Part of D&D is picking what your strengths are and what your weaknesses are. It’s impossible to be good at everything, that’s why we have teammates. In my experience, I’ve never played a character who didn’t have to do something that he was bad at at least once and I’ve also never played a character who didn’t get to use his strengths at least once.
Pick up Banishment at 7th level and watch your DM’s jaw drop when you use it against an ultra powerful monster that has a low charisma.....
Banishment is cool, but would be a lot more impressive if it was permanent, or at least lasted 1 full day. Since it only lasts 1 minute, it really only gives you time to escape, and it doesn't rule out the possibility that the monster could track you down once it returns.
Banishment is permanent when the target isn't on it's home plane. The target is sent back home and has to find a way back if it wants to return.
It doesn't last very long, but it lasts long enough for your party to wipe out the target's allies so you can prepare for it to return and focus on it exclusively. Plus when you cast it using a 5th level spell slot it targets 2 opponents instead of 1 which makes it much more likely to work.
And what's to prevent the DM from back-filling the target's allies with a "random encounter"?... ;)
Nothing in the rules can ever prevent the GM from adding new enemies to an encounter. Ever. They can do so when you kill them, banish them, or do anything else. What you're saying is the equivalent of 'Well, how is dealing damage useful when your GM can just replace monsters after you kill them?'
Frankly, if your GM generally throws new enemies into combats to 'fill them out' when you remove enemies from the combat, you have a GM problem, not a 'Banishment isn't working' problem.
Nothing in the rules can ever prevent the GM from adding new enemies to an encounter. Ever. They can do so when you kill them, banish them, or do anything else. What you're saying is the equivalent of 'Well, how is dealing damage useful when your GM can just replace monsters after you kill them?'
Frankly, if your GM generally throws new enemies into combats to 'fill them out' when you remove enemies from the combat, you have a GM problem, not a 'Banishment isn't working' problem.
And what's to prevent the DM from back-filling the target's allies with a "random encounter"?... ;)
Nothing in the rules can ever prevent the GM from adding new enemies to an encounter. Ever. They can do so when you kill them, banish them, or do anything else. What you're saying is the equivalent of 'Well, how is dealing damage useful when your GM can just replace monsters after you kill them?'
Frankly, if your GM generally throws new enemies into combats to 'fill them out' when you remove enemies from the combat, you have a GM problem, not a 'Banishment isn't working' problem.
I was making a lighthearted comment....
Fair enough. Though I believe you added the winky-face after I posted. :)