That's always been my position to people who say "why don't you transfigure their gun?" in the muggle vs wizard debates.

Human transfiguration is complex magic, why not take the easier route and just curse/stun them? While it's never explained in canon I assume it takes a lot of thought and concentration, and is very difficult to do casually. Dumbledore can do it, McGonagall probably can to, and Voldemort might be able to do it (though I think he prefers to spend his time researching the more dark and arcane), few other people though I think could do it easily.

 

That strays a bit too close to the whole fanon logic of Intent being all you need to cast magic, not wand movements, incntations or even a wand itself.

As for Transfiguration being rendered useless, it would be a funny paralell in comparison to our own muggle education, would it not? Many students comment about how subjects such as Literature, History or Geography may come in useful.

But in regards to the uselessness, it would make sense. It would explain why the Weasley's don't simply just transfigure their ratty old setee into a leather sofa or turn their rags into a three piece suit. It would also account for why the Gold Conversion feature of the Philospher's Stone was such an achievement.

To counteract this however, I believe that Spell Creation isn't as hard a subject as it has often been portrayed in FanFiction. If Snape as a Hogwarts student was able to invent numerous spells then the likes of Dumbledore and Voldemort can probably create a (Transfiguration) spell in under an hour.

There is no evidence in canon to support that Wand Movements and Incantations are not needed (Unless you count Silent Incantations).

 

I think that with how hard it was shown to be for people to reconfigure in a class room setting I think that it might just be that they aren't able to concentrate well enough when in something as hectic as battle for the most part.

 

Personally, I think it has more to do with magical power. It takes more magic to perform a transfiguration than to do a simple stunning spell (or an Avada Kedavra).

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that. In fact, the Killing Curse is the only spell in the books that is 'confirmed' (by Crouch Jr.) to need "quite a bit of power behind it". We don't even know what he meant by power, either, but I'm fairly sure - as is the general consensus here - that magic isn't quantifiable in the same way that energy is, if at all.

 

By that logic, all you have to do is give your students a list of spells in their first year and they're good to go as long as they get the pornounciation right and the wand movements correct. As for the killing curse, it wasn't power but rather intent. You had to want to kill that person. Same reason that Crucio didn't work on Bellatrix when Harry cast it.

 

No.

Forgive me if I'm assuming too much here, but you seem to be applying game logic to HP magic, and they just don't gel. Yes, you could give said list to students and have them good to go - in theory - but it's about understanding the spell. Consider the following:

You have the Disarming Charm. We've seen it display various levels of effectiveness throughout the books: from depriving another witch of one's wand, to knocking a wizard off of their feet. We've been told by Word of God that the spell isn't limited to Disarming wands, but any weapon. That's a breadth and depth that many adults - let alone eleven-year-olds - might struggle to grasp in a combat situation.

For all we know, the spell Dumbledore cast on Snape in DH may well have been a Disarming Charm. It left him utterly defenceless: no more, no less.

To acquire such variety in one spell would take a great deal of study in underlying theory, practice, confidence, and even more theory. I don't think we should take Harry's apparent mastery of the Charm for granted.

The same argument can be made for the Revulsion Jinx, the Water-Making Charm, probably all Transfiguration and so on.

Where are you getting this information? Bellatrix did say that you have to "mean" the Unforgivables, yes, but why do her words bear any more weight than Barty Crouch Jr. (who, btw, managed to subdue Moody of all people)? Buddy got perfect N.E.W.Ts.

 

I have to say that they kinda do. The Standard Book of Spells Grade 1-7

 

When he said "Quite a bit of power", I just assumed that he meant "power" in the metaphorical sense. Besides, isn't most of DLP against Magic being quanifiable and varying in level from wizard to wizard? I actually believe the opposite but that's a post for another time.

 

For the most part, yes. From what we've seen in the books, magic has little to no cost, and doesn't work like an exhaustible fuel would. But we've seen examples of spells and other acts of magic varying in potency under certain circumstances. Confidence, anger, desperation, etc.

To bring it back to the topic, the problem with human Transfiguration is that it's the most difficult branch of the subject that we know of. No one ever said "Oh, we teach it at N.E.W.T level because barely anyone has enough magic to do it", because if that was true, it probably wouldn't be taught in the first place.

 

Has anyone in canon actually said that it's the most difficult branch of magic? Sure, it's definitely harder than CoMC and herblore buu what about Charms?

 

I believe ihateseatbelts was saying that Human Transfiguration was the most difficult of all Transfiguration spellwork.

That said, Professor McGonagall did describe Transfiguration in general as ‘...some of the most complex and dangerous magic you will learn at Hogwarts’ during her first class, though of course she may be biased.

 

Ninja'd.

Harry calls it "immensely difficult"; this is coming from Harry, even though he was successful in that particular lesson.

Considering that we've only seen sixth-year students try it on themselves within a classroom setting, the skill involved in attempting it on someone else is likely that much greater. As for Charms... who knows? I'm of the opinion that spellcasting is really difficult in general.

 

I suggest that in battle it would take intense focus and lots of magic to perform that feat. Which is really hard, as they are constantly disrupted by their opponents offence. Further, if the person puts up a reflector charm then there is a possibility of them transfiguring themselves.

 

Honestly, if Human Transfiguration could be done in duels then due to the Copernicus Theorem it would be widely used were it effective.

Since we don't see it used in the series, we can probably safely assume it isn't usable. I mean honestly, if something as obvious as that were incredibly powerful, someone would have thought of it.

 

Perhaps it comes down to the nature of a transfiguration spell vs. a general curse or hex utilized in combat. The intent of the hex or curse (in that their primary purpose is to cause damage) allows it to be more effective because they are harder to block and deflect where as a transfiguration spell would be easily absorbed or deflected by any shield.

 

I think human transfiguration is much harder to do in a battle. I think human transfiguration needs a lot of concentration to be done well. In a battle this might lead to a situation where you lose sight of your surroundings, which isn't something that I advice to do.