D&D 5E Banishment and swallowed creatures

[Theo R Cwithin]

"OMG it's a nightcrawler! I banish it!"
* poof *
"OMG it left behind a huge pile of undead acid-resistant tapeworms!"

 

[Fenris-77]

The ham sandwich does not count as a creature... unless it was animated? Did the Paladin eat an animated ham sandwich? Who animated the sandwich? How did it count as one sandwich after all the masticating involved?

I can see it now...
Paladin: "Burp! Drat and fiddlesticks! Who animated my lunch again! This has gone far enough!"

This is why no one really likes Gnome Warlocks with Animate Object. They never grow out of finding animated sandwiches funny.

 

[Umbran]

This is why no one really like Gnome Warlocks with Animate Object. They never grow out of finding animated sandwiches funny.

Well, of course they don't grow out of it - they're Small creatures! Being a humorless fuddy-duddy requires Medium size! It's right there in the book!

 

[Fenris-77]

Burp ... drat, someone animated me a double post.

 

[Iry]

So stomach contents don't get banished? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious as to where you draw the line and why. I mean, if the Paladin was the one who got banished, would the ham sandwich he'd had for lunch get left behind? Is the line a 'living' creature? And if that's the case, how do you make that make sense, from a narrative standpoint?

I usually draw the line at potential initiative. That is, even if they are weak could they roll initiative and be another entity in combat? So a ham sandwich would get banished the same as a sword they are holding, but a paladin in their stomach would not get banished the same as a halfling they might be holding.

It's a purely mechanical division.

Now a ham sandwich that was actually a mimic? Shudders

 

[Shiroiken]

By RAW, the paladin would have been fine, as the spell can only target a single creature. Any creatures alive inside would be dropped prone in the space.

However, I like the idea of a potential downside where it might send the paladin along for the ride. If the creature failed its save, I'd have the paladin have to make it too. If the paladin went along, however, it would return after 1 minute, as it's not on its native plane (forcing him to survive that long!). Weirdly, if the paladin escaped from the creature (and/or it died), the caster would still concentrate on the spell, unaware that the paladin is ready to come back

 

[Shiroiken]

Now a ham sandwich that was actually a mimic? Shudders

Talk about food that sticks to your stomach!

 

[MarkB]

Thanks for all the replies. It looks like the sticking-points are the same for most people as they were for me - on the one hand, mechanically it feels both overpowered and overly disadvantageous (an odd combination) for the spell to affect two creatures for the price of one, but on the other hand, thematically it feels wrong that a banished creature would leave behind some of its stomach contents when it went simply because they were still alive.

And while usually I'd be drawn to one or the other side, in this case I find both views compelling enough that I'd struggle to choose between them.

On consideration, if I were DMing I'd probably give the paladin her own saving throw, and while both of them would go to the same plane if she failed (no free interplanar regurgitations), the paladin (or her remains) would return to the originating plane when the spell ended.

 

[commandercrud]

Question for all the people who would let the paladin save or not be banished: Would you do the same if the monster had instead swallowed another monster? I doubt it.

 

[Olrox17]

Oh God, I had the most horrible thought. If banishment only targets one creature, what would happen if you banish a pregnant creature?
Why do I even think these things?
I'm inclined to rule creatures "inside" a banished creature are banished as well.