topic.

It doesn’t seem like you should be able to but i’d Like a general consensus.

 

Questions like this I tend to assume no, because otherwise Apparition/Portkeys would be very OP.

 

I don't know, legilimency and pensieves are both rare enough (in canon) that it probably wouldn't be that much of an advantage. It's a device I'd be very careful of using in a story, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely.

 

I'm guessing yes, it doesn't seem like you have to occupy a space physically before apparating to it (else they would make Harry and co. walk in circles before every lesson), you just have to have a clear enough picture of it. As for Portkeys? I'm unsure of how they're created/work specifically, the only time we see one made is with Dumbledore in his office during Order of The Phoenix, correct? So without the mechanics of the spell we won't know for sure.

 

I suspect the key is you need to actually know where the location is, as well as being able to visualise it. As an example, Harry could not simply Apparate to the courtroom he saw in the Pensieve in book four, because he didn't know where it was - it could have been in Australia for all he knew. Once he'd actually been there in book five, that would no longer have been an issue (although I'm certain there would be anti-Apparition measures there for obvious reasons). If he'd been told it was in the Ministry, and the Ministry's location, but hadn't been there in person? That's a tough one to answer - it may depend on the level of detail.

Portkeys might well work differently, though. It doesn't make sense to have two different modes of transport that work essentially the same way, and (while I can't justify this with examples) my reading of canon suggests Portkeys are rarer, more strictly monitored and probably much more difficult (to make) than Apparition.

 

So i’m guessing then that just being able to visualize your destination isn’t enough to apparate to it then.

As for portkeys, I don’t actually know if you need to visualize your destination as the mechanics are never discussed. I just assumed you did.

 

I'm pretty sure that it's not that visualisation isn't enough, it's not really necessary. Harry and Hermione apparate to the outside of Godric's Hollow for example when neither of them knows how it looks.

 

Doesn't that contradict the lesson from their fifth year about apparition? I thought they had to visualize themselves inside the hoop?

 

Sixth year. And no, they have to focus on their destination, it's never said that they have to visualise it.

 

Is it really that easy? If you can apparate anywhere as long as you can focus on the destination in your mind, it's such a, I don't know, overpowered ability I guess. My memory of canon as you pointed out is fuzzy at best, so all these limits on apparition I see in fanfics are just fan-created to make it balanced I suppose?

 

Why do you consider that overpowered?

 

It's not really that easy since it's considered dangerous to try in canon, enough that even confirmed wizards and witches refuse to risk apparating IIRC.
But as a general rule, HP magic is grossly overpowered compared to most other magical systems in fiction. I mean, "can't revive the dead" and "can't conjure food" are pretty much the only hard rules there are in canon.

 

Not at all, Voldemort wasn't even City-Buster Level on a good day in his prime. HP Magic is overpowered in the way that it's magic, but other Magical Systems, even in the urban fantasy genre, heavily out-power HP. To say it's overpowered for fiction in general is grossly untrue.

In the HP Verse where there is no flat out 'Magical Energy' or 'Stamina', not having to even move around while in a battle means that they're just going to span infinite lengths unless you can write in a convincing enough 'mistake' on the parts of one of two equally powerful parties. Rowling probably realized this mid-way through Voldemort vs Dumbledore so she just cut it short.

 

You're falsely equating scale and power. HP wizards have limited range, yes, but within their immediate surroundings they are essentially a god.

The weakness of those "city buster" types in most fandoms is that their power still derives from some finite source. It's a big source, so they can level cities, but their abilities are fundamentally limited by what supply of energy they have. HP wizards, on the other hand, have no such finite source of power. So within their limited range, there are very few things they can't do. A city buster may be able to conjure an explosion the size of a city, but an HP wizard will just chill out sipping a butterbeer in the middle of the explosion, remarking that it's mildly ticklish.

There's no way to run out of magic, but some people are still better at magic than others. Duels don't end because one party runs out of magic, they end because one party is better than the other. Even marginal differences in skill can give you the edge you need to win. After all, to win a duel you only need to land a single spell (unlike most fantasy, where people take multiple hits before they go down).

 

Probably not, there's no evidence that any Wizard in HP has City-Level Durability, or Wall-level Durability for that matter, also, reliance on Wands mean that they have a finite weakness even with infinite Magic. What's the toughest thing a wand has survived? It couldn't even stay in tact after behind smashed into the dashboard of a Ford Anglia. Quentin Coldwater by the end of the first Magicians Book is probably more powerful than Dumbledore, then we talk about all of fiction? Ever heard of Highschool DxD?

Secondly, the mechanics of duelling aren't really discussed (kinda wish that was Harry's sport rather than Quidditch because him becoming a carbon-copy James Potter is just boring) so I can't really comment on how a 'Wizard's duel' is supposed to work, due to it being basically ambiguous. All we know about average Wizarding duels is that they bow before each other. Can a Wizard's own spells be turned against them? Or was that just because Dumbledore was slightly above Voldemort in power and he overpowered the 'will' of the spell? When is it best to use a Charm versus a Curse versus an Elemental Spell? When is versatility just needless usage of spells?

 

What's that got to do with the requirements for a successful apparition?

 

The thing about HP magic is that its conceptual nature allows it to ignore scale to a degree. A flame freezing charm protects you from heat. It doesn't have a finite cap where heat suddenly burns you again, it just protects you from heat, period. The shield charm protects you from things that would harm you, period. The invisibility cloak doesn't hide you from visible light but leave you open to infrared(hello, every Muggles v. Wizards thread and fic), it makes you invisible. Magic can only be no-sell'd by other magic, so relying on even hotter fire or even bigger explosions does nothing. We had an entire thread on shield charms vs nukes.

Basically, if an HP wizard doesn't want you to hurt them, they can make themselves functionally invincible pretty trivially. A lot of other magic systems rely on physics to some degree. Shields have a capacity, fire spells are igniting the oxygen or exciting particles. In Dresden, it's energy being directed but it still operates within the framework of physics. In DnD, you are limited by the amount of power you can bring to bear. HP magic does not operate like that. A shield charm won't defend you against 4 gigajoules of explosive energy, but fail at 5. It shields you from harm, proportionate to the skill of the caster.

The mental leap needed to understand HP magic is something that isn't always easy to grasp, and there are long time members of DLP who still don't have a handle on it. The DnD/Dresden model feels more intuitive, and is more common in things like video games. With that said, HP magic is far from underpowered. @Taure has the right of it, within their sphere of influence a competent HP wizard is basically a localized god, limited only by their own competence. Dumbledore could walk into nearly any universe or fandom and be competitive.

 

i want the shit out of this