While I do agree with you on most of the points you have made in regards to magical cores, this is one that I'm going to have to slightly disagree with.

I'm pretty sure mental performance is required in some spells. For example, the Patronus requires it's used to focus/concentrate on a happy memory. Same with the Unforgiveables as demonstrated by Crouch's lecture in Goblet of Fire.

As for why Snape's spell worked on Malfoy: It could be due to any number of factors. Maybe the spell works in a similar way to the unforgiveables in that you have to want to hurt whoever you're casting it on. Maybe if Harry had casually tried the spell on Ron then nothing would have happened.

As for the overall issue of Magical Cores: I'm on the fence. While I can't recall anyone ever getting magically/physically exhausted in the books, I do have to also admit that we've really only seen one duel between wizards where more than a handful of spells were used and that was between two of the most skilled wizards alive.

I avoid stories with magical cores myself but if they were real, I would think that they'd work similar to a muscle. Everyone is born with essentially the same quantifiable level of magic. Increasing that level of magic would result in requiring less concentration for spells such as the Unforgiveables or Patronus. But, just like no human can physically lift up a house with their muscles (No matter how hard they train), there is an upper limit to how large (?) a magical core can be and at least some level of concentration will still be required.

Voldemort, using rituals mentioned by Dumbledore, somehow managed to pass this limit, becoming the wizarding equivalent of a superhuman. This would explain why he can throw around AKs like they're going out of style.

TL;DR: I had the balls to disagree with Taure about Magical Theory.

 

I am buying you as much alcohol as you can possibly imagine the next time we meet.

 

And you miss my point. It's a drawback they inherently have because they are human, with active metabolisms. You might as well ask why from a storytelling point of view the human race has to get tired. Getting tired is a thing humans, and by extension wizards, do.

That is not to say that casting magic itself tires out the hypothetical witch. But like was mentioned upthread literally sitting down and "doing nothing" tires humans out, so

 

You're being pedantic. If we accept as true that casting spells recquires little conscious thought as was said above, we can assume that a wizard could keep using magic for at least a few hours before the body demands rest. Unless you want Harry to participate in the Iron Wizard, it isn't worth thinking about.

 

If I'm being pedantic, it's because this thread seems to be seriously arguing that a worker could spend an entire day casting spells and come out fresh as a daisy.

 

I always preferred the idea that magical cores are simply one's ability to grab as much magic as possible at any one given time. Yanno like wheel of time? You get tired from moving at lot, fatigue from using your head, mastering and evoking specific emotions required by that magic, and the like.

Places like Hogwarts could be a way of helping people grow stronger by allowing them to grab more magic than they would in other areas. Thus if someone has access to more magic, even if they can't use it all, they can try and thus become more powerful. The effect becomes additive over time.

As for having a fixed amount of magic in your body that recharges slowly? Bleh, done to many times and tied up with way to many Vance McGill plots and people emulating him.

 

I would use an analogy to aerobic vs. anaerobic exercise. If you keep a comfortable, relaxed pace there's basically no limit how far you can go, but if you really push yourself you're going to burn up pretty quickly. And obviously using more efficient technique (bicycle vs. running) will help you get most out of yourself, as well as training and exercise.

It's canon that magic is some kind of pseudo-biological thing, and like all other biological processes, it's not binary. Frankly I find it astonishing that people could have come to a conclusion that magic was binary after reading the books.

 

While I agree that having magic is a defining point of being a wizard, I'd argue that having legs and being able to run is a defining point of being a human. In the same way that a person without legs is a retarded human, a squib without "enough" magic would be a retarded wizard.

I see no reason that magical cores couldn't be done properly.

That said arbitrary restrictions on magical ability is a massive cop out.

 

Sry wut?

I don't really have that much to add beyond agreeing with what's already been said: magical cores are unnecessary in both a mechanical and literary sense. Could it be done well? I can't think of an example that stands out.

It's as boring as it is lazy. Magical exhaustion doesn't need to exist when your characters are pitted against all sorts of curses and creatures. Likewise, some people are just bad at certain things. Sonic can't swim. Augusta Longbottom is shit at Charms.

That isn't to say that wizards can't get tired. In an action-oriented scene, any given wizard might have to run, jump, crawl or whatever to get themselves in or out of the fray. If Apparition is an option, it's going to take something out of them: not due to depletion of magic, but simply the unpleasant sensations associated with it.

Even so, a wizard claiming a win because their opponent is knackered sounds silly... if you're playing it straight, at least. There are ample opportunities for either party to miscalculate something during the conflict. It can be amusing, or terrifying, or whatever feeling you're trying to evoke, but collapsing on the floor and crowing, "I've got nothing left!" does not an epic duel make.

 

In the event of exhaustion I find it more likely that it would mean the tired wizard makes a mistake that the other can capitalise on, over anything else.

 

First of all, there's a limit to how far you can go; it's just not a limit that you'd hit before other constraints such as the need to eat and sleep. You are still using energy that comes from internal fuel, and still have the idea that if you push yourself you'll outpace your body's ability to turn that fuel into energy, and finally what constitutes a comfortable pace differs from person to person, which are all things that could be used to argue the existence of cores.

In any case in my fic I'm externalizing the physics of magic from wizards, so for me it's a moot point

 

Is there something off with that statement?

Consensus would imply that a person without legs is retarded, maybe they're wrong.

 

...No, I don't believe the consensus implies that at all. Maybe you meant a different word or didn't understand what the word used means? I mean, by the definition used by...well, everyone else that speaks English, Forrest Gump is the retarded one, not Lieutenant Dan. You might mean 'disabled.'

 

That's exactly what I meant. Whoops.

 

This got quite off track. I will comment what I read in thread with revelance to original question.

First question about neccesity of magic cores is wrong question. Magical cores are completely unnecessary as wizards obviously use chakra and success with their spells is determined by their chakra control. Real question is how are magical cores useful compared to other systems.

To decide it you should look from writers perspective. Thats metalevel above reader perspective as you need to worry what would characters do, while reader could ignore plotholes by suspension of disbelief.

Main problem here is that unlimited spellcasting makes wizards godlike, For example if casting casting imperius takes ten seconds then Voldemort would need only 25 death eaters to apparate into barracks and put everybody in 80000 men of british army under imperius in single night. Or things like that every wizard should create 100 golems like from giant chessboard at HPPS obstacle course to work for him. Or summon hundred snakes before each battle.

Then there are arguments that it contradicts cannon which are weak as absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Cannon fights could be just too short to hit that and wizards know they limits.

One could give similar evidence that magical cores are supported by cannon mainly from DoM battle. If casting spells was unlimited why DE bother to cast anything else than AK(or better imperio and order to attack comrades)? AK is obviously best spell according to HP cannon as it couldn't be blocked by protego, why don't they use it more?

Past these issues its matter of execution. Main issue is if size really matters?

Many fanfics just write that Harry's core is 20% bigger than Dumbledore's (after removing mandatory core binding.) In most of these fictions is as useful as 20mm caliber pistols. HP combat tends to be binary, one hit with stunner/AK... and enemy is eliminated so adding more power doesn't help much. .
Similar logic applies to that battles aren't decided by endurance so one needs better justification why is bigger core important.

 

Unlimited spellcasting only makes you godlike with respect to Muggles, but not with respect to other wizards, who also have unlimited spellcasting. Yes, Voldemort could conjure 100 snakes. But equally Dumbledore can vanish 100 snakes.

This seems to me to be the ideal state of affairs. We're reading a story about wizards, we want the conflict to be with other wizards not Muggles.

You're also failing to distinguish between limits in terms of duration of spellcasting and limits in terms of there being magical law that governs magic. A wizard being able to cast spells without rest, except for normal human tiredness, does not imply that a wizard can do literally anything with magic. Magic is still bound by magical law, and wizards are still bound by their individual magical ability.

With regards to the MoM battle, we know that the Death Eater's principal aim was to obtain the prophecy, not to kill Harry and Co. In fact, we know from HBP that Voldemort had explicitly forbidden the Death Eaters from killing Harry, whom he intends to kill personally to demonstrate his power.

And in any case, I don't accept the notion that the Killing Curse is universally the best combat spell.

I assume this is a joke.

 

Thats incorrect as its asymetric situation. While summoning them would take ten minutes Dumbledore has only ten seconds until they strike. And it isn't just vanishing them. Its vanishing them while avoiding AK's which is point of that diversion.

Not completely, it doesn't take into account wizard lifestyle (Why wizards are poor when they could cast 24/7?) and that Voldemort's attacks were tame compared to casting fiendfire, apparate, rinse, repeat.

No, I don't. If you try to argue with magical laws you will probably just reinvent the magical core with them. About only way to prevent unlimited conjuratition/spells is that everybody has magical core and uses part of it to substain spell which returns when spell ends. You also need to explain how Flitwick created keys that could fly for year.

Then Hermione should be hit by stunner instead of potentially deadly spell. I wrote AK as its Voldemort's signature spell so why he casts suboptimal one? That doesn't change that wizards should cast BEST SPELL(TM).

 

Dumbledore is perfectly capable of conjuring hundreds of objects in an instant: he did it in PoA. Since we know vanishing is easier than conjuration from McGonagall in OotP, Dumbledore will be able to vanish Voldemort's hundreds of snakes easily.

And in any case, more broadly, the point you make is I think misguided. You're essentially saying that a person who comes to combat more prepared should not have an advantage because of it. But I think prepared combatants should have an advantage.

Being able to transfigure a shitty, moth-eaten robe isn't going to help you avoid poverty, no matter how many of them you can create a day. Wizards are poor because they lack the skills to be able to perform all magical feats for themselves (just like Muggles). Ability is the limit on wizards' economic as well as combat potential.

Also, Voldemort's attacks were in no way tame. I see no reason to believe he would be more successful with fiendfyre. He chose the attacks he did because they were tactically superior, not because he wasn't able to cast more powerful spells consistently.

Which I don't want to prevent.

My point is not that the Killing Curse is not the best spell. Rather the point is that there's no such thing as a best spell. What spell is best depends on your situation and the skills of your opponent. Spamming the same spell against a wizard who has proven they are skilled at defending against that spell is pointless. They'll just defend against it again each time. Breadth of magical repertoire is important because it allows you to adapt your combat style to your opponent and environment.

 

I'm looking at thonez's post and I'm like whaaaaaa...



Dude is totally arguing the HP magic system with video game mechanics. Mana-sustained spells, indeed.

 

I'm not agreeing with Taurec about the magical core "concept" to be bad in general.

Doesn't mean there aren't a lot awful fics abusing the gimmick like core exhaustion when convenient for plot reasons.

IMHO the concept is needed to make rituals affecting your magic "work" in a cause&effect way. We know rituals can be used to affect the body and the soul from canon and there's even some feedback between both. If you want to keep magic separate from these 2 elements you need an own quantifiable element for it which a ritual could target and change.

I also believe there needs to be fundamental power differences between wizards completely irrelevant to eduction/skill/mentality. If it would be different anybody with the means(money,motivation) could become a Dumbledore or a Voldemort if they only do what's "necessary". That doesn't work for my view of the HP world.