von Count is a matter for skill rolls.

Charm person doesn't tell him anything more than that "Elvis Presley" used Charm magic on him. It doesn't even negate the charisma rolls you made during the Charming event, so if you did successfully convince him you are, in fact, Elvis Presley, he'll need at least a little bit of convincing to realize that he only bought that claim because he was Charmed. If you convinced him that you were the Elvis Impersonator who works at the Luxor on Saturdays, especially if you did so in a way that obfuscates that you were TRYING to make him believe that, he may well believe it was the Elvis Impersonator who works at the Luxor on Saturdays who Charmed him. Depending on how good your impersonation of that impersonator was, he may believe it even after meeting the real one.


Your "soul"-based logic here just isn't supported by the text of the spell nor 5e's colloquial usage of English to convey meaning. Colloquially, all the spell text is telling us is that the subject (a) knows he was charmed and (b) recognizes that the person getting advantage on social checks due to him being charmed was the source of the charm effect.

[LibraryOgre]

This is probably an "ask your DM" question but I'm curious about the consensus on this forum.

Charm Person says that after the spell ends "the creature knows it was charmed by you."

A) A cloaked figure in a dimly lit tavern uses Subtle Charm Person on Jim the Waiter and asks him to spill the beans about the illegal gambling ring in the back room. Does Jim learn that the cloaked figure was Bob the Sorceror or gain any ability to subsequently pick him out of a crowd?

B) Bob the Sorceror, hiding in a bush, uses Subtle Charm Person on Stinky the Kobold, but then decides it's too risky, and continues hiding in the bush, without interacting with Stinky at all, until the spell wears off. Does Stinky learn anything at all? Does he learn that Bob Charmed him, and what does it mean to "learn" that if he is unaware of Bob's name, presence, or even existence?

A) He knows that the cloaked figure charmed him, but he doesn't know any information beyond that.
B) Stinky knows SOMETHING happened, but without any interaction with Bob, he doesn't know exactly what, or anything about who.

[Sigreid]

The way I see it, charm improves their reaction to your social efforts. This means for it to do anything really, you have to have some kind of interaction with them. So, when it wears off they think "wait a minute, I've been had!"

[Tanarii]

The way I see it, charm improves their reaction to your social efforts. This means for it to do anything really, you have to have some kind of interaction with them. So, when it wears off they think "wait a minute, I've been had!"When it ends, it doesn't reverse the effects of any successful checks.

[Wintermoot]

When it ends, it doesn't reverse the effects of any successful checks.

"Hey, wait a minute. That guy charmed me! Oh well, I still like him."

Please.

[Tanarii]

"Hey, wait a minute. That guy charmed me! Oh well, I still like him."

Please.
What's that got to do with the price of milk?

If you successfully deceived them, they stay deceived about the thing you deceived them about. They remain "been had".

[Sigreid]

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

If you successfully deceived them, they stay deceived about the thing you deceived them about. They remain "been had".
I don't know man. If I suddenly realize I've been conned, and maybe the after effect says now I'm mad at you (friends for example) I may take the attitude of what is done is done, but I'm unlikely to proceed based on what I agreed to when I wasn't thinking clearly. Just because you convince someone of something doesn't mean they are convinced forever.

[Keltest]

I don't know man. If I suddenly realize I've been conned, and maybe the after effect says now I'm mad at you (friends for example) I may take the attitude of what is done is done, but I'm unlikely to proceed based on what I agreed to when I wasn't thinking clearly. Just because you convince someone of something doesn't mean they are convinced forever.

Charm Person doesnt specifically affect their opinion of you when the spell ends. It just means for the purposes of the conversation they regarded you as basically honest and trustworthy, and then they realize that it was weird that they did so. Somebody naturally suspicious might re-evaluate any agreements made after the fact once they realize theyve been charmed, but unless they have some other reason to believe you lied to them they still stay fooled about it.

[Segev]

They "realize they were charmed by you." If you didn't abuse them or ask them to do anything that puts them out - or if whatever you asked of them turned out well for them and it's clear that was your intention - they may well forgive you for it. They may not. They may be hostile over the invasion of their mind. If you fooled them into thinking you're King Kharming, the only reason they'd have cause to doubt that that was King Kharming who charmed them is if there's lots they were ignoring because of the charm effect that points to it not being King Kharming. IT also doesn't let them know that it was Vizier Vileman.

And, if you ARE King Kharming, and made some subtle insinuations to try to plant suspicion that you're not really King Kharming, you could wind up with the charm wearing off and the guy thinking, "Wait, that wasn't King Kharming! It must've been a bad guy!" Even though he knows the guy "impersonating" King Kharming charmed him, he doesn't blame King Kharming, who it definitely wasn't.

[Sigreid]

They "realize they were charmed by you." If you didn't abuse them or ask them to do anything that puts them out - or if whatever you asked of them turned out well for them and it's clear that was your intention - they may well forgive you for it. They may not. They may be hostile over the invasion of their mind. If you fooled them into thinking you're King Kharming, the only reason they'd have cause to doubt that that was King Kharming who charmed them is if there's lots they were ignoring because of the charm effect that points to it not being King Kharming. IT also doesn't let them know that it was Vizier Vileman.

And, if you ARE King Kharming, and made some subtle insinuations to try to plant suspicion that you're not really King Kharming, you could wind up with the charm wearing off and the guy thinking, "Wait, that wasn't King Kharming! It must've been a bad guy!" Even though he knows the guy "impersonating" King Kharming charmed him, he doesn't blame King Kharming, who it definitely wasn't.

I agree that what they know is "that guy manipulated me with magic" and doesn't get a real identity via some magical background check.

[Unoriginal]

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

If you successfully deceived them, they stay deceived about the thing you deceived them about. They remain "been had".

Person under the charm: "Man, I bought those high quality copper ingots at a bargain."

[Charm Person runs out]

Person no longer under the charm: "Hold on, this copper merchant used mind-affecting magic on me. I probably should check if this copper is really as high quality as he promised."


Charm Person doesnt specifically affect their opinion of you when the spell ends. It just means for the purposes of the conversation they regarded you as basically honest and trustworthy, and then they realize that it was weird that they did so. Somebody naturally suspicious might re-evaluate any agreements made after the fact once they realize theyve been charmed, but unless they have some other reason to believe you lied to them they still stay fooled about it.

They don't just realize that it was weird, they realize their feelings and opinions where manipulated by magic.

It doesn't make the target inherently hostile, but for most sapient creatures, realizing "I was under magic influence to trust this person more" is a reason in itself to doubt and re-examine everything the person told them.

[Keltest]

They don't just realize that it was weird, they realize their feelings and opinions where manipulated by magic.

It doesn't make the target inherently hostile, but for most sapient creatures, realizing "I was under magic influence to trust this person more" is a reason in itself to doubt and re-examine everything the person told them.

And unless you, for example, sold them lead and promised them it was gold, they have no realistic ability to suddenly conclude that you were lying short of just changing their mind without evidence.

If I lie to somebody I charmed and tell them my name is Friendly Traveler, then they might be suspicious the next time they see Friendly Traveler (unless I charm them again), but they have no ability to suddenly conclude that I am not in fact named Friendly Traveler. Ditto with seeing through a disguise.

[Tanarii]

Person under the charm: "Man, I bought those high quality copper ingots at a bargain."

[Charm Person runs out]

Person no longer under the charm: "Hold on, this copper merchant used mind-affecting magic on me. I probably should check if this copper is really as high quality as he promised."
Skill checks can't make you believe something you're not prepared to believe anyway. If you're trying to blatantly con someone, it's going to automatically fail before they realize they were charmed.

But I will say I took the reference to conning someone to be what Segev has been referring to, subtly convincing someone you were someone else via the skill check before the spell runs out, using the advantage involved to make it more likely to stick.

However, I agree that trying to use a social check to get someone to do something you want (per the primary method of what social interaction involving skills checks is under DMG) when what you want will be longer than the duration of the spell is generally a bad idea. Because what was a success with advantage vs someone with a helpful attitude (e.g. under the effects of charm person) may well stop being a success as soon as they are no longer helpful. The DC could easily have gone up by 10 or 20, and there's no reason a DM wouldn't consider the value of the original check vs the new DC for an ongoing request.

[Segev]

I agree that trying to use a social check to get someone to do something you want (per the primary method of what social interaction involving skills checks is under DMG) when what you want will be longer than the duration of the spell is generally a bad idea. Because what was a success with advantage vs someone with a helpful attitude (e.g. under the effects of charm person) may well stop being a success as soon as they are no longer helpful. The DC could easily have gone up by 10 or 20, and there's no reason a DM wouldn't consider the value of the original check vs the new DC for an ongoing request.

Heck, I have seen DMs in similar situations obviate the check altogether. "Now that he knows he was Charmed, he is disinclined to follow through on anything he agreed to."

Now, I agree that checking the original roll against the new DC is probably a much fairer way to do it: if you really rolled well enough (possibly due to advantage, but that's hard to take out of the equation) to convince him even if he was neutral or hostile, then he may well stay convinced...albeit a lot more grudgingly. But whatever you said might've been so perfectly persuasive that he still feels like it's something in his best interest, or feels an obligation just in case those orphans you promised this was crucial to save are really in danger and really need this. Or whathaveyou.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And regardless, it probably means that any future dealings with that person are going to start at a lower disposition (unless there are intervening events).

[TaiLiu]

But in the normal course of events, Carol has no way to distinguish your soul from Billy's (otherwise the disguise would have been pointless in the first place). Even if she gains some insight into your soul, she still has no insight into Billy's, so there's no reason for her not to assume the soul that charmed her is Billy's.
I agree with everything except for "there's no reason for her not to assume the soul that charmed her is Billy's." Carol knows that I charmed her, and I'm not Billy.


No, I'd think the target wouldn't know they had been charmed at all.
That's one of our big disagreements, huh? The spell says explicitly that the target knows they've been charmed, so I'm inclined to say that the target knows. It's unclear to me how you reach the conclusion that the target wouldn't know, since that contradicts what the spell does.


I guess I'm just confused as to why it doesn't feel right to you. I had assumed you thought such internal contradictions could only be the product of magic.
Well, it gets awfully confusing when someone has contradictory beliefs. It's unclear how someone acts on them. If a detective believes and doesn't believe that the culprit is in that building, what does the detective do? Sit down and have a cognitive dissonance attack?



Nothing in the colloquial use of the word "you" in the context of "somebody knows you did something" suggests that the person who knows you did something gains special knowledge of your soul.

"He knows you were scamming him," is a perfectly fine thing to say about the event of you scamming "him," even if he has zero idea who you are. If you were dressed as Elvis Presley, he knows you were scamming him, and he knows that whoever you are, you were dressed as Elvis Presley. Whether he can later identify you when you're dressed as Count von Count is a matter for skill rolls.

Charm person doesn't tell him anything more than that "Elvis Presley" used Charm magic on him. It doesn't even negate the charisma rolls you made during the Charming event, so if you did successfully convince him you are, in fact, Elvis Presley, he'll need at least a little bit of convincing to realize that he only bought that claim because he was Charmed. If you convinced him that you were the Elvis Impersonator who works at the Luxor on Saturdays, especially if you did so in a way that obfuscates that you were TRYING to make him believe that, he may well believe it was the Elvis Impersonator who works at the Luxor on Saturdays who Charmed him. Depending on how good your impersonation of that impersonator was, he may believe it even after meeting the real one.

Your "soul"-based logic here just isn't supported by the text of the spell nor 5e's colloquial usage of English to convey meaning. Colloquially, all the spell text is telling us is that the subject (a) knows he was charmed and (b) recognizes that the person getting advantage on social checks due to him being charmed was the source of the charm effect.
Honestly, my fault for bringing up the soul stuff. The soul stuff is auxiliary to what I should've said: "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you" refers to me (Anna) and not to Billy. And who I am is a soul in most D&D worlds, so it refers to my soul. But the soul part is not especially relevant. What's relevant is that it doesn't refer to Billy.

I agree that charm person doesn't impart any special soul knowledge and probably agree with your last paragraph. I disagree that charm person would inform the target that Elvis Presley charmed them. I don't think that follows from the text at all. Cuz it's untrue, and if it's untrue, it's not knowledge. And the spell imparts knowledge.

[Segev]

It tells him that 'you,' the person he interacted with, were the one who charmed him. It in no way allows him to automatically recognize that you are not Billy if you were disguised as Billy. Only that the person you looked like Billy — you — charmed him.

If you see a person who looks like Billy steal an apple from a vendor's cart, you know it was that person who did it. Whether you believe that he really is Billy or not is a separate matter, probably determined by ability checks or your expectations of Billy's behavior.

He no more knows you aren't Billy than he knows it really was Billy if Billy charms him a few minutes later.

If he is charmed by you, disguised as Billy, and then later by Billy, looking like himself, barring his ability checks piercing your disguise, he will know who charmed him each time... but he will believe both people to have been the same person: Billy.

[theNater]

I agree with everything except for "there's no reason for her not to assume the soul that charmed her is Billy's." Carol knows that I charmed her, and I'm not Billy.
You are, as far as Carol can tell, indistinguishable from Billy. So the fact that you are not Billy is not particularly relevant.




Sure, but the game's bound by mechanical restraints, too. "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you"—why is this sentence necessary if the creature can be fooled by subtle spell or disguise self? Without it, wouldn't it just naturally follow that the creature (a) would think the culprit was you if you didn't bother hiding it, (b) wouldn't know who charmed it if you subtly cast it, or (c) think it was done by someone else if you disguised yourself?No, I'd think the target wouldn't know they had been charmed at all.That's one of our big disagreements, huh? The spell says explicitly that the target knows they've been charmed, so I'm inclined to say that the target knows. It's unclear to me how you reach the conclusion that the target wouldn't know, since that contradicts what the spell does.
When you change the text, please don't treat my reading of the altered text as if it was a reading of the original text.


Well, it gets awfully confusing when someone has contradictory beliefs. It's unclear how someone acts on them. If a detective believes and doesn't believe that the culprit is in that building, what does the detective do? Sit down and have a cognitive dissonance attack?
They will attempt to resolve the contradiction. For this detective, it may mean going over the evidence again, checking the building, or believing that the culprit can be in two places at once, depending on the detective's own style.

Carol, on the other hand, has a really easy way to resolve her contradiction. Remember, she's not reconciling "it was you" and "it was not you", she's reconciling "it was you" and "it was Billy". All she has to do is believe "you are Billy", and she has no conflict.

[Segev]

Carol, on the other hand, has a really easy way to resolve her contradiction. Remember, she's not reconciling "it was you" and "it was not you", she's reconciling "it was you" and "it was Billy". All she has to do is believe "you are Billy", and she has no conflict.

I would venture to suggest she is likely to settle on, "Billy is you." Because she will believe that the person who charmed her is Billy, knowing you (disguised as and convincing her you arelBilly) charmed her.

[TaiLiu]

I feel like this chat isn't going anywhere—we aren't convinced by each other's arguments. Not quite sure what to do about that. Should we just stop talking?


It tells him that 'you,' the person he interacted with, were the one who charmed him. It in no way allows him to automatically recognize that you are not Billy if you were disguised as Billy. Only that the person you looked like Billy — you — charmed him.

If you see a person who looks like Billy steal an apple from a vendor's cart, you know it was that person who did it. Whether you believe that he really is Billy or not is a separate matter, probably determined by ability checks or your expectations of Billy's behavior.

He no more knows you aren't Billy than he knows it really was Billy if Billy charms him a few minutes later.

If he is charmed by you, disguised as Billy, and then later by Billy, looking like himself, barring his ability checks piercing your disguise, he will know who charmed him each time... but he will believe both people to have been the same person: Billy.
I feel like we're just saying making the same arguments in slightly different ways. My response is still the same: the charmed individual won't know who I am, but they won't believe that it's Billy, cuz the spell informs them that it was me. And I'm not Billy.


You are, as far as Carol can tell, indistinguishable from Billy. So the fact that you are not Billy is not particularly relevant.
Carol knows that I charmed her, and I'm not Billy. It seems like it's the other way around: the fact that I look like Billy is irrelevant.


When you change the text, please don't treat my reading of the altered text as if it was a reading of the original text.
Okay, then I think I don't understand what you mean when you write: "No, I'd think the target wouldn't know they had been charmed at all."


They will attempt to resolve the contradiction. For this detective, it may mean going over the evidence again, checking the building, or believing that the culprit can be in two places at once, depending on the detective's own style.

Carol, on the other hand, has a really easy way to resolve her contradiction. Remember, she's not reconciling "it was you" and "it was not you", she's reconciling "it was you" and "it was Billy". All she has to do is believe "you are Billy", and she has no conflict.
Right, but I'm not Billy. She knows that I'm not Billy cuz the spell tells the target that I charmed them, and I'm Anna.

[Keltest]

Right, but I'm not Billy. She knows that I'm not Billy cuz the spell tells the target that I charmed them, and I'm Anna.

Unless Billy has some sort of anti-magic field around him that fully prohibits him from ever being able to charm you, that doesnt follow. It doesnt tell you the intrinsic identity of the person who charmed you.

[Segev]

The spell doesn't tell him that Anna charmed him. The spell tells him that 'you' — the person he felt strangely friendly towards — charmed him. If he thinks that person — you — was Billy, then he thinks Billy charmed him.

Just, again, like if you make a pickpocketing attempt against him and he perceives you doing it, he know you — the person who bumped into him and whose hand he felt in his pocket — tried to pick his pocket. If your disguise as Billy is better than your attempt at pickpocketing, he may well believe you are Billy, and believe Billy tried to pickpocket him.

Same with charm person: he knows you did it, but at the time, he believed you to be Billy, and that belief doesn't magically change. It would need other evidence.

Now, if he kmew Anna was an enchantress who liked to disguise herself as other people, and knew Billy doesn't know the spell, he might reasonably put these facts together and suspect that 'Billy' was really Anna in disguise once he realized he was charmed by someone that he thought was Billy.

[Luccan]

Unless Billy has some sort of anti-magic field around him that fully prohibits him from ever being able to charm you, that doesnt follow. It doesnt tell you the intrinsic identity of the person who charmed you.

That's the question of the whole thread. I'm inclined to agree with you, but the wording is just vague enough I understand the alternative interpretation, even if I think that makes the charm spells nigh useless for anything other than one-off castings on people you don't need to like you long term.

There isn't much evidence supporting one interpretation or the other, so I'm just gonna agree to disagree with people coming from the other interpretation

[Keltest]

That's the question of the whole thread. I'm inclined to agree with you, but the wording is just vague enough I understand the alternative interpretation, even if I think that makes the charm spells nigh useless for anything other than one-off castings on people you don't need to like you long term.

There isn't much evidence supporting one interpretation or the other, so I'm just gonna agree to disagree with people coming from the other interpretation

In this case, I think the ambiguity lends itself to the simpler explanation. If it was intended that they could recognize you through a disguise, the spell would have said so.

[TaiLiu]

That's the question of the whole thread. I'm inclined to agree with you, but the wording is just vague enough I understand the alternative interpretation, even if I think that makes the charm spells nigh useless for anything other than one-off castings on people you don't need to like you long term.

There isn't much evidence supporting one interpretation or the other, so I'm just gonna agree to disagree with people coming from the other interpretation
Maybe the ambiguity means that all of us have to read just beyond the text of the spell. Maybe it's why none of us are coming to an agreement.

I'm probably biased towards my reading cuz I read "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you" as some kind of balancing mechanic. Enchanting a total stranger, or even someone actively hostile to you, into a friendly acquaintance? Who's also charmed? For an hour? With no concentration? That's potent. The knowledge aspect of the spell is a messy attempt to limit what the spell can do and prevent shenanigans that involve disguises or subtle spell.

In terms of approximate power, charm person sits between friends and suggestion. Without some kind of anti-shenanigan limitation, it might be broadly better than suggestion.

I remember someone saying that charm person is an enchantment spell and so it's thematically fitting that it would allow those shenanigans. That's a different bias. I accept that as a reasonable reading and a good reason to ask my future DMs on their interpretation of the spell.


Unless Billy has some sort of anti-magic field around him that fully prohibits him from ever being able to charm you, that doesnt follow. It doesnt tell you the intrinsic identity of the person who charmed you.
The spell explicitly says "the creature knows it was charmed by you." I haven't been making any formal arguments, but I guess part of the argument would go like this:


The creature knows it was charmed by you.
If the creature knows it was charmed by you, then the creature won't think it was charmed by someone else.
Therefore, the creature won't think it was charmed by someone else.



The spell doesn't tell him that Anna charmed him. The spell tells him that 'you' — the person he felt strangely friendly towards — charmed him. If he thinks that person — you — was Billy, then he thinks Billy charmed him.

Just, again, like if you make a pickpocketing attempt against him and he perceives you doing it, he know you — the person who bumped into him and whose hand he felt in his pocket — tried to pick his pocket. If your disguise as Billy is better than your attempt at pickpocketing, he may well believe you are Billy, and believe Billy tried to pickpocket him.

Same with charm person: he knows you did it, but at the time, he believed you to be Billy, and that belief doesn't magically change. It would need other evidence.

Now, if he knew Anna was an enchantress who liked to disguise herself as other people, and knew Billy doesn't know the spell, he might reasonably put these facts together and suspect that 'Billy' was really Anna in disguise once he realized he was charmed by someone that he thought was Billy.
I think the big difference between the pickpocket and the enchanter is that charm person lets the target know who charmed it. That's not the case with the pickpocket, who can use all kinds of shenanigans to their advantage. I think the target knowing that it was me means that the target wouldn't think it was Billy.


In this case, I think the ambiguity lends itself to the simpler explanation. If it was intended that they could recognize you through a disguise, the spell would have said so.
If simplicity were an unambiguous concept, Occam's razor would be a lot more useful. I also didn't argue that the spell lets the creature see through a disguise—I think that's a misinterpretation of what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the creature knows who you are. It doesn't impart any disguise-piercing abilities.

[Keltest]

If simplicity were an unambiguous concept, Occam's razor would be a lot more useful. I also didn't argue that the spell lets the creature see through a disguise—I think that's a misinterpretation of what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the creature knows who you are. It doesn't impart any disguise-piercing abilities.

I don't think its a misinterpretation as such, I just think its a necessary requirement for your stance to hold true, one way or the other. If they thought they were talking to Billy and not You, then suddenly they know they were charmed by You and not Billy, then the spell has effectively told them that the person talking to them was not Billy. Which on top of anything else would make the spell incredibly useless for one of the major reasons to use it: Lying.

[Segev]

I think the big difference between the pickpocket and the enchanter is that charm person lets the target know who charmed it. That's not the case with the pickpocket, who can use all kinds of shenanigans to their advantage. I think the target knowing that it was me means that the target wouldn't think it was Billy.

The spell doesn't say it lets the target know who charmed it. It says the target knows you charmed it. It does not say it lets the target know who you are. You keep trying to add special knowledge of "who you are" to get to your conclusion. The spell doesn't grant that special knowledge.

5e is written with colloquial English in mind. That's why the pickpocket example works: you fully understand exactly what I mean when I say, "If he rolls higher on his Wisdom(Perception) than you did on your Dexterity(Sleight of Hand), the target knows you pickpocketed him." I doubt you'd be trying to make a claim that this sentence would mean that he would automatically pierce Anna's disguise as Billy. If Anna's disguise check was higher than the target's Intelligence(Investigation) check to see through it, the target would know you - Anna, whom he believes to be Billy - picked his pocket. He would not know that it wasn't Billy, however.

If the sentence quoted in the last paragraph didn't make sense in that fashion, you'd have a meaningful case for the spell telling him more than that sentence would. But it does make sense, and therefore the colloquial reading works for charm person, as well. Since the spell does not add anything about penetrating disguises, knowing your true identity, being able to identify you later no matter what you look like, or anything of the sort - which it would if the intent was more than the same meaning as given in the pickpocketing example - it is inappropriate to assume that the spell does more than the same wording does in the pickpocketing example.

[Unoriginal]

Let's imagine a situation where Arnold is trying to get Carl to reveal everything he can about Carl's business with Barnaby.

To do that, Arnold, as a Warlock uses Mask of Many Faces to look identical to Barnaby, casts Charm Person on Carl, and try to steer the conversation toward the business in question. But, due to unforseen events, Barnaby shows up in person, and demands to know what is going on, delaying Arnold long enough for Charm Person to run out before he can makes his exit. Carl sees two Barnabies but know one of them Charmed him.

So Arnold-as-Barnaby jumps on Barnaby and the two wrestle around for a while.

Are people who say that Charm Person reveals who you are to the target arguing that Carl should automatically be able to identify which of the two Barnabies is the real one?

[Tanarii]

Are people who say that Charm Person reveals who you are to the target arguing that Carl should automatically be able to identify which of the two Barnabies is the real one?
Before that, we need to argue about if Carl can even identify which of the two Barnabies cast the Charm Person at that point.

[Keltest]

Before that, we need to argue about if Carl can even identify which of the two Barnabies cast the Charm Person at that point.

The point being made is that if Charm Person magically allows them to penetrate disguises and such and somehow just know who charmed them previously, they shouldn't need that information, they should just be able to tell.

[Segev]

If two Barnabys are present, Carl knows that one of them is a friendly acquaintance he cannot bring himself to attack, while he is Charmed by him. When the effect ends, he knows he was Charmed by that Barnaby, so long as he can keep straight which Barnaby he was just feeling friendly towards. I do not think this is in dispute, so please correct me if I am wrong.

When the Barnaby who Charmed him tackles the other Barnaby, and the two get sufficiently mixed up that, absent any magical information granted to him, Carl can no longer keep track of which Barnaby was which, the question that is in dispute is whether Carl can still magically tell that THAT Barnaby is the one who Charmed him, and not the other Barnaby. There is an additional question as to whether or not he knows, now that the spell is over, that it was Arnold, and not Barnaby, who Charmed him, even if he has no idea who Arnold is and could not otherwise see through Arnold's Barnaby disguise.

[Tanarii]

When the Barnaby who Charmed him tackles the other Barnaby, and the two get sufficiently mixed up that, absent any magical information granted to him, Carl can no longer keep track of which Barnaby was which, the question that is in dispute is whether Carl can still magically tell that THAT Barnaby is the one who Charmed him, and not the other Barnaby. There is an additional question as to whether or not he knows, now that the spell is over, that it was Arnold, and not Barnaby, who Charmed him, even if he has no idea who Arnold is and could not otherwise see through Arnoldps Barnaby disguise.
Yup thanks. It seemed like Unoriginal was asking the latter (although I'm not 100% sure on rereading). So I was asking the former.

I tentatively think the answer to first one may be yes. Provided they're both in front of Carl and no longer tangling it up, he can still pick out which one was the 'you' that charmed him. But I'm open to the idea that this isn't the case.

But IMO the second is a hard no. However I'm also open to the idea that if Carl later meets Arnold undisguised, even though Carl has no idea who Arnold is, Carl still knows at some point this person in front of him attempted to charm him. Even if he doesn't know any details about when or where.

[Segev]

Yup thanks. It seemed like Unoriginal was asking the latter (although I'm not 100% sure on rereading). So I was asking the former.

I tentatively think the answer to first one may be yes. Provided they're both in front of Carl and no longer tangling it up, he can still pick out which one was the 'you' that charmed him. But I'm open to the idea that this isn't the case.

But IMO the second is a hard no. However I'm also open to the idea that if Carl later meets Arnold undisguised, even though Carl has no idea who Arnold is, Carl still knows at some point this person in front of him attempted to charm him. Even if he doesn't know any details about when or where.

I am not open to those ideas. To me, the answer to the first question is that Carl only knows that "that Barnaby, the one I liked pretty well until a moment ago, Charmed me." This is an instantaneous knowledge. He doesn't forget it, but its saliency does expire the moment Arnold-as-Barnaby engages in the two-card monte by tackling the-real-BarnabyTM because there's no ongoing update of the information. Once Carl can no longer non-magically discern which Barnaby is which, he only knows that one of those Barnabys Charmed him. He knows it was the one who was originally (say) on his left, and that that's the one who initiated the tackle and scuffle, but he can't tell which one of the Barnabys present is that particular Barnaby.

He also doesn't gain magical insight into the fact that Barnaby-who-Charmed-him is actually Arnold. Nor that he's disguised, nor that he's using illusion magic.




In fact, if the-real-BarnabyTM is the one who Charmed him, and Arnold-disguised-magically-as-Barnaby did not, and after the tackle-and-shuffle, Carl notices something that gives away Arnold is disguised as Barnaby (perhaps his height causes the illusion to clip into a low-hanging light fixture or something)... then Carl may (incorrectly) assume that the person magically disguised as Barnaby was the one who Charmed him. Because one deception suggests the other.


All of this is because the spell has no ongoing duration after the spell is over, so the effect that tells Carl "you" Charmed him must be instantaneous. He knows "you" - "that person" - Charmed him, and nothing in the spell says he gains any other information about you, your appearance, your identity, etc.

[Unoriginal]

I am not open to those ideas. To me, the answer to the first question is that Carl only knows that "that Barnaby, the one I liked pretty well until a moment ago, Charmed me." This is an instantaneous knowledge. He doesn't forget it, but its saliency does expire the moment Arnold-as-Barnaby engages in the two-card monte by tackling the-real-BarnabyTM because there's no ongoing update of the information. Once Carl can no longer non-magically discern which Barnaby is which, he only knows that one of those Barnabys Charmed him. He knows it was the one who was originally (say) on his left, and that that's the one who initiated the tackle and scuffle, but he can't tell which one of the Barnabys present is that particular Barnaby.

He also doesn't gain magical insight into the fact that Barnaby-who-Charmed-him is actually Arnold. Nor that he's disguised, nor that he's using illusion magic.




In fact, if the-real-BarnabyTM is the one who Charmed him, and Arnold-disguised-magically-as-Barnaby did not, and after the tackle-and-shuffle, Carl notices something that gives away Arnold is disguised as Barnaby (perhaps his height causes the illusion to clip into a low-hanging light fixture or something)... then Carl may (incorrectly) assume that the person magically disguised as Barnaby was the one who Charmed him. Because one deception suggests the other.


All of this is because the spell has no ongoing duration after the spell is over, so the effect that tells Carl "you" Charmed him must be instantaneous. He knows "you" - "that person" - Charmed him, and nothing in the spell says he gains any other information about you, your appearance, your identity, etc.

That would be my interpretation as well.

Pictured: the Barnabies

https://media.tenor.com/rnNTjhHnkbAAAAAM/homer.gif

[theNater]

If the creature knows it was charmed by you, then the creature won't think it was charmed by someone else.
This assumption is false. A creature can think things that contradict things it knows, as long as the contradiction is not brought to its attention.

[Segev]

This assumption is false. A creature can think things that contradict things it knows, as long as the contradiction is not brought to its attention.

Especially if it doesn't know there IS a contradiction. (Difference here being between knowing that it rained all day Sunday and thinking you went out and had a sunny picnic after church last weekend - you got confused about which weekend it was and being reminded that it rained will clear that up - and not knowing that Spock is a Vulcan and suspecting that the red blood you found at the scene of the crime might be Mr. Spock's.)

So, if they don't know that you are Arnold, then believing that you are Barnaby is totally possible.

[TaiLiu]

I don't think its a misinterpretation as such, I just think its a necessary requirement for your stance to hold true, one way or the other. If they thought they were talking to Billy and not You, then suddenly they know they were charmed by You and not Billy, then the spell has effectively told them that the person talking to them was not Billy. Which on top of anything else would make the spell incredibly useless for one of the major reasons to use it: Lying.
Not necessarily. I mean, I guess it'd be so if you cast it right in front of the person and the target knew you were casting a charm spell. I agree with that.

You can definitely lie, and you'll get advantage, too. I agree that it does limit the scope of your lie a bit. You can lie about anything except maybe who you essentially are. And if you're willing to off the target before the charm expires, you can lie about that as well.


The spell doesn't say it lets the target know who charmed it. It says the target knows you charmed it. It does not say it lets the target know who you are. You keep trying to add special knowledge of "who you are" to get to your conclusion. The spell doesn't grant that special knowledge.

5e is written with colloquial English in mind. That's why the pickpocket example works: you fully understand exactly what I mean when I say, "If he rolls higher on his Wisdom(Perception) than you did on your Dexterity(Sleight of Hand), the target knows you pickpocketed him." I doubt you'd be trying to make a claim that this sentence would mean that he would automatically pierce Anna's disguise as Billy. If Anna's disguise check was higher than the target's Intelligence(Investigation) check to see through it, the target would know you - Anna, whom he believes to be Billy - picked his pocket. He would not know that it wasn't Billy, however.

If the sentence quoted in the last paragraph didn't make sense in that fashion, you'd have a meaningful case for the spell telling him more than that sentence would. But it does make sense, and therefore the colloquial reading works for charm person, as well. Since the spell does not add anything about penetrating disguises, knowing your true identity, being able to identify you later no matter what you look like, or anything of the sort - which it would if the intent was more than the same meaning as given in the pickpocketing example - it is inappropriate to assume that the spell does more than the same wording does in the pickpocketing example.
Could you tell me what special knowledge of who you are I'm adding? It's possible I'm making some sort of mistake here.

No, I wouldn't say I fully understand what you mean. If my DM told me that, depending on the situation, I might ask for clarification! "Do you mean I saw the person trying to steal from me?"

I also wouldn't make any claims about illusion-piercing powers. Throughout this conversation I've been disagreeing with the idea of charm person being illusion-piercing. I also haven't been claiming that the target knows your true identity or being able to identify you. It does feel like I'm being misunderstood when you say things like this.


Are people who say that Charm Person reveals who you are to the target arguing that Carl should automatically be able to identify which of the two Barnabies is the real one?
No, not necessarily. But it's possible that a DM might rule that way. It does seem weird, doesn't it? Feels thematically inappropriate for charm person to give that information.


This assumption is false. A creature can think things that contradict things it knows, as long as the contradiction is not brought to its attention.
I really don't know how to address our disagreement. "If the creature knows it was charmed by you, then the creature won't think it was charmed by someone else" seems really obviously true to me. Maybe something's off about my thinking.

[Segev]

Could you tell me what special knowledge of who you are I'm adding? It's possible I'm making some sort of mistake here.

No, I wouldn't say I fully understand what you mean. If my DM told me that, depending on the situation, I might ask for clarification! "Do you mean I saw the person trying to steal from me?"

I also wouldn't make any claims about illusion-piercing powers. Throughout this conversation I've been disagreeing with the idea of charm person being illusion-piercing. I also haven't been claiming that the target knows your true identity or being able to identify you. It does feel like I'm being misunderstood when you say things like this.I am unsure how your interpretation fails to pierce illusions if this bolded part...


I really don't know how to address our disagreement. "If the creature knows it was charmed by you, then the creature won't think it was charmed by someone else" seems really obviously true to me. Maybe something's off about my thinking.

...is true.

Perhaps I should just ask again: If Arnold disguises himself as Barnaby and uses charm person on Charles, then leaves the room before the spell ends, can Charles, after the spell ends, automatically conclude, "Wait, that wasn't Barnaby, that was Arnold?"

If he sees Arnold and Barnaby together after the spell has ended, even though it was someone who looked like Barnaby who cast charm person on him, does he automatically know it was Arnold, and not Barnaby, who Charmed him, even though the person who Charmed him looks just like the (now real) Barnaby before him, and not at all like the Arnold standing next to Barnaby?

If, instead, Arnold still had on his Barnaby disguise when Charles found them together, would he be able to tell which Barnaby Charmed him?

If the answer to each of these is "no," then we have no disagreement. If the answer to any of these is "yes," then you are perforce asserting that the knowledge granted by the termination of the charm person spell is an ongoing thing that allows the penetration of illusions.

[TaiLiu]

Perhaps I should just ask again: If Arnold disguises himself as Barnaby and uses charm person on Charles, then leaves the room before the spell ends, can Charles, after the spell ends, automatically conclude, "Wait, that wasn't Barnaby, that was Arnold?"

If he sees Arnold and Barnaby together after the spell has ended, even though it was someone who looked like Barnaby who cast charm person on him, does he automatically know it was Arnold, and not Barnaby, who Charmed him, even though the person who Charmed him looks just like the (now real) Barnaby before him, and not at all like the Arnold standing next to Barnaby?

If, instead, Arnold still had on his Barnaby disguise when Charles found them together, would he be able to tell which Barnaby Charmed him?

If the answer to each of these is "no," then we have no disagreement. If the answer to any of these is "yes," then you are perforce asserting that the knowledge granted by the termination of the charm person spell is an ongoing thing that allows the penetration of illusions.
No, I don’t know, and I don’t know. My position is that this part of charm person is really ambiguous and poorly written. I think it means that the previously-charmed individual won’t think it was Barnaby who charmed them. I also think that the wording is unclear such that someone could say yes or no to your latter two questions and have a decent argument for it.

[Segev]

No, I don’t know, and I don’t know. My position is that this part of charm person is really ambiguous and poorly written. I think it means that the previously-charmed individual won’t think it was Barnaby who charmed them. I also think that the wording is unclear such that someone could say yes or no to your latter two questions and have a decent argument for it.

Fair enough. I think it is worded clearly enough if we remember that the spell is over when we are considering the knowledge Charles has about the fact that 'you' Charmed him. This knowledge must be imparted instantaneously, and cannot give specifics beyond 'that person Charmed you,' because if it does, you are adding text to the spell that is not present. It doesn't say it so much as aids in penetrating disguises. Because the knowledge is imparted instantaneously, it cannot be updated later, either. Not by that casting of the spell, anyway. This is why Charlie cannot tell that Barnaby, seen ten minutes later in another room, is not the same Barnaby he knew Charmed him when the spell ended. He only knew the spell's caster Charmed him, and that the person who looks like Barnaby and whom he thinks is Barnaby is that person.

Therefore, he believes it was Barnaby who Charmed him.

[Tanarii]

He also doesn't gain magical insight into the fact that Barnaby-who-Charmed-him is actually Arnold. Nor that he's disguised, nor that he's using illusion magic.
But he could in theory, gain the ability to always identify an individual in front of him as a 'you' who has at some point charmed him.

The question about seeing them side-by-side after a shell game clarified it a lot more for me than one of disguises and later removing them and such. My instinct is: that if the charm wears off while looking at two identical persons, one of which you know charm person-ed you, and they mix it up in grappling, you could still pick them out after the fact.

So I guess I do subscribe to the idea that, at least while you have them in line of sight / awareness, the charm person spell does give you a kind of lingering magical link to the individual after it wears off.

[Segev]

But he could in theory, gain the ability to always identify an individual in front of him as a 'you' who has at some point charmed him.

The question about seeing them side-by-side after a shell game clarified it a lot more for me than one of disguises and later removing them and such. My instinct is: that if the charm wears off while looking at two identical persons, one of which you know charm person-ed you, and they mix it up in grappling, you could still pick them out after the fact.

So I guess I do subscribe to the idea that, at least while you have them in line of sight / awareness, the charm person spell does give you a kind of lingering magical link to the individual after it wears off.

I disagree with you on that one, then. To me, it is and must be an instantaneous realization. "Hey, THAT GUY Charmed me!"

This realization is retrospective, but not forward-moving. If, for some reason, Arnold disguised himself serially as Barnaby, Danielle, and Fred, then Charles might actually, at the end of the spell, realize that all three of "Barnaby," "Danielle," and "Fred" Charmed him, and be able to point to "Fred" right then and there as the person who Charmed him. He may even make the leap of reasoning to assume all three were the same person, though that's not a magically-granted bit of knowledge.

But Charles absolutely could not magically tell which of the two "Freds" in the shell game - one of whom he knows Charmed him because the spell ended right before the shell game commenced - was the one who Charmed him. Only if he could have kept the two "Freds" distinguished without charm person being involved at all could he do so after the shell game.

Again, the core reasoning here is that it must be an instantaneous effect that grants the knowledge, because the spell is over when the knowledge is granted. Literally, it's the ending of the spell that triggers the granting of the knowledge.

[Tanarii]

Again, the core reasoning here is that it must be an instantaneous effect that grants the knowledge, because the spell is over when the knowledge is granted. Literally, it's the ending of the spell that triggers the granting of the knowledge.
Instantaneous effects can create an on-going (and probably non-dispel able) effect though.

[Keltest]

Instantaneous effects can create an on-going (and probably non-dispel able) effect though.

So, a gust of wind can move something, but then that doesnt mean that something then permanently stays in that location until another gust of wind acts on it. Other things can happen to it that then change the situation again.

[Segev]

Instantaneous effects can create an on-going (and probably non-dispel able) effect though.


So, a gust of wind can move something, but then that doesnt mean that something then permanently stays in that location until another gust of wind acts on it. Other things can happen to it that then change the situation again.

Right. Fireball does damage and may even light things on fire, but the spell is over and any update effects are based on later mechanics (or natural processes). True polymorh can leave a creature in the final form at the end of the spell, but the creature is no longer under a spell effect, and won't "change back" if it's dispelled or anything (unless true polymorph says otherwise, but then that's specific text in the spell, which charm person lacks).

It doesn't provide a permanent magical link between the caster of charm person and the target. It provides instantaneous knowledge that "you" (i.e. the caster) Charmed the target to the target. It doesn't provide any special knowledge about the caster's identity, race, appearance, current location, etc., and it certainly doesn't provide an ongoing update of these things nor a permanent marker on the caster that the target can forever track and instinctively recognize.

[Tanarii]

Okay, you guys have (re)sold me on your point of view. :smallsmile:

[TaiLiu]

Fair enough. I think it is worded clearly enough if we remember that the spell is over when we are considering the knowledge Charles has about the fact that 'you' Charmed him. This knowledge must be imparted instantaneously, and cannot give specifics beyond 'that person Charmed you,' because if it does, you are adding text to the spell that is not present. It doesn't say it so much as aids in penetrating disguises. Because the knowledge is imparted instantaneously, it cannot be updated later, either. Not by that casting of the spell, anyway. This is why Charlie cannot tell that Barnaby, seen ten minutes later in another room, is not the same Barnaby he knew Charmed him when the spell ended. He only knew the spell's caster Charmed him, and that the person who looks like Barnaby and whom he thinks is Barnaby is that person.

Therefore, he believes it was Barnaby who Charmed him.
"This is why Charlie cannot tell that Barnaby, seen ten minutes later in another room, is not the same Barnaby he knew Charmed him when the spell ended" is erroneous. Charlie doesn't know that Barnaby charmed him, cuz Barnaby never charmed him.

[Segev]

"This is why Charlie cannot tell that Barnaby, seen ten minutes later in another room, is not the same Barnaby he knew Charmed him when the spell ended" is erroneous. Charlie doesn't know that Barnaby charmed him, cuz Barnaby never charmed him.

Charlie knows that the caster Charmed him, and he believes the caster to be Barnaby. He could point out, prior to 'Barnaby' leaving his presence or performing a Kansas City Shuffle with the real Barnaby, that 'Barnaby, right there,' is the one who Charmed him.

Lacking any reason to doubt that the caster was Barnaby, he would, upon seeing anybody he believed to be Barnaby later on, believe he was seeing the person who Charmed him. Because he believes Barnaby Charmed him. Because he believed the person whom he knows Charmed him was Barnaby.

The subtle distinction between 'he believes Barnaby Charmed him' and 'he believes the person he knows Charmed him to be Barnaby' is important, but it can often amount to the same conclusions.

[theNater]

"If the creature knows it was charmed by you, then the creature won't think it was charmed by someone else" seems really obviously true to me.
The wonderful weirdness of reality has some drawbacks, one of which is that how obvious something seems is not a good indicator of whether or not it is true.

[Lord Torath]

TailLiu, let's go back to Batman. You encounter Batman in the street, and he casts Charm Person on you. You do NOT at this point know that Batman's true identity is Bruce Wayne. The spell ends, you realize that Batman cast a Charm Spell on you, but he does his normal Batman thing (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0815.html) and vanishes.

The next day, you meet Bruce Wayne at a party. Do you know that Bruce Wayne is the person who cast Charm Person on you?

[TaiLiu]

I think this is gonna be my last responses in this thread, unless someone comes up with a stunning new argument or something. I'm not convincing you and you're not convincing me. It doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time.


Charlie knows that the caster Charmed him, and he believes the caster to be Barnaby. He could point out, prior to 'Barnaby' leaving his presence or performing a Kansas City Shuffle with the real Barnaby, that 'Barnaby, right there,' is the one who Charmed him.

Lacking any reason to doubt that the caster was Barnaby, he would, upon seeing anybody he believed to be Barnaby later on, believe he was seeing the person who Charmed him. Because he believes Barnaby Charmed him. Because he believed the person whom he knows Charmed him was Barnaby.

The subtle distinction between 'he believes Barnaby Charmed him' and 'he believes the person he knows Charmed him to be Barnaby' is important, but it can often amount to the same conclusions.
Our main disagreement is that I don't think the target would believe that B. charmed them. The target knows it was you. Obviously, you disagree. It's not clear how to resolve our disagreement. Thanks for the conversation, Segev.


The wonderful weirdness of reality has some drawbacks, one of which is that how obvious something seems is not a good indicator of whether or not it is true.
Okay. Thanks for the conversation, theNater.


TailLiu, let's go back to Batman. You encounter Batman in the street, and he casts Charm Person on you. You do NOT at this point know that Batman's true identity is Bruce Wayne. The spell ends, you realize that Batman cast a Charm Spell on you, but he does his normal Batman thing (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0815.html) and vanishes.

The next day, you meet Bruce Wayne at a party. Do you know that Bruce Wayne is the person who cast Charm Person on you?
I think the text leaves this ambiguous. Since I think the knowledge stuff is meant to balance charm person, I'd probably rule that you do know. But who knows? I might rule otherwise depending on the context. Thanks for the conversation, Lord Torath.

[Keltest]

Our main disagreement is that I don't think the target would believe that B. charmed them. The target knows it was you. Obviously, you disagree. It's not clear how to resolve our disagreement. Thanks for the conversation, Segev.

So, why do you believe that the ending of the charm gives them knowledge that bypasses the successful disguise check?

[Lord Torath]

So, why do you believe that the ending of the charm gives them knowledge that bypasses the successful disguise check?Speaking for TaiLiu (who's bowed out of this conversation) it would appear to be because TaiLiu thinks Charm Person is too powerful with out it, near as I can understand from their posts:
Since I think the knowledge stuff is meant to balance charm person, I'd probably rule that you do know.It appears to be purely a balance issue.





Thanks for the conversation, Lord Torath.Right back at'cha! :smallbiggrin: