D&D 5E Charm Person After Effect

[HomegrownHydra]

But then what's the point of doing it? Charm Person literally only affects the manner in which the target interacts with you.

Also, it's a spell with a 30-foot range, with verbal and somatic components, which requires line of sight. Barring subtle spell metamagic, how is the target not going to notice you doing it?

So, the target is a friendly acquaintance... but it never interacts with you, doesn't know who you are... and so cannot act on your behalf... What, exactly, would be the point of this?

I think the example is just to clarify how exactly the spell works, not to show how it can be used. The two examples should be read together and they make clear that the target doesn't inherently know who cast the spell. That helps players know what to expect and it helps DMs adjudicate it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

So, the target is a friendly acquaintance... but it never interacts with you, doesn't know who you are... and so cannot act on your behalf... What, exactly, would be the point of this?

That's when you email them a LinkedIn friend request.

 

[Lanefan]

So, the target is a friendly acquaintance... but it never interacts with you, doesn't know who you are... and so cannot act on your behalf... What, exactly, would be the point of this?

Future considerations.

Charm the target now so if you need it to act for you later, you've already got it.

 

[toucanbuzz]

So, the target is a friendly acquaintance... but it never interacts with you, doesn't know who you are... and so cannot act on your behalf... What, exactly, would be the point of this?

It'd be a wasted spell slot!

This point was used to setup mechanical explanation of when spells have null effect, such as an invalid target. In this case, we have a spell whose null effect occurs if there's no interaction with the caster. The charmed condition is 100% reliant on interaction with the caster. The same I think would apply to the friends spell (target hostile once it realizes you influenced its mood towards you). Absent interaction, the target's mood isn't actually altered and the spell's effect cannot be perceived. Of course, if I'm the DM, I should not let the PC know the save failed or succeed until interaction occurs.

This is where charms get interesting because it encourages roleplay misdirection on the caster's part, and that always makes my day better.

 

[Maxperson]

So, the target is a friendly acquaintance... but it never interacts with you, doesn't know who you are... and so cannot act on your behalf... What, exactly, would be the point of this?

The only thing I can think of right now would be as a pre-emptive precaution against someone you might interact with at some point. Like the town trouble maker just in case he would pick a bar fight.

 

[Samloyal23]

If you need to repeatedly use a charm effect in a particular town, say while executing some sort of greater plan or scheme, it can be important not to gain a reputation as a manipulator. People will fear and resent a spellcaster they know may control them. You can see this trope in fantasy fiction, so it makes sense to have it in a game, but it does hamstring a caster if there is no way to work around it. It is hard to build your empire of political schemes and manipulation if everyone ends up hating you.

 

[Coroc]

Would you be happy with someone that temporarily drugged you without your consent to be more compliant? Well, that's how someone is going to react to being charmed. Altering someone's innermost thoughts is about as invasive as you can get.

So disguise yourself first unless you want to piss people off or live with the consequences.

Well I know I would be rightfully angry, even if I would agree with the intent of the person doing this to me, or purpose /outcome.
And I think, I can tell this would be the same for everyone else I know. The free will is the most significant thing that makes us different from animals, and people instinctively know that and value their free will quite high.