I wonder if the war is, instead of an attempt to seize the crown, the tale of an unruly vassal seeking more freedom? Maybe you actually get more cooperation from other French nobles in this timeline...
Giving that most French nobles couldn't care less about the "First Hundred Years War" (roughly the century of conflict between Plantagenet and Capetians that ended during Louis IX's reign) about Plantagenet positions, I think it's unlikely.
Remember that Charles, IOTL, lead a campaign in Aquitaine in 1325 against Edward II and that nobody really cared about the latter's opinion.
Proto-nationalism was already a thing at this point in France, and the Duke of Guyenne was unmistakly considered as a "foreign" lord by the good part of french aristocracy.
Anyhow, what about having Charles de Valois inheriting?
As his son, Charles was importantly involved into late direct Capetian policies, with an important role. I won't see much difference into the early reign, except maybe giving Charles more important knowledge on military matters, a relative prudence on these things.
Maybe a more successful semi-skirmishing campaign in Guyenne? IOTL it failed to take Bordeaux, and I think it's unlikely that Charles would take it later, but maybe reducing more importantly its hinterland?
Now, I'm not sure it would have that significant results on the early war. That said, IF Charles is still alive when war gets hot in Normandy with Edward III chevauchée, he might be able to assert his authority more efficiently than his son did.
Due to sheer competence, a Crecy-like battle may be won by Valois, or may simply not being as harsh of a defeat.