Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-29686889-20180430135630/@comment-30438773-20180927173735

Jackthomasmoore wrote: Hawkseid wrote: Dumbledore vs Gandalf is trash This paragraph from Elmo3000 explains my view perfectly.

"

Just because it worked as an Epic Rap Battle of History doesn’t mean it would work as a fight. At least this one is a bad idea for a slightly different reason to the others – Phoenix Wright VS Professor Layton is just stupid as both characters know next to no combat, and The Flash VS Quicksilver is too unbalanced – but Gandalf VS Dumbledore would be a bad idea for a reason that’s fairly unique for this list.

Too much speculation.

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are two completely different universes that use completely different styles of magic, and there is no way of knowing how these types of magic would interact. Would ‘Protego’ protect against Gandalf’s magical attacks? Would Gandalf be able to block ‘Avada Kedavra’? Would ‘Expelliarmus’ knock the staff out of his hands? Would the version of Dumbledore be able to use that weird wall of fire thing that he used at the end of the ‘Order of the Phoenix’ movie?

Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker are at the very least the main characters of their respective franchises (I think. I’m not really into Star Wars,) so we get a good bearing of their abilities and limits, hence why that fight was/is pretty good. Gandalf and Dumbledore? Do we have any proof that either of them were ever fighting at their max power? Do we ever really see them totally defeated? Is there any reason why Dumbledore couldn’t beat Gandalf and then Gandalf would just come back in a different coloured cloak?

All in all, speculation is inevitable in certain Death Battles, but Ben and Chad do their best to keep it limited and base all reasoning on firm, solid logic. That’s pretty hard to do with wizards. It wouldn’t be impossible, but it would take more research and power-scaling assumptions than it would be fair to ask of anyone."