Does anyone actually know the incantation for Fiendfyre? I don't think it was ever canonically mentioned.

My fave would have to be a potion from the Draco Trilogy where you can speak to a dying/dead person for two-three minutes, they appear as a small smoke figure. I thought it was quite nifty.

 

I like Fiendfyre, but the thing is, I have almost never ever seen it done right in fanon. Most people seem to think casting Fiendfyre is akin to tossing a bunch of powerful cursed flames - shaped in the form of creatures, magical or otherwise - at an opponent. Some authors also think that Fiendfyre is some high-level spell that is difficult to cast.

No. From what we have seen, Fiendfyre is not just some uber fire spell. Fiendfyre is actually sentient, or at least semi-sentient. They take the form of magical creatures and simply go around causing immense destruction. It is NOT difficult to summon Fiendfyre as even Crabbe/Goyle could do it. The problem lies in controlling it. Summoning Fiendfyre is similar to summoning a massive tornado- If you can't control it, the spell will backfire on you.

I believe it takes a wizard of great skill and willpower to be able to use Fiendfyre effectively, being able to exert control over the creatures made of flame and direct their attacks. A mediocre wizard can summon them, but from what we've seen, Fiendfyre would just fly about with a mind of their own, causing random destruction.

And I agree with Demons about the annoying 'Reductor Curse' cliche. It really isn't too difficult to try to come up with one's own spell.

 

The whole Horcrux thing fascinates me.

I still like the idea of two people exchanging horcruxes. That plot bunny makes me wish I could write.

 

In regards to the Reductor Curse, it has to be significantly damaging to a body part if Parvati - who, as far as I know, is an average witch - is able to disintegrate an entire table to dust in OotP. That should at least break a bone. Perhaps not blow them to pieces unless it is a way overpowered cast, but still cause some damage. It is overused but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.

 

That's just the thing. The Reductor Curse is used to turn objects to dust. Not, you know, people. If it did, it wouldn't be so easily accessible.

 

Reducto (re-DUC-toh)
"Reductor Curse"

"redusen" Middle Eng. diminish, from "reducer" Old Fr. bring back to the source, from "reducere" L. bring, lead

Blasts solid objects out of the caster's path.

Snape used this on rosebushes at the Yule Ball after his talk with Karkaroff (GF23)

Harry learned this spell as part of his preparation for the third task. He used it to blast a hole in the hedge (GF31)

A Reductor Curse during D.A. training reduced a table to dust (OP19)

Used by the various D.A. members at the beginning of the battle of the Department of Mysteries to smash shelves in the Hall of Prophecy as a diversion (OP35).


From Lexicon.

Hmm... perhaps so. There just aren't any occasions where the spell is used in canon, so it isn't conclusive. But after reading that, I'm less convinced that I was this morning.

 

I don't think the Reductor is meant to work against animate objects. In fact, it efficacy is reduced when used against a simple hedge, when Parvati could easily reduce a cupboard to dust.

It's the same way I believe a Diffindo spell would not be able to inflict cuts and slashes on a person the way Sectumsempra does.

 

Lucullus, if I remember correctly, during Snape uses Diffindo on James in the fight they had in 5th year and it left a shallow gash.

Quick note on Reducto- whilst I find it highly unlikely that it can obliterate body parts, I'd imagine in can do quite a bit of damage. Probably, it would fling someone backwards whilst leaving quite a bit widespread damage (shallow cuts or grazes).

 

We didn't hear the incantation, as it was non-verbal. I'm guessing it was a weakly cast Sectumsempra - perhaps an early form of it.

As for Diffindo, it's a fairly harmless charm as far as I can see, akin more to a pair of scissors than a sword. I don't think we've ever seen it used offensively. If I recall correctly, it's not a spell with a vector either: you run your wand over the area and it gets cut. It could probably just about cut skin, but that's about it.

Regarding reducto, I've said it before and I'll say it again - I see no reason why it could not be used against animate objects. I see it like a strong kick, though of course strength would depend on how well it is cast. The reason why it would work less against a hedge is simple: a hedge is less dense.

 

Definitely transfiguration spells. "oh man he blocked my stunner, haha bitch the GROUND HAS JUST SPROUTED SPEARS AND IMPALED YOU."

Seriously, with the supposed talent or mastery of tranfiguration that James Potter or Dumbledore had wasn't effective at all. "Shit, Voldemort is coming to kill me, my wife, and my child, somehow I can't hold him off for more than five minutes even though physical barriers can stop a killing curse, durr." -tranfiguration at it's best in canon

 

/\

Are you serious? Didn't DH establish James didn't have his wand?

And I can't decipher your post. The first paragraph makes me think you like Transfiguration, then in the second you whine about how Transfiguration is useless.

 

Regarding the first statement, I had forgotten James didn't have his wand. For the second I meant that tranfiguration is depicted with few uses in combat in canon.

 

Except, you know, in all of the high-level duels we've ever seen.

All two of them.

 

The problem is that the only combative use of them is in high-level duels, even though everyone who went to Hogwarts has had seven years of tuition in the subject. Somewhere in those seven years shouldn't combative use have been taught in what was a required subject? If anything, shouldn't there have been any above average aurors able to apply tranfiguration in combat?

 

You seem to forget that Transfiguration is often said to be the hardest branch of magic Hogwarts teaches. Keeping in mind that most Ministry employees can't cast a shield charm correctly, I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people competent at Transfiguration. And it's 5 years, not 7. You have to have got an E at O.W.L. to take the NEWT, and even then it's not compulsory.

And we haven't seen any aurors in combat, so for all we know they do use transfiguration in combat. Transfiguration NEWT is required to become one, after all.

Why would they do that? Hogwarts isn't a military academy, they're not training their students to fight.

This is something I often see people lose sight of. It's easy to do, I suppose, given the wartime setting of the books, but Hogwarts, and magic in general, is not used mainly for fighting. Wizards see their wands primarily as tools, not weapons. Using magic for fighting is a secondary use. Washing up and cleaning is a more common task.

Hogwarts teaches you to defend yourself at the basic level from Dark magic, yes, but it's not Auror training.

 

The existence of the DADA class makes me want to think that construction of barriers using tranfiguration is taught to defend against things like unforgivables, especially during Voldemort's first rise to power.

Draco Malfoy in is second year is able to conjure a snake in his second year, Ginny is able to cast the bat bogey hex with some skill in her fourth year, Harry conjures water in his sixth year, forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't these fairly complex transfigurations? A spell to produce a living breathing snake, a spell to change mucus into bats,another spell either producing water or changing air into water. Why don't Hogwarts students possess enough ingenuity to practically use spells to conjure or transfigure in combat?

Sorry if conjury and transfiguration are separate schools of magic, but I believe the point still exists.

 

Conjuring is a branch of Transfiguration, as is Vanishing.

Part of the difficulty of using Transfiguration in battle is probably deciding what to use as your source material in a matter of split seconds and having to be able to change virtually anything since the battle environment as well as what your opponents unleash on you differs from duel to duel.

I doubt Transfiguring a whip of flame into a snake has the same difficulty as changing a teapot into a mouse, but that's what you may have to do if an opponent uses a fire whip spell. There are so many possible things you can do with Transfiguration, and not all of them have the same level of difficulty.

In fact, I believe Conjuring too has varying levels of difficulty, depending on the object conjured.

 

Not entirely accurate. It appears to be a grey area: it's taught in both Charms and Transfiguration. Either there are two types of conjuration, or it's an interdisciplinary magic.

I'm a fan of the first. There first appears to be conjuring spells: spells that conjure specific objects, just as Avis, Serpensortia, and Aguamenti. These are charms, and seem to be easier. Secondly, you have conjuration such as Dumbledore does it: literally drawing a chair in the air and it materialising. This would be the transfiguration type of conjuration, which is apparently harder (we rarely see it).

As for:

I find this doubtful. Firstly, teaching in one class cannot assume competence of another class, which the students may or may not even be taking (imagine the situation: 7th year DADA, they go to teach blocking via conjuration, and half the class pipes up: "Uh, we haven't done transfiguration since OWLS"); secondly I find it much more likely that they merely teach conjuration per se and then leave it up to the students to connect the dots regarding using it in combat.

And that's if a conjured object can even work as a block. I have my doubts about it. I think physical objects of sufficient volume and mass can block the AK, but I don't think conjured ones can, for two reasons:

1. Conjured objects do not last - they disappear after a while. Furthermore, we know they come from "nowhere". These both give hints as to the nature of conjured objects - that they are in essence nothingness. A magical construct, rather than a genuine physical object. So they wouldn't work as a block against something like the AK.

2. We know no spell/magic exists which can block the AK (physical objects, not being magical, can, and transfigured objects, being changed at their base nature and thus no different to physical objects, also can). Conjuration is a type of magic. Thus conjuration can't block the AK.

 

But then you'd have to consider the possibility of permanent conjuration, like the shield Voldemort produces in OotP. We don't know if that could've taken an AK, but it seems possible enough to me. I'd imagine Dumbledore might be able to conjure true metals, as an alchemist, which IMO could relate to either potions or transfiguration, maybe both. Even if he couldn't, wood shouldn't be too hard, or stone for that matter. I had always assumed that left to their own devices, Dumbledores chairs would remain, but he always vanishes them, so I don't know for sure.

Also, even if conjured items are magical in origin, they exist on the physical plain, (presumably) follow the rules of physics, and behave as physical objects with physical properties, in which case I'd have to believe that if an object of significant mass is conjured, it should withstand an AK.

 

Conjured objects don't obey all the rules of physics - they have that tendency to spontaneously disappear. And there's no such thing as permanent transfiguration. JKR says that all conjured objects disappear.