6
\$\begingroup\$

My understanding is that, per the "Alterations the Magic" section in Curse of Strahd: -

spells cast for the purpose of leaving Barovia simply fail, as do effects that banish a creature to another plane of existence.

Given that the Arcane Archer's Banishing Arrow feature states that it

banish[es] your target to a harmless location in the Feywild.

am I right in understanding that it simply has no effect while the character is in Barovia (and therefore might be a bad pick for a potential player to choose)?

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

14
\$\begingroup\$

You are right

The Feywild is another plane of existence (see the DMG p. 49). The arrow causes an effect that would banish a creature to another plane of existence. Hence it would not work, and would be a bad choice for a player to pick for their character in a campaign playing in Barovia.

The full text of the restriction states:

No spell-not even wish-allows one to escape from Strahd's domain. Astral projection, teleport, plane shift, and similar spells cast for the purpose of leaving Barovia simply fail, as do effects that banish a creature to another plane of existence. These restrictions apply to magic items and artifacts that have properties that transport or banish creatures to other planes.

The effect is extremely powerful. There should be no exceptions if not even wish can create any.

\$\endgroup\$
9
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with the answer, but it does feel kind of silly to prevent temporary banishment spells from working (note that all the spells explicitly mentioned are potentially permanent, and "banish" often means permanent as well, even if they confused matters by providing temporary banishing effects that make no sense at all). As a DM, I'd be willing to simply substitute the effect with one that briefly removes them from existence, sends them to a harmless location in some other domain of dread, etc. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 26 at 20:30
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @ShadowRanger Yes, that seems reasonable. Other extradimensional effects are not banned, e.g. you can have a portable hole or mordenkainen’s mansion. You could redefine it to go to one of those, instead of the Feywild. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 26 at 20:41
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @DanO'Shea I would discuss it with your player before they pick, because 'no banishment' is a spoiler that a lot of people already know, so they may want to pick it, but just not because they don't think it will be allowed. If you are going to consider it, let them know. \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Jun 26 at 21:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Slagmoth Making a permanent character development choice and then discovering that what you picked is completely useless in the campaign you are playing is a really frustrating moment. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philipp
    Jun 27 at 15:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Slagmoth I think a lot has changed between editions in the way that the game is approached. It was more adversarial back in the day, and far more co-operative these days. It is a huge part in why D&D is more popular than ever, but I do see the appeal of not knowing and sometimes my meta knowledge is quite a burden as a payer. \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Jun 27 at 20:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .