D&D 5E Crown of Madness not as bad in play as it seems

[ECMO3]

1. Yes, the charmed condition can be a benefit, and it has a much longer range that the 1st level Charm Person. Still a cost to maintain if you want more than a one round effect, unlike Charm Person.
2. Yes, it can prevent an enemy from using their action, on the first round or if they are unable to put any distance between themselves and targets you want them to attack, but at the cost of the caster's action(s). Sometimes that may be worth it. Others...not so much.

Charm Person is difficult to land in combat and even more difficult to keep up in combat. There is no action cost, but you can't damage the charmed creature at all, and that extends to your companions as well.

You don't just prevent the enemy from using his action, you make him use it to aid your party and if you are engaged in combat with him you force him to choose between taking an OA on his turn or attacking his freind again next turn. He can't disengage because he has already used his action.

You are right it is situational and that we have both a sorcerer and a fey wanderer in the party probably helps us a lot.

 

[Gadget]

The charm effect is duplicated by a 1st-level spell plus the additional effects crown of madness offers. Charm person is a better charm effect. Dissonant whispers is a better method of triggering opportunity attacks. Hold person is a better (usually) method of lockdown and damage to the target. The problem is that's 3 spells to do the same thing I can do with a single spell.

I would argue that the spells Crown is being compared to here are far more universally applicable and less situational the Crown, in addition to two of them being 1st level spells compared to Crown being 2nd level. That makes a difference. I would also posit that it is rare that you gain all of the above benefits on a single casting of Crown, especially with all the 'only maintain it for one round' suggestions.

That doesn't require DM cooperation in the slightest. It requires making use of the spell as is, and that can be helped by player teamwork with other options such as effect that hold targets in place or move targets between their turns.

I think it does require significant DM cooperation to have all the stars align to get the max benefit from the spell here described, not to mention not just playing the NPCs such to minimize the effectiveness of the spell once cast. Some might argue that is just poor DMing and NPCs should be played according to their type, traits and personality, but it is a temptation I have seen quite a bit over time though.

It does all depend upon what the DM interprets the charm to involve. For some DMs, it doesn't do anything other than the explicit items under charm in conditions. For others, you get a friendly attitude built in as well.

While most things in 5e are up for DM interpretation, I don't see any particular need for it with the charmed condition: the target cannot harm or or target the charmer with harmful effects; and the charmer has advantage on ability checks to interact with the target socially. The 'friendly acquaintance' verbiage is unique to the Charm Person spell.

You don't just prevent the enemy from using his action, you make him use it to aid your party and if you are engaged in combat with him you force him to choose between taking an OA on his turn or attacking his freind again next turn. He can't disengage because he has already used his action.

There are a lot of assumptions present in this situation. I'm not saying that this does not happen, or even that it might not happen semi regularly. But it is not an assured thing. You have to have a target next to an ally that is also engaged with your party. So far, a fairly common occurrence. Then, it must be worth your action, concentration and a second level spell slot to have the target potentially spend their action to to make an attack against their companion. Even then, the target can move away from an ally without taking an Opportunity Attack by just moving to the side without moving out of reach of a foe. Or the ally could be the one moving away from the crazy guy with the glowing crown, perhaps in a similar manner if Opportunity Attacks are an issue. Finally, would eating an OA (which is not guaranteed to hit) worth the cost of the spell and action used to cast it? Maybe.

It is a very thoughtful and tactical approach to the game, and all have provided good points on how to use the spell well. Some may not want to get into that detail and just want a more direct effect though.

 

[Ashrym]

I would argue that the spells Crown is being compared to here are far more universally applicable and less situational the Crown, in addition to two of them being 1st level spells compared to Crown being 2nd level. That makes a difference. I would also posit that it is rare that you gain all of the above benefits on a single casting of Crown, especially with all the 'only maintain it for one round' suggestions.

You can argue that and I wouldn't disagree.

The point is that one spell does all that instead of three spells. It doesn't have to be all at once to be true. When a player only knows eight spells that matters and that's the real benefit in taking crown of madness.

I think it does require significant DM cooperation to have all the stars align to get the max benefit from the spell here described, not to mention not just playing the NPCs such to minimize the effectiveness of the spell once cast. Some might argue that is just poor DMing and NPCs should be played according to their type, traits and personality, but it is a temptation I have seen quite a bit over time though.

What stars?

If I see the need to charm someone then the options is there. If I want to deny actions and add damage then it's a bit of a gamble on how that might play out but there are only two outcomes on a failed save:

1. The target attacks and then moves because of incentive to trigger the opportunity attacks. That's a damage spike and action denial.
2. The target attacks and then doesn't move, giving the caster incentive to maintain the spell instead of using an action to spend another spell slot. If maintenance is paid then it's another attack causing action denial and another opportunity to create the incentive to move for the opportunity attacks.

Neither of those is particularly bad, and I don't need all the benefits of the spell at the same time. If the charm effect also comes into play in combat (unable to attack the caster, for example) that's bonus.

There are also plenty of ways to move targets or prevent movement available to the rest of the party if they players do want to make use of additional attacks.

 

[Gadget]

You can argue that and I wouldn't disagree.

The point is that one spell does all that instead of three spells. It doesn't have to be all at once to be true. When a player only knows eight spells that matters and that's the real benefit in taking crown of madness.

Fair enough. To each his/her own.

What stars?

If I see the need to charm someone then the options is there. If I want to deny actions and add damage then it's a bit of a gamble on how that might play out but there are only two outcomes on a failed save:

1. The target attacks and then moves because of incentive to trigger the opportunity attacks. That's a damage spike and action denial.
2. The target attacks and then doesn't move, giving the caster incentive to maintain the spell instead of using an action to spend another spell slot. If maintenance is paid then it's another attack causing action denial and another opportunity to create the incentive to move for the opportunity attacks.

Neither of those is particularly bad, and I don't need all the benefits of the spell at the same time. If the charm effect also comes into play in combat (unable to attack the caster, for example) that's bonus.

There are also plenty of ways to move targets or prevent movement available to the rest of the party if they players do want to make use of additional attacks.

Some of the stars are suggestions posited by others such as having the orcs turn on one another due to the treacherous attack of one of their own (with a strange glowing crown on his head no less). Plausible in many instances, but does require the DM to play along, so to speak.

But on to your example. That is all well and good, and I agree the situation described is the ideal situation, or close to it. However, as I posited above, this assumes that the choice for the victim is to either move and take an OA, or stay and be a meat puppet the next round. Frequently, this is not the case, as it is possible in many instances (though certainly not all) to move away from an ally while not eating an OA, even when engaged with the party. Or the ally(s) could be the ones moving away (in a similar manner to avoid OA if possible). At this point, one might just choose to drop the spell, of course.

I've learned a lot from this discussion, and see better how the spell can be best applied. I think the reasons why many find the spell unpalatable, some of which are campaign dependent, are as follows:

• In many campaigns, humanoid foes ( with the possible exception of BBEG & lieutenants that might be more resistant to the spell) become mook cannon fodder at even lower levels, usually outnumber the PCs and are meant to be distractions to hinder them while the 'boss' type does the real damage. In this scenario, applying the spell to minion #4 can be a dubious benefit when the spell caster can spend actions mitigating the real threat.
• Many campaigns do a more 'theater of the mind' type play style that undervalues the more subtle tactical positioning choices of "do I eat an OA or remain here possibly attack my friends again."
• There is a tendency among some DMs who are tactically savvy to play all opponents as strategic geniuses, always making the tactically optimal choices that minimize the impact of the spell.