I've done some research on the site and nothing is really concrete on the subject.
Monks' Stillness of Mind feature states:
Starting at 7th level, you can use your action to end one effect on yourself that is causing you to be charmed or frightened.
Most charm spells and effects, however, do not inform the character that they are charmed. As a player, I see this as "no matter if I know in character or not, as a player, I can end a charm at the sacrifice of an action."
My GM rules that "You have to be aware of the charm to end the spell."
- Knowing that you're charmed is OOC, so it'd be meta-gaming to suddenly use the effect without your character being given any reason to use it.
- Your character wouldn't be using stillness of mind all day every day to avoid charm.
- Giving you the ability to end all charms would make charming you pointless
- Why doesn't it just say "immunity to charm?" (which I respond by saying I have to sacrifice an action instead of just not being charmed).
A monk should know immediately if they are being charmed, as their training has developing their mind to detect outside influences and purge them accordingly. The common perception we came to is that "if I act out of character when charmed, I can detect the foreign influence and purge it." But determining what is out of character in game can become a Meta-gaming issue due to everyone having different perspectives of my character.
Is this rule decided by DM discretion or is there concrete evidence supporting either side that has come to light?
(I'm biased as a player, but I would believe most GMs would not allow a monk to be basically immune to charm because it ruins a lot of clever encounters.)
