• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

A Beholder vs Dio Brando

Status
Not open for further replies.
GreyFang82

GreyFang82

He/Him
2,748
330
Can the Beholder start a win streak against Jojo? Who knows...

Let's hope this one doesn't get too carried away...

A Beholder vs Dio Brando from Phantom Blood

Both 8-B

Speed is Equal

Fight Takes place at Dio's castle with both starting 10 meters away

Beholder: 0

Dio Brando: 7 (ProfessorLord, DMB 1, Eficiente, Foggysniper, DragonEmperor23, Arrogant Schmuck, and TheArsenal1212)

Inconclusive: 0

Dio Brando Anime
It's useless useless useless useless!!

Beholder
 
The undead within DnD remain entirely unaffected by the anti-magic cone.

According to DnD 5e, if an ability is not explicitly listed as a spell (no matter how much it may seem like one) it is unaffected by anti-magic cone. As such abilities like the bite of a vampire are unaffected.

This means there is nothing preventing DIO from using any of his varius vampire abilities. He can fly away from Beholder's disintegration beams and hit him with his much more powerful space ripper stingy eyes,. (By much more powerful I mean in comparison to Beholder's durability)

IF Beholder assumes he's using magic and decides to just bite down on Dio while using his anti magic cone he's going to be severely surprised when Dio freezes him with a single poke.
 
For those with any doubts:

If you're playing 5e, then according to this Rules Answers article, an antimagic field shuts down an ability if any of the following is true:

  • It is a magic item.
  • It is a spell, or lets you create the effect of a specifically named spell.
  • It is a spell attack.
  • It is specifically described as magical.
None of Dio's attacks are described or function remotely like magic. It is based on his physiology. This includes his flight, his blood draining, his vaporizing freeze, his space ripper stingy eyes etc.

Furthermore I see no resistance to mind control from Beholder. While this is the only one that can REMOTELY be considered magical on Dio's part, it really puts Beholder in an unfair position. He either has to open up his anti-magic cone eyeball in order to negate Dio's mind control at the cost of being unable to use his various beams directly at Dio (allowing him to just walk up and freeze him) or he doesnt use his anti-magic cone and he gets instantly brainwashed.

Decisive Victory for Dio Brando
 
(Also, quick note, it was kind of vague in 3e DnD, but most people agreed that anti-magic does shut down ALL supernatural abilities.

However we should not use that for this fight, because several newer editions have been released all retconning this previous fact. It's like potaro fusion being supposedly permanent in DBZ, but was later changed to being permanent only for the gods. You can't just ignore what it was later changed to.)
 
I'm going to have to vote for Dio on this even though a lot of Dio's abilities are supernatural and theoretically wouldn't work. However, his Regenerationn wouldn't be hindered by the field (as his Regenerationn is similar to a troll's and AMC doesn't stop them from regenerating) so the Beholder would have to put down the field to actually kill him and by the time he gets to that Dio would have probably Mind Controlled him or something.
 
Nonono, this supernatural argument is not a valid argument. That was only referenced in 3e which has since been retconned and changed in 5e. Go read the link I provided.

I am not going to give you any slack this time.
 
ProfessorLord said:
Nonono, this supernatural argument is not a valid argument. That was only referenced in 3e which has since been retconned and changed in 5e. Go read the link I provided.
I am not going to give you any slack this time.
Click to expand...
They don't just use one edition for the D&D profiles. They take every edition into consideration.

I gave my reasons why I think Dio should win. I'm not going to sit here and argue this.
 
That sucks. This statement of it negating supernatural effects has only been referenced in one early edition. It's been retconned as of the 5th edition.

You cannot cherry pick what you like to see, the mechanics of the game has changed and they've revised the statement to reflect as such.

Furthermore I've given you a statement from Jeffery Crawford, lead designer of DnD who has stated the conditions required for anti-magic to negate something. It sums up pretty well to "does said ability reference anything magical? no? then it's unaffected".

So don't worry, there is no argument for you to argue.
 
With this supernatural effects thing being fully debunked, I see it fit to now request the results of Jotaro vs Beholder be removed, on the basis that Jotaro was unable to use Star Platinum because Beholder could negate it. Stands are not remotely magical. You could make the argument that they are psychic energy of some sort but that doesn't hold up either.

Psionics are specifically described as being magical in the DnD universe. This means they use magic to achieve their psychic feats and abilities. This is not true for every single verse, and therefore it is wrong to treat it like so. Therefore stands are not remotely magical, and would remain unaffected.

I have to adress this here now before we have future JoJo vs DnD fights, because otherwise those following DnD will get to abuse the lack of knowledge on everyone elses part.
 
ProfessorLord said:
With this supernatural effects thing being fully debunked, I see it fit to now request the results of Jotaro vs Beholder be removed, on the basis that Jotaro was unable to use Star Platinum because Beholder could negate it. Stands are not remotely magical. You could make the argument that they are psychic energy of some sort but that doesn't hold up either.
Click to expand...
Why not ask some of the people that actually care about the argument like Azzy instead of just saying "debunked because it only appeared in one edition".
 
Because it's not my job to force people into voting and debating with me. I've messaged one DnD person already and they've yet to respond. I figured if they followed the DnD page they'd probably notice this thread by now but nope.

I can only debate those who want to debate and those who are available to debate.
 
Then why are you treating it like the issue is over and done with? Like I said, give them a chance to respond before saying that their reasoning is invalid. I'm not going to get into this argument because frankly, I have better things to do but don't act like you triumphed the argument before they even responded.
 
This is the second time you've said you weren't going to argue now.

The issue isn't over and done with, my argument I've prepared is.
 
Does someone want to bring in others from DnD? I'm not really sure of anyone other than Foggy and Bambu. I already pmed Bambu.
 
First off, I'm not touching the voting on this thread with a thirty foot pole, it turned out not-great ("no u" fight) last time.

That said. I will offer expertise for the D&D verse.

1. Beholder scales to a baseline of 8-B due to Sunburst. It was calc'd by WeeklyBattles some time ago. That said, newer feats will cause the Beholder's tier to shift to "At least 8-B, likely Low 7-B" due to scaling to dragons' feats that were calc'd (assuming they are accepted). Fight results for the 8-B tier would still be added, since the dragon feats were called into question over timeframe (basically, it isn't stated what the timeframe is, and some of them take longer than others, so Low 7-B is merely a "likely" and not a definite. 8-B stays as we can say for sure it is at least 8-B)

2. We discussed this last time. Anti-magic cone negates both magical and supernatural effects, including those not based on magic (i.e., psionics and the like). Based on this, there's no reason to assume it would not work on something supernatural in another verse. Even our experts are solid on this, and the ones who were hammering this point in weren't even voting to stay objective (Azzy and Qawsed). Psionics vary depending on the edition you bring up. D&D just likes ******* with our systems, basically.

To be clear, no, it does not affect an undead's inherent abilities purely because that is something they naturally have as magical beings. It doesn't negate magic that IS the creature, so to speak. However, a lich attempting to use magical spells (or even mind powers or whatever the hell you wish) would be unable to use them, as they are not inherent to that being.

3. Cherry picking isn't really a thing here, sadly. Abilities do indeed change depending on edition to edition, but D&D has thus far been treated as a most consistent basis. 5e being the latest edition... that's not the most consistent thing. Otherwise, you'd be correct. If you find more sources, I will look through them.

4. Looking at your "psychic" source... you're wrong. That is a Mystic, not a Psionicist (which is a thing). For example, this is the SRD (System Reference Document, meaning basically open source WotC content for D&D) for one of the other psychic-type classes. It never once references magic. So... yes, the Mystic is a magical class, but not ALL psionic classes are magic.

Here's a better attempt to explain SRD. Basically, the company releases it so individual users can make use or manipulate it for their own games. WotC does it a lot. So, yes, technically the Mystic would be affected, the Psion would be equally affected, despite not being magical in nature (and being a pretty garbage class, IIRC).

5. Other knowledgeable members for D&D would include Aeyu (staff), Qawsedf (super-source-finder), Azzy (you know who it is), Xulrev (new user, pretty good with D&D) and ZacharyGrossman (dunno much about him, but he's been active on the revision threads so he might be a good person to ask).

I'd like to not be asked into the D&D vs JoJo fights, if only because JoJo is so... we'll call it heavily beloved by people of this wiki. Debating is not worth hurting others' belief in what they love. Cheers folks. If you need anything, feel free to ask~

As a very brief side note, I apologize for the late delay (was out all day) and won't be here tomorrow because, oddly enough, D&D session.
 
ADD-ON: Aparajita and Zeromaru X are also very knowledgeable on the verse. Considering Weekly calc'd a bunch of stuff from it, they might also be worthwhile to ask.
 
Technically yes, at the beginning of the fight. In the last thread, it was argued that Jotaro (the former combatant, who lost) could run away. However, certain things must be noted about the Beholder's ray.

1. It has a range of 150 feet and is a cone starting at the Beholder's eye.

2. The ray is activated by the Beholder's eye being open and can be active at all times. However, this ray negates even the Beholder's own other rays when going into said cone. It can still use it, but they must effect things outside of the ray. Feasibly, the Beholder could use telekinesis to hurl things from outside the ray, or trap Dio (as the Beholder is one of the most sinister, cunning, and intelligent beings in D&D, ask Azzy for the full rundown) and eat him.

3. The ray does penetrate through cover

4. The Beholder has omnidirectional sight, meaning it is nearly impossible to evade.

There are certain scenarios of victory, (or, at least, there were for Jotaro, I haven't had a proper look at DIO's page but to my knowledge he's the big bad of the verse so really it might be hard to say) just not many.

Hope it helps.
 
We discussed this last time. Anti-magic cone negates both magical and supernatural effects, including those not based on magic (i.e., psionics and the like). Based on this, there's no reason to assume it would not work on something supernatural in another verse. Even our experts are solid on this, and the ones who were hammering this point in weren't even voting to stay objective (Azzy and Qawsed). Psionics vary depending on the edition you bring up. D&D just likes ******* with our systems, basically.

To be clear, no, it does not affect an undead's inherent abilities purely because that is something they naturally have as magical beings. It doesn't negate magic that IS the creature, so to speak. However, a lich attempting to use magical spells (or even mind powers or whatever the hell you wish) would be unable to use them, as they are not inherent to that being.


@The Wright Way

No he's saying the Beyonder wouldn't power null. Vampires in Jojo come from the mask unlocking pressure points in their brains. Dio's abilities are purely biological and don't have anything to do with the supernatural. (except for the hypnosis and making zombies but the specifics on that aren't explained.) Dio would still have his ice powers that come from the lack of moisture in his body and laser beams that are just him spitting spinal fluid. Saying the Beholder could power null those would be like saying he could power null someone having an adrenaline rush or stopping a chemical reaction.
 
@Dragon Stands would be negated due to supernatural stuff, but yeah, if Dio is naturally, say, made of fire or his touch destroys silver kettles or whatever his powers are, those intrinsic abilities wouldn't be negated any more than a dragon's breath would be. But the Stand would fall into the Supernatural bit.

I'm unfollowing now, again, good luck boyos.
 
Oh. For obvious reasons. Any abilities he has taught himself (as in, he was not birthed/created/however the **** he came into this world with) are also under the effects of the power null, as they effect permanent spell effects like, for example, a wizard casting mage armor and permanency. So if he wasn't born with the ability, basically, and if it comes from any piece of gear or being that isn't him, it'd be negated. Just adding that in to be 100% clear.

Note that a shift in identiy such as turning into a vampire or werewolf or another creature altogether is an exception, as any abilities that occur naturally within these beings would not be subject to negation. That's the long and short of how this complicated pile of garbage works.
 
All of Dio's abilities are purely biological. He is not affected whatsoever.

The "everything supernatural" thing being disabled by anti-magic cone was worded incorrectly. It was for the sake of gameplay. Lead director when it comes to the rules on DnD has made a little chart describing what it affects. It doesn't mention the word supernatural... neither does any other edition. If it is remotely described as magical and is not innate than yes, it would be unaffected.

Everything else is kind of off-topic so I'll drop it
 
@Professor Don't really care about the thread, but you're both right and wrong about anti-magic. That dragon's breath isn't affected because it is a natural magic. That's explicitly stated in your link. Still, you're not knowledgeable on D&D so I'll ignore the slight mistake.

Cheers boyos. By the by, this might all be irrelevant soon if the Beholder gets upgraded (could be scaled to Low 7-C or Low 7-B if the calcs go through, meaning the Jotaro one is done for as well).
 
@Professor Once again, genuinely not trying to take a jab at you lol. I'm justifying the fact that the detail was missed. You do you, dude. And... no? An 8-B freezing attack doesn't one-shot a Low 7-C.

Basically, it goes like this (you can read the D&D revisions if you want to know about it fully). Looking at D&D as a composite universe (as in all versions combined), Anti-Magic changes with what it affects because every now and then the D&D Multiverse changes based on some in-universe event used to justify major rule changes (notable things like the Lady of Pain rewriting the entire multiverse that caused 2nd Edition to become 3rd Edition).

The most consistent form of the Anti-Magic ray does negate non-magical effects such as psionics and other supernatural powers.

I promise you, this is not an attempt to attack you. There's too much stuff going on for me to take a vendetta against a guy who likes JoJo's. I'm just explaining to you how it works because you asked me to talk here on my wall.

Cheers.
 
It has only said it negates the supernatural once... as an explanation in terms of game mechanics. Furthermore it has only been stated in a single editio. Every other edition makes an attempt to retcon and revise it so it can better be understood. I fail to see how re-writing the multiverse is relevant.

Not only that but word of god does not support your argument, and the explanation given as to how anti-magic cone/ray works actively refutes and debunks the argument that you are trying to make.

There's too much stacked against it not affecting the supernatural. It only affects the magical... which not everything supernatural is. (maybe in DnD world)

And of course, you're re-directing the argument. I have never said you were attacking me. Stop talking about me. Talk about what is relevant.
 
If someone described storm clouds as supernatural, are you honestly telling me that Beholder can negate them? By definition yawning is technically supernatural. Are you telling me Beholder can negate yawning?

In DnD, magical is an inherent quantifiable property of creatures and artifacts.

Supernatural only means above or beyond scientific understanding.

Not everything above or beyond scientific understanding is magical. The Beholder cannot negate everything supernatural.

This is the best way I can explain this to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

XSOULOFCINDERX
Dracula (Castlevania - Netflix) vs Dio Brando (Jojo's Bizarre Adventure) [0-0-0]
Replies
0
Views
881
XSOULOFCINDERX
XSOULOFCINDERX
Sergeant_Hypocrite
Vampire VS Clown (Dio Brando VS Sweet Tooth)
Replies
3
Views
2K
Ikelaggan
Ikelaggan
XSOULOFCINDERX
Geralt of Rivia (Video Games) vs Dio Brando [0-0-0]
2
Replies
74
Views
4K
AngeronTheSkyHighAnger
AngeronTheSkyHighAnger
koopa3144
Venom vs Dio Brando (0-7-0) (Concluded)
2
Replies
72
Views
7K
koopa3144
koopa3144
LeoEpicGamer8910
[R3M2] Frogman & Hecate vs DIO & Clover [PLAYER 2 DISQUALIFIED]
2 3
Replies
115
Views
4K
SSB64
SSB64
Back
Top