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

[Dausuul]

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...

We're talking about RAW in this thread. RAW, without the optional rule, does not offer any way at all to identify a spell being cast (aside from seeing its effects), and Sage Advice confirms that that's the intent. XGTE gives you an option, which is designed on purpose to preclude the possibility of counterspelling.

I am on record as saying this system is terrible, the optional rule is also bad, and I would never run a game that way. But it is RAW. (I will add that counterspell does need some limitation, it's way too good if you always know what you're countering.)

 

[CapnZapp]

We're talking about RAW in this thread. RAW, without the optional rule, does not offer any way at all to identify a spell being cast (aside from seeing its effects), and Sage Advice confirms that that's the intent. XGTE gives you an option, which is designed on purpose to preclude the possibility of counterspelling.

I am on record as saying this system is terrible, the optional rule is also bad, and I would never run a game that way. But it is RAW. (I will add that counterspell does need some limitation, it's way too good if you always know what you're countering.)

RAW does indeed not say anything about the process of identifying a spell.

But interpreting that silence to be equal to "you can't identify a spell before its cast" is wrong. If that was the case, the rulebook wouldn't be silent; Sage Advice be damned.

Since RAW is silent on the issue it is perfectly cromulent to rule
a) "you automatically identify any spell being cast"
b) "you automatically identify any spell being cast as long as you can cast it yourself"
c) "you automatically identify any spell being cast as long as it's on your spell list"
d) "you automatically identify any spell being cast as long as you can see what components are used"

Or indeed

e) "you can't identify a spell being cast - you must counterspell blind"

All and none of these are RAW.

Nobody would argue a group was playing the game badwrongfun if the party Wizard tells the DM "I ready an action to dive for cover if I see the enemy mage start casting Fireball" after all. The rules' silence on this issue is entirely within the paradigm of rulings not rules. The XGE option is an entirely unwelcome intrusion where the designers seemingly forgot this. Luckily it is easily ignored.

Frankly your posts come across as - no way to sugar-coat this - passive-aggressive, as if WotC would reverse a decision by seeing you champion their cause and going over a cliff, so everybody can see how bad it is.

As an alternative, I repeat my suggestion: assume RAW has nothing to say on the issue because it is not meant to be an issue - every spell is automatically identified according to a) above. Or whatever version you do like!

(In reality, it is because "it's not meant to be an issue since every group wants to play it differently")

TL;DR: let's talk about the rulings we find playable and less about the rulings we all agree are FUBAR

 

[jasper]

But if I banished from flying JetBlue, would I be forced to fly Delta?
Any back to the subject, I would say no. But keeping the Laughing Spell in reserve would help.

 

[CapnZapp]

But if I banished from flying JetBlue, would I be forced to fly Delta?
Any back to the subject, I would say no. But keeping the Laughing Spell in reserve would help.

Don't forget about the grognards that insist on flying PanAm.

 

[jasper]

Don't forget about the grognards that insist on flying PanAm.

Hey they the only company with a space flight to the moon!. Also glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth.

 

[Darrell Lalonde]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/banishment

One think people are missing is that a link between the Basished creature and its point of departure remains in existence for the duration of the spell. Otherwise, how can the spell return the target to its point of departure?

If this is the case, a Dispel Magic cast at that point would function as "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends."

In my opinion, and as how I run it in my campaigns, if you break the link the spell ends. Othewrise, if you break the link, the target is lost somewhere with no link with which to return to whence it was Basished.

Something else that has happened in my campaign is that a banished demon mage successfully Dispel the Banishment on its self when it was in the Abyss and returned of its own accord after informing nearby fellow demons of its situation.

Food for thought.

 

[MarkB]

Wow, this is one persistent thread - Necro'd back from the dead twice over.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/banishment

One think people are missing is that a link between the Basished creature and its point of departure remains in existence for the duration of the spell. Otherwise, how can the spell return the target to its point of departure?

That's certainly a valid interpretation, but it also makes the spell a bit weird. If it were really the case, wouldn't most casters just leave that part of the spell out, and let it permanently banish a creature instantly?

I think the more logical answer would be that the "tether" effect is not a property of the spell - it's a property of the multiverse. The natural way of the universe is for a creature who is on a particular plane to remain on that plane, and the spell has to overcome that natural state. It can do so only temporarily for creatures native to their current plane, and for creatures from another plane it can overcome the natural tendency of the cosmos and banish them permanently - but it takes time. Removing a creature permanently and instantaneously requires the significantly higher power level of a plane shift spell or something similar.

 

[Motorskills]

Wall of Stone is a concentration spell. Can you bring it down by casting Dispel Magic on the wizard concentrating on it? I'd argue not, and don't see that this is any different.