Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
So a bard charms monster 1. Monster 2 uses an action ability (such as Infernal Command) where it can make it so monster 1 can't be charmed.
Does Monster 1 lose the original charmed status or does it keep the original charm?
Does Infernal Command, for example, only prevent the target from being charmed again by something else while the ability time is active? My line of thinking is like putting on a bullet-proof vest after you have already been shot.
Think of charming as a condition - "Charmed" condition. Suddenly the creature cannot be charmed, i.e. it cannot have the condition. So it doesn't.
In your specific case, it's no longer charmed.
Monster 1 stops being charmed. See also this unofficial tweet by Jeremy Crawford answering the same type of question:
In #DnD, the exceptional trumps the general. (No longer being a valid target trumps condition carryover.)
That means that if you can somehow change a creature to no longer be a legal target for an ongoing spell, that spell will stop working.
It depends on how he was charmed.
Infernal Command for Narzugon states:
Each ally of the Narzugon within 60 feet of it can't be charmed or frightened until the end of the narzugon's next turn.
Thus, the question becomes "Is the charmed creature still considered an ally of Narugon and a valid target for Infernal command?"
Charmed condition:
A charmed creature can’t attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful Abilities or magical effects. The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.
Earlier editions of D&D stated that a charmed creature regarded the charmer as an ally. The current version says friendly or trusted.
Thus by RAW 5e, it seems that Infernal Command would break the charm. However, there is room for a DM to decide that the charmed creature is not an ally of Monster 2 while charmed.
A middle ground ruling that I'd make is that the charmed creature gets a new saving throw possibly with advantage.
The problem here is that in the case of an ability that makes a creature unaffected by a certain condition, it says nothing about whether or not it's actively removing that condition.
There are specific ways to remove the Charmed condition whether it's Cleansing Touch, Dispel Magic, or other spells and abilities that do so.
This is where it gets a bit trickier. We can look at this question on a Paladin's Aura of Courage in relation to the frightened condition. The language of the Aura is similar to the language used in Infernal Command:
Aura of Courage
[creatures in the aura] can’t be frightened while you are conscious.Infernal Command (Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, p. 167)
Each ally of the narzugon within 60 feet of it can’t be charmed or frightened until the end of the narzugon’s next turn.
The answer provided in the linked question provides evidence that the Condition has not been removed, but it is only suppressed. Given the similarity in language with Infernal Command, the same answer should apply here as well.
Infernal Command will suppress the Charm/Frightened condition until the Narzugon's next turn.
Other abilities may work differently, but in the case of Infernal Command, this is likely the answer.
Removing the condition entirely isn't necessarily a bad ruling. Crawford himself stated that the RAW was unclear, but went on to state the RAI. If your table prefers the complete removal the condition, the ambiguous RAW says that's okay - and it is. It just gives those suppressing options a bit more firepower, so folks should plan accordingly when designing encounters or acting within them.
