D&D 5E Merlin and Arthur or Batman and zatana

[Redwizard007]

While not the perfect translation, superman is a paladin and batman is a rogue with a smattering of monk.

The issue arises when you look at things from a purely combat angle, supes is specced almost entirely for combat, he convinced the GM to let him trade out his spell list for an OP outer planes species that has flight, a few innate at will spells(scorching ray heat vision, cone of cold ice breath, haste superspeed, scrying Xray vision, disguise self clark kent, ect...) resistance to standard damage but is vulnerable to magic and cold iron kryptonite, 20 STR, 20 CON, decent CHA, and averageish DEX, INT and WIS, But now bats on the other hand, bats is basically built entirely the other way around, his stats are lower because of multiclassing and taking feats instead of ASI, they’re more equal across the board 12s-16s with more focus on DEX, INT and WIS, only he’s got reliable talent plus the skilled feat to get bonuses to stealth, acrobatics, investigation, history, perception, survival and intimidation, plus a ton of starting gold from his noble background that he uses to supplement his abilities even further by buying magic items tech.

So Supes and Bats are not balanced in a fight but they are balanced across the whole campaign which is what really is the important thing to achieve, they’re not meant to be put against each other head to head they’re meant to support each other as they fill different niches in the party dynamic and they both do their own role well

Edit: it’s also to note that Supes and Bats are originally both the protagonist of their own media separately before being brought together in the justice league whereas frodo and gandalf are part of the same story and play entirely different roles within it, frodo is not meant to be anywhere near the same level of narrative power as gandalf is.

Calling Batman anything other than a Divination or Bladesinger Wizard is probably a stretch, but sure, he might have started with a couple levels of Rogue.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think D&D would be better if the wizard were designed more like Batman and the fighter more like Superman. That might arguably be the case at low levels, but it certainly is not at high levels.

The fighter is basically designed like a Batman who gets blindsided by every situation. And the wizard, particularly at high levels, is approaching Superman in power, with the added benefit of being able to plan and prepare.

Yup, versatility is power. Therefore, a character that has more versatility should have less raw power. In this case, a better comparison than wizard vs fighter would be PHB wizard vs. PHB sorcerer. The wizard is a lot more versatile. They are also not noticeably weaker than the sorcerer.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The Dark Knight Returns is a Batman story, so of course Batman wins. This isn't about balance, this is about narrative.

Batman narratives have, for decades now, been primarily cynical, and have cynical views of power. The stance that you are willing to "do whatever it takes" includes doing things that are immoral or unethical.

Good Superman stories, however, have a different view of power - in them, Superman can operate not because he has more power, or because he can "do whatever it takes". He operates because he has empathy, and establishes and retains moral and ethical authority. We can see this isn't a good Superman story because it works on the basis of Superman having ceded his moral authority to the government. It required Superman to work on Batman's basis, not his own, so of course he loses.

You have done a very good job at identifying why “The Dark Knight Returns” feels wrong to me.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I reject this notion of "in effect" here. The other person is still playing their character, unless the first is literally using IRL mind control.

But if they are using IRL mind control, that’s still magic, so magic STILL wins.

 

[Krachek]

Traditionally, D&D sessions have very few external viewers, but always have players around the table. Balance considerations should be evaluated from the perspective of the people around the table, not a hypothetical external viewer.

Since the thread make links with movies, I use an external viewer, but you are right the game is about the players around the table. And it’s them who validate was is fun, boring, important, satisfying.

 

[Garthanos]

You have done a very good job at identifying why “The Dark Knight Returns” feels wrong to me.

It's cynical and dark where superman has lost his moral path ... yes it is wrong. I think the point was in fact how easy it could be for that to really happen and we see that failure in many many alternative superman storylines.

 

[Umbran]

It's cynical and dark where superman has lost his moral path ... yes it is wrong. I think the point was in fact how easy it could be for that to really happen and we see that failure in many many alternative superman storylines.

I don't think that is the point, because that is a Batman story, the point is what Batman does, not what Superman does.

We see it in many alternative Superman storylines, sure. That doesn't make it true. That makes it a thing that many authors want to tear down, for their own reasons.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yup, versatility is power. Therefore, a character that has more versatility should have less raw power. In this case, a better comparison than wizard vs fighter would be PHB wizard vs. PHB sorcerer. The wizard is a lot more versatile. They are also not noticeably weaker than the sorcerer.

I'll grant you it's an easier comparison (more 1:1).

Still, if you compare the fighter and the wizard, the fighter has both less versatility and less raw power.

Many have argued that the fighter makes up for it with staying power. That (at least in combat) a fighter can overtake the wizard in power after x rounds of combat (typically an assumed average derived from approximately 7 encounters).

Based on the campaigns that I have participated in, where this analysis falls short is in assuming effectively infinite HP for the fighter. Unlike the wizard, who can still be highly effective even at 1 HP as long as they have spell slots remaining, fighters tend to have significant reliance on their HP. This is because the classical strength based fighter is a front-line fighter who tends to get hit (and crit) fairly often, especially at high levels when the protection provided by AC falls off. A classical fighter whose HP is exhausted will typically be forced into the back line using thrown weapons, meaning only one attack per round (and sometimes without so much as a magic weapon to use). I've seen this happen many times, and it stinks. If you have a healer with deep reserves (a life or twilight cleric, for example) this can be mitigated significantly, but that's an outside factor that can't be relied upon at every table.

 

[Krachek]

I guess that till 2024, all threads are doomed to shift into the casters vs martial debate!

 

[Fanaelialae]

I guess that till 2024, all threads are doomed to shift into the casters vs martial debate!

The thread topic is:

5E Merlin and Arthur or Batman and zatana​

Seems to me that this was a "casters vs martials" thread from the beginning.