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

[Oofta]

During a game, the DM is always right. Even if they're wrong. Hopefully they will listen to other people's opinion, but sometimes there is just no "right" answer.

I don't have a problem with you're DM's ruling and how he envisions the spell working is completely legitimate. I may have ruled differently, that the magic was on the demon and someone on his plane would have had to cast the dispel. But I'm not the DM so my opinion doesn't really matter.

 

[Arial Black]

Dispel magic must be cast at a creature, object, or magical effect within 120ft of the caster.

If successful, then any spell on the target ends.

Banishment has a target: the creature you banish. Therefore that creature must be the target of the dispel for the dispel to have a chance. In this case the target is out of reach so cannot be dispelled by the enemy caster in the given scenario.

Find familiar's duration has already ended (its duration is instantaneous). Since the only thing dispel magic does is end a spell, then it is useless against any spell that has already ended.

 

[Arial Black]

During a game, the DM is always right. Even if they're wrong. Hopefully they will listen to other people's opinion, but sometimes there is just no "right" answer.

Sometimes there is a right answer. All 'rule zero' does is allow the DM to ignore the right answer.

In a rules forum it is totally okay to work out the correct answers. Knowing that 'rule zero' exists doesn't prevent both players and DMs wanting to understand what the rules actually are, so that if and when they want to use rule zero they can make an informed choice.

 

[thethain]

Sometimes there is a right answer. All 'rule zero' does is allow the DM to ignore the right answer.

In a rules forum it is totally okay to work out the correct answers. Knowing that 'rule zero' exists doesn't prevent both players and DMs wanting to understand what the rules actually are, so that if and when they want to use rule zero they can make an informed choice.

Thank you, I see rule 0 brought up so many times. Rule 0 means the DM is free to adjust the rules to fit the game in session. It doesn't mean the DM shouldn't bother to even attempt to get a handle on the rules. Players spend a lot of time building their characters around both RP concepts and gameplay concepts, changing either of those on the fly can be disheartening to a player and cause them to lose their sense of investment in their character.

Rule 0 says you can say "Your paladin murders all the defenseless people in the dungeon" but guess what? The player is going to protest. Similarly if you rule in the middle of a game "Finesse weapons only apply to attack rolls instead of damage because I like how 3.5 did it" again, you are 100% rule 0 allowed to say that, but expect players to be upset.

 

[Oofta]

Sometimes there is a right answer. All 'rule zero' does is allow the DM to ignore the right answer.

In a rules forum it is totally okay to work out the correct answers. Knowing that 'rule zero' exists doesn't prevent both players and DMs wanting to understand what the rules actually are, so that if and when they want to use rule zero they can make an informed choice.

Limited rules discussions during the game are perfectly OK. Longer discussions after the game are also fine. But at some point the DM is always correct.

I don't disagree with your ruling, and I think it's probably the correct one as do several others. I didn't think I needed to restate what several other people had already stated.

As a DM, it's my prerogative to ignore other people's opinions and to change the rules to match my vision of the game. Hopefully that's all done with input from my players and even random people on a message board. But if I say that the spell works slightly differently in my campaign then it does.

 

[Gwarok]

This is a good question. I'd rule that no, it couldn't be dispelled since the target of the spell is no longer there to be targeted by the dispel. There is magic affecting the creature banished, just as there is magic affecting someone with say, Haste on them. But if the creature with the magic on them isn't there to be targeted, you could no more dispel the Banishment on it than you could dispel Haste on a creature that isn't there to be targeted.

 

[Blue]

As long as we're on the topic. Can you use Dispel Magic against a Familiar?

No. Dispel Magic affects a spell. The Find Familiar spell takes an hour to cast and has an instantaneous duration, leaving you with a Familiar. There is no ongoing spell to dispel.

 

[Blue]

This is an interesting point, could there be a counterspell usage or variant that just knocks out concentration of an ongoing spell? It would make sense that some mage had came up with this.

They have, it's called "anything with damage". Thogh if you wanted a specific spell that broke concentration that seems fun to make.

Ooh, or a pain inducing poison that adds to the DC of concentration checks for a few rounds after it has been administered.

 

[Prakriti]

1) Is this legal?

Absolutely. Dispel Magic targets creatures, objects, and magical effects. Like Haste and Invisibility, Banishment is an ongoing magical effect.

2) If the answer is Yes, where is the magical effect located that needs to be targeted? Is it the space where the banishment occurs or is it the person of the concentrating spell caster?

That's up to the DM, but likely answers are (1) the point where the creature disappeared, (2) the creature's current location, or (3) the caster's current location. Personally, I'd opt for #1, if not all three.

This is an interesting point, could there be a counterspell usage or variant that just knocks out concentration of an ongoing spell?

The spell you're looking for is called Magic Missile.

 

[Blue]

Also for the same reason, if you banished something that had dispel magic prepared, it could end it on itself. Since it isn't incapacitated on its home plane, it could attempt to dispel itself each round.

Actually, Banishment specifically calls out that the target is incapacitated. Second paragraph.