How should I expect a generic hostile creature and its allies to react to me being my charming self? The way my DM and I interpret it charm powers are basically garbage compared to just using my skills.
PHB: p204 "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise."
Charms are certainly closer to 'reading a creature's thoughts' than the 'lighting bolt'. Still, you can't exactly hide what you are doing and an overt action such as Fey Presence seems like it will easilly attract unwanted attention from the target's allies and the target itself 6 seconds after success or immediately if they pass the save. When I first read the fey presence class feature I thought that flavorwise it fits what I would want to do with a feylock. In practice it has been counter productive. I don't even consider it in combat anymore. I am better off just using my charisma based skills.
Before I remove it from my character sheet (to remove temptation), can I try to subtly leverage my natural fey allure to improve my odds with a nonhostile creature? Is it reasonable to expect to get away with a round of charm (or attempting a round of charm) without causing initiative to be rolled? Unfortunately I suspect there is a very high chance the target's allies will understand a magical effect was attempted against them and the target will understand after 6 seconds.
Looking ahead with my progression Calm Emotions seems similarly counter productive for social interactions because someone will inevitably pass the save and become hostile. We will have to deal with that target at which point everyone becomes hostile.
Are charm powers in practice counterproductive garbage?
The only thing that matters is how your DM has the NPCs or monsters respond. If the DM is forever making creatures hostile after an attempt at charming them or their allies and that's something you don't want, then it's best not to use those spells or features.
I assume by "using my charisma-based skills" you mean describing actions that amount to interaction with other creatures (players don't "use skills" after all) since whether or not an ability check is even rolled is similarly up to the DM, as is the result of success or failure. As such, you're very much at the mercy of your DM as to how these go as well. If you have seen through experience that taking actions that might result in a call for an ability check are getting the results you want more often, then that's probably the way to go.
In a different game, you might have a different experience with "charm" spells and features. But only you can say what is best at your table given your DM.
The person can feel the difference in his or her own attitude toward the caster, and low level spells like friends or charm person specify the target knows he was charmed by the caster once the duration ends. The charmed condition also only changes the attitude to friendly and grants advantage on social checks so skills work outside of the spell as well as improving the spell, with smaller returns on that advantage as the skill bonuses increase. Skills are normally the better option. However, skills don't suddenly change attitudes to friendly or prevent the target from being able to attack the caster so real answer depends on the intentions and expected future interaction. Making enemies friendly while keeping a low profile and no need to worry about consequences gives charm person an advantage over skills. Long term or expected repeat interaction would be better not to make new enemies.
SandyStriker wrote:
low level spells like friends or charm person specify the target knows he was charmed by the caster once the duration ends.
Yeah I didn't even consider friends, it is a misnomer, since that one very clearly will do the opposite of what I normally want when I am interacting with NPCs. If I want them dead or hostile I use Eldritch Blast and don't think twice. It is very reliable.
If I am going through the trouble of talking to them I am probably trying to avoid the encounter. Advantage on charisma for 1 minute is pretty cool and I can imagine the nearby NPCs being mystified at how successful I am being but not necessarily becoming hostile while witnessing so that is cool. The guaranteed hostility however even if I was speaking in good faith is a high price to pay. Usually I want my peace accords to last longer than 1 minute. I guess, counter-intuitively, friends would have value to augment an intimidation attempt or being especially underhanded I could help my allies get into an alpha strike position and start the encounter at 54 seconds. I would feel dirty using a cantrip called "friends" for either of those purposes. I would have to rename it or I would never use it.
Long term or expected repeat interaction would be better not to make new enemies.
I fear Briefly Delay Guaranteed Hostility is a more fitting title for Calm Emotions I think I might try and stick with describing my feylock's actions that amount to interaction with the anxious NPCs where I anticipate the DM will subsequently ask for charisma based ability checks (usually deception). If that fails I will save my spell slots for Misty step and Expeditious Retreat 
[quote="Psikerlord"]
Hope this helps.
Oh this helps a lot, thank you.
I understood that charm abilities at our table were useless, not just a waste of resources but also a waste of actions. I also understood this was DM dependent. Since our table's interpretations have basically invalidated an entire approach to interacting with NPCs in D&D, I was wondering how other tables interpretted the charm effects. Perhaps we are nerfing them. Maybe we are abberant.
I find it frustrtating to have access to abilities that promise something they don't really give.
Before I retire them completely I will do things like,
"These guys don't seem to understand the situation, I want spend a moment and tap into my fey power source to really emphasize that these peasants need to leave everything behind right now and get to the keep for their own personal safety, does my character think it might lead to hostility? After all I just want them to leave I don't want any chance that they percieve it as me attacking them."
It is a bit clunky but I feel I am going to have to spell it out like that since it is an effect that causes a saving throw so at the table it sort of feels like I am making a hostile action. Maybe it should feel that way.
I think the Friends spell exists because of the Dead Alewives bit that included the line, "Galstaff casts a Friendship spell on both of you!"
Why should a charm spell or innate ability to 'charm' be any different, except that they should be more potent, than RL 'charm'? I don't necessarily feel anger or hostility towards someone even if I know they are being 'charming' or 'flirtatious', even if I know they have an ulterior motive. I wouldn't rule that charm spells or similar necessarily provoke hostility if they fail, but they might in certain circumstances.
El_Condoro wrote:
Charm spells can still be useful when violence is imminent, if only to buy time to flee or get in the first shot. As a means of outright preventing that hostility from ever blossoming, not so much
Ashrym wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
It is worth noting that you can charm in good faith and that the target in retrospect might be ok with being charmed if hostility was actually not wise decision. It turns out in D&D hostility is almost always a foolish choice for NPCs.
Consider a simple tavern fight situation. You could charm the brigand trying to start something, you explain that you are actually pretty good at dealing with his type. Further explain that your
allies are capable. Apologize for using a spell on them and explain that you used this ability to try and calm them down etc. When the charm ends the brigand might be angry or it might feel sheepish if it sees that the charm was the peaceful way of reacting to them doing something stupid, even if it was a forcible take over of mental capacities.
There are plenty of situations were a narative would describe charm powers as being used to diffuse, not escalate an encounter. Unfortunately I think the mechanics are heavily tilted towards any action leading to hostility no matter your good intentions.
I still see charmed as all about persuasion rather than about force. The charmed condition has two dot points: one prevents the target attacking the 'charmer' and the other gives advantage on social interactions.
Again, using RL examples, an advertisement does not force me to buy a product; a persuasive article or speech does not force me to agree with it. But they could sway my opinion and my actions. In a magical world, charm might be no more insulting than that. If it does have an effect, or if it doesn't, I don't get angry because someone tried to persuade me. "You tried to persuade me! Right, draw."
It might be different in a world where magic spells are frowned upon but something that keeps the peace or calms a tense situation could be considered to be a good thing.
That's how I see charm, anyway.