And you're missing my point. He could have been "Gandalf the bad-ass swordsman who never casts spells at all" in that scene.FatR wrote:Only because you dishonestly compare him to power standards of DnDverse, instead of his own. In DnD, being able to go toe to toe with a Huge creature that is also on fire is not a particularly big deal, in Middle Earth everyone in the party but Gandalf might just as well lie down and die when confronted with such foe.hogarth wrote: Gandalf is a dude with a magic sword and a fast horse and some eagle buddies that casts one or two extremely shitty magic spells. That makes him a shit wizard in my book.
Bullshit. If saying "Help me, Arioch/Cat Lord/Water Elemental King" is spellcasting, then Jimmy Olsen is the Sorcerer Supreme.FatR wrote:There is nothing plot couponish in the ability to summon things to wreck your enemies' shit, when you can do it reliably.hogarth wrote: If you count "plot coupon" favors with magical creatures and a handy-dandy artifact as "his own abilities".
Nope.FatR wrote: Wizards > vanilla action heroes, whichever verse you take.
I think we're talking about different things, though. I'll agree that Gandalf is a bad-ass by Lord of the Rings standards. But suppose you removed every scene in those books where he actually cast a spell. How much of the story would you have to rewrite? Practically none. Now he's just Gandalf the bad-ass guy with a magic sword and a cool horse who's friends with the animals.
EDIT: I pretty much agree with everything else you said, though.