D&D 5E Does Dispel Magic work on Banishment?

[Warmaster Horus]

In my game it would be pretty hard to cast Dispel Magic with regard to Banishment as you'd need to effect the target of the spell - not the spot it was cast upon as it was NOT cast on that spot, rather the creature that occupied that spot and is now on another plane. There are already lots of ways to avoid Banishment - counterspell the casting, make the CHA save, disrupt the concentration of the caster. Deal with it.

 

[jaelis]

Was there ever a definitive answer from WOTC on this?

The rules text is pretty clear, I don't know what more is really needed. Of course, you should play it as you like best; I don't think having DM break concentration is unreasonable.

One related tweet regards concentration and AMF:

Q: I always ruled Antimagic Field suppresses a caster's concentration while inside it. How do you rule it?
A: Antimagic field has no effect on concentration. If it did, its description would say so.

That supports the notion that officially, concentration is not a magical effect that can be ended by disrupting the magic.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree with most of the folks here: The way the spell is written, you need to target the banished creature, which means you need to get to it on the plane it's been sent to and cast dispel magic there.

The RAW are silent on where the creature arrives on its home plane; but I would strongly recommend having it get banished to a random spot, so it can't count on having a loyal wizard lieutenant standing by to undo banishments. (Devils mostly don't have teleportation at will, so will be unable to get back home before the 1-minute timer runs out. Demons do have teleportation at will, but loyal lieutenants are in short supply in the Abyss.)

 

[Coroc]

I'd rule it would not work since the banishment already happened, so even if it worked there 'd be no target for the oposing wiz: Demon gone, Party Wiz in hiding. But another question: Would it be possible to counterspell a banish?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'd rule it would not work since the banishment already happened, so even if it worked there 'd be no target for the oposing wiz: Demon gone, Party Wiz in hiding. But another question: Would it be possible to counterspell a banish?

Why not? If you have someone capable of casting Counterspell within 60' of the Banishment caster and has an available Reaction, that's a perfectly good option.

 

[Dausuul]

I'd rule it would not work since the banishment already happened, so even if it worked there 'd be no target for the oposing wiz: Demon gone, Party Wiz in hiding. But another question: Would it be possible to counterspell a banish?

Sure... although per Sage Advice/XGTE, you have to do it before you know that the spell being cast is banishment. If you wait to identify the spell, it's too late.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Sure... although per Sage Advice/XGTE, you have to do it before you know that the spell being cast is banishment. If you wait to identify the spell, it's too late.

OPTIONAL RULE

 

[Dausuul]

OPTIONAL RULE

Per Sage Advice, the requirement to counterspell blind is "an intended part of the spell's design." XGTE just gives you an option to use your reaction to identify the spell.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Per Sage Advice, the requirement to counterspell blind is "an intended part of the spell's design." XGTE just gives you an option to use your reaction to identify the spell.

That's like, their opinion, man.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure... although per Sage Advice/XGTE, you have to do it before you know that the spell being cast is banishment. If you wait to identify the spell, it's too late.

The take away here is: don't use the XGTE option.

You're of course free to do so in your game Dausuul, but then you're on your own. Don't think anyone is interested in solving a problem you yourself created by adding in one of the worst thought-through rules options in the history of this edition...