So it occurred to me that fan fiction generally has a variety of ways in which they describe dueling or mass fighting. A popular trope seems to be learning how to "chain spells", meaning firing many spells in quick succession. Another one is that some people are more powerful than others and as such, their spells can't be blocked by lesser wizards (magical cores ahoy).

I was wondering what people here think happens in a magical fight, either between average wizards or extremely skilled wizards such as Dumbledore and Voldemort. I'll start by making some observations about the two fights between skilled wizards and witches we have examples of in canon: McGonagall vs Snape and Dumbledore vs Voldemort.

Firstly, it seems to me that a central theme in these fights is that the constantly try to turn the opponent's attacks back on them. For example, McGonagall transfigures Snape's attack in to a bunch of daggers which then attack Snape. Snape hides behind a suit of armor, which is then enchanted by Flitwick to attack him, prompting him to run. In fact, essentially the entire fight consists of them constantly returning attacks.

The exact same thing happens in Voldemort vs. Dumbledore as well. Dumbledore uses a fire rope of some sort, which Voldemort changes in to a snake; Voldemort then simultaneously tries to use the killing curse on Dumbledore, apparently hoping that Dumbledore would be unable to deal with both at once. Dumbledore counts on Fawkes to take the killing curse, and then uses what appears to be a single wand motion to destroy the snake and encase Voldemort in water. Clearly, it's somehow advantageous to turn the opponent's attack against them if at all possible.

One of the things that I found odd about the Voldemort vs. Dumbledore fight is the killing curses Voldemort keeps using. It appears he often uses them in the middle of Dumbledore's sentence. Dumbledore also uses some unknown, but powerful, spell, which Voldemort blocks with a silver shield. It makes me wonder if this spell could perhaps only be blocked with a specific shield, and Dumbledore was hoping Voldemort didn't know that.

It seems to me that the way these skilled wizards fight is starkly contrasted to the average person's fighting prowess. In the Department of Mysteries, all the fights we see from Harry's pov seem to end with him simply being able to use a spell at an opportune moment; timing and situational awareness rather than great knowledge of magic. Then again, Harry immediately loses against Snape because Snape has knowledge of magic that Harry can't block (legilimency). Perhaps this is why when a wizard like Dumbledore enters the fight, the opposing side immediately attempts to run.

I was wondering how you guys see it. What's the balance between just being quick in dangerous situations and having a 'knack' for fighting versus knowledge of magic? It doesn't seem like canon supports throwing around spells as quickly as possible

 

I think a good analogy can be seen in star wars of a jedi versus a soldier.

The average person treats their wand like a blaster. Fire, fire, fire! Hope you are able to get a hit in. Dodge the other blaster fire. (Harry vs. Everyone)

The skilled and powerful wizards treat their magic like a lightsaber. It takes skill. It takes elegance. It's capable of neutralizing the blaster fighter unless there are numerous shots being fired. It becomes a sword fight/duel when you meet another lightsaber user. (Dumbledore Vs. Voldemort)

 

From what we see in Dumbledore vs. Voldemort, high level duels seem to be largely based around manoeuvring your opponent into a position where you can land a single incapacitating spell on them.

This makes a lot of sense compared to the fanon tank-like hour long duels in which each participant takes multiple hits and keeps fighting. Really, a single spell should be enough to end any duel. Either it incapacitates the opponent instantly, or it puts them at sufficient disadvantage that you're able to gain the upper hand and incapacitate them shortly after.

So the key is to land a single successful spell. With unequal opponents, this simply means overpowering your opponent, as Dumbledore did against the Death Eaters in the DoM. But with equal opponents, where you can't blast through your opponent's defences, you have to find a way around them.

We see a number of tactics to this end in the Dumbledore vs Voldemort duel. The base of these tactics seems to be trying to get your opponent to have to dispel a complex attack, which keeps them busy while you reposition yourself via apparition to launch another attack while they're still vulnerable. A variation on this is to gain a "multiple attacks" advantage by reversing your opponent's spell back on them rather than merely dispelling it. For example, Voldemort turning Dumbledore's fire whip into a snake. This means that you get "2 attacks for the price of one" which keeps the opponent extra busy and leaves an opening for you to land another spell on them.

This leaves a hanging question: is the best tactic therefore to gang up on people? It seems to depend heavily on skill level. For all her vaunted skill, Bellatrix barely even qualifies as a distraction in the Dumbledore vs Voldemort duel. Dumbledore dispatches a single animated guardian to deal with her, and she can't do anything to stop it -- all her spells bounce off it, whereas Voldemort's spells smash the guardians. This seems to indicate that a bunch of weak wizards ganging up on a powerful wizard like Dumbledore and Voldemort will not produce the same "distract them then land a spell on them" effect as we see when powerful wizards attempt the same tactic.

We see a similar scene at the battle of Hogwarts, where Slughorn, McGonagall and Kingsley gang up on Voldemort but can't touch him, and in fact lose the duel many times over -- it's only Harry's sacrificial protection that stops them from being quickly swept aside by Voldemort, since he lands multiple spells on them, it's just that they're protected from them.

 

Are you therefore interpreting it as "Bellatrix's magical power simply isn't on the same level as Dumbledore/Voldemort's, so therefore she cannot do anything to the guardian because all her spells are so 'weak' in comparison that they just splash off harmlessly", or are you interpreting it as "Bellatrix's knowledge of magic just isn't on the same level as Dumbledore/Voldemort's, so therefore she cannot do anything to the guardian because she doesn't understand how to dispel/blast through whatever magic keeps the guardian animated and attacking her?"

Personally, I favor the latter option because I don't think you can quantify a significant difference between magical "power" such that ~3 better than average wizards are still nowhere close to a powerful mage like Voldemort.

 

I consider the two questions to be asking the same thing. Magical power has magical reality, that much is clear: it can be measured, not just in terms of the power of a person's spells, but also in terms of the general strength a person has (Moody's comments on the Killing Curse, Voldemort's boat in the cave, various other statements about powerful individuals).

But it's also clear that a person's knowledge/understanding of magic is one of the factors - and probably the most significant factor - which contributes to that magical power. We see this continually in the series as Hermione's study of magical theory allows her to cast spells that others cannot, and to pick up spells quicker. We also see it when Dumbledore and Voldemort's magical aptitude is explicitly stated to be connected to them having been excellent students.

That is to say, a person's magical power/strength/ability/talent is not some fixed, innate value, but rather a function of that person's various characteristics, including but not limited to their understanding, knowledge, and connection to magic, their personality, their intellectual aptitude and inclinations, their willpower, their mental discipline, and their emotional state.

 

I've basically interpreted it this way too. The only thing I can't really make sense of is the unknown spell Dumbledore uses. Apparently it's sufficiently powerful that Harry could feel it while protected by the statue, but Voldemort blocks it with ease. Harry loses against Snape because he couldn't occlude his mind and prevent Snape from seeing his next spell; I wonder if Dumbledore was then hoping that Voldemort would be unaware of the magic behind the spell he used and thus defeat Voldemort in a single hit.

The point about Bellatrix not being able to do anything about what appears to be a simple animated statue is a good point. It does make Voldemort and Dumbledore look all the more impressive, since Bellatrix was certainly a feared opponent. It's weird that she managed to block a spell from Dumbledore earlier in the fight. I wonder if that was caused by the fact that Dumbledore seemed to cast it pretty quickly, as Bellatrix was already running away -- perhaps he couldn't put all his power behind it.

 

My interpretation of that scene has always been as follows:

1. Voldemort expresses surprise, after the spell, that it was not a spell intended to kill.

2. Voldemort used a physical shield to block the spell rather than a magical shield.

Conclusion: Voldemort, when he felt the spell coming, was anticipating a powerful spell designed to kill, the most appropriate response to which is a physical shield. That is to say, Voldemort thought it was a Killing curse.

The sense I have consistently got from the HP series is that (with the exception of the Killing Curse) in the magical arms race, defensive spells are generally stronger than offensive ones.

 

I was mostly wondering about the purpose of the spell in the first place. If I recall, Voldemort mostly used killing curses in places where I could've understood why it would work, when it seemed that Dumbledore might be distracted; just as he appeared, in the middle of a sentence and so on. Dumbledore's spell sort of seemed out of place to me.

Random fact: my version of the Finnish translation actually got this part somewhat wrong. It actually reads to me like Voldemort was mocking Dumbledore for trying to kill him, instead of not trying to kill him. Makes the next bits of dialogue a bit confusing.

It seems to be so, except in the case of protecting a house. Just about every damn bit of protection in the wizarding world seems to be crap. Gringotts? Broken in to twice. Fidelius? Defeated twice out of the three times its seen. The Hogwarts defenses in the last battle fall soon enough, and so on. It seems as though there is a disparity between the protection a wizard can give for himself and the protection he can place on a location. Then again, a houses are much bigger, never mind castles.

It's sort of a shame that we never see a longer duel between two powerful wizards. The legend goes that the duel between Grindelwald and Dumbledore lasted three hours, but we see fights that last only a short amount of time, with plenty of talking in between. Makes you wonder what the Grindelwald fight looked like - perhaps most of it was them evading one another or just taunting.

 

Your examples of weak defense are only in comparison to the fanon idea of defensive wards that protect against everything. Dumbledore has very good reasons for trying to incapacitate Voldemort rather than kill him. Since he knows that isn't a lasting condition.

Dumbledore is such a badass. I really don't get why so much fanfiction makes him a weak idiot.

 

Voldemort breaking into it can be excused as he is an exceptionally powerful wizard. It was made quite clear that normal measures cannot stop exceptionally powerful wizards such as Voldemort and Dumbledore.

For example, Azkaban, another incredibly defended magical place, was nigh inescapable. The only person who had escaped only got out because no one knew he was an animagus. However, despite all the securities Dumbledore had said:

He clearly demonstrates that he doesn't think Azkaban can hold him allowing us to conclude that normal defenses cannot stop people like Dumbledore, Grindelwald, and Voldemort.

Rebellion and defiance staples of a teenager's emotions, the age of most FF.NET authors.

Almost every generic indy!Harry fic has to have Harry rebel against whoever is in control and Albus Dumbledore is the strongest and wisest wizard we have seen in the Harry Potter Universe. For much of Harry's wizarding life, he was the authority. Dumbledore was seen as the force of good which is something that the angsty Harry fics need to change. The author believes he must show that the adults are wrong and that Harry is super and perfect.

While a reader might disagree with Dumbledore's actions in canon, we all know that he is incredibly smart and skilled. So skilled in fact that he is more powerful than the main antagonist of the series. This causes a problem in the average fanfiction author's story because if Harry can dispose of Dumbledore than Voldemort will be a non-issue. Thus to keep their stories continuity they have to nerf Dumbledore so that Harry can stick it to him and then still have to work towards defeating Voldemort.

Just the fact that the writers are operating under the delusion of a weak Dumbledore shows that they do not understand the strength of the character in canon. I personally think that most authors are incapable of writing a SMART and strong side-character which is why most Dumbledores are almost unreadable. Even when authors try to make Dumbledore strong and useful they usually fail with flying colors.

The sight of a weak and idiotic Dumbledore is showing of not only bad characterization, but weak grasp of the story and the sign of a bad author,

 

OP has given some excellent examples of duels involving very powerful wizards. I think in duels involving less able opponents such as the one between Harry and Malfoy in HBP or the Trio against Rowle and Dolohov in the café in DH, the same idea that you try to overpower your opponent with a single spell so that he cannot or does not have time to block and then you win the duel. The fanon idea that wizards can take multiple hits doesn’t make sense as far as the duels in canon are depicted.

I agree. I think also whether a person is able to cast a particular spell at any given time depends on lot on location and time specific factors that would influence that person’s prowess.

To be fair I feel the time when Trio broke into Gringotts wasn’t that easy at all. They had to plan with a Gringotts goblin for over a month before they even had a chance and then they had to rely on unforgivable to succeed.

I think Fidelius was defeated both times because of excruciating circumstances. The Potters didn’t know their secret keeper is actually a traitor and the Order didn’t know that Dumbledore was going to die which would greatly weaken the protection. On the other hand, we saw that the Death Eaters couldn’t do anything against the Burrow and Shell Cottage once Ron was discovered to be helping Undesirable Number One.

I am speculating it would follow the same pattern as Dumbledore/Voldemort duel except it went on for much longer.

Lol I totally agree here his reply to Fudge's blustering is great. It's sad how Dumbledore is made into this incompetent moron so many times in fanfic that some people started confusing who Dumbledore is in canon. Seylliani gave some excellent reasons why that might be the case though.

 

Though with little canon to back me up, I would suggest the following are pertinent to magical combat, in no particular order:
Accuracy - If you miss the target then there's no point having cast!
Precision - Your spells landing close together.
Knowledge - Beheading someone will hurt more than a tickling hex.
Stamina/Power Reserve - How long can you keep moving and casting?
Mindset - The person aiming to kill will win over the one who isn't.
Style - Having a stylish way of killing someone is intimidating.
Speed- Moving fast, cursing fast, shielding fast. Don't get hit, hit them.

Magical Power is a dangerous one to discuss, the amount of power that you can put into a spell. I never touch this (I think) in my fics as it is a poisonous subject (see magic, magical cores, magical morons...). Can we assume there is some kind of power, I think yes. The wand is a tool through which that power is wielded and we see that the wrong wand inhibits the wizard.

To a certain extent my magical combat ideas are centred on the throwing jets of light at one-another. If we go to a Dumbledore-level duel where we're using what I call battle magic, large area spells and enchantments, summoning Fiendfyre and creating hurricanes of water, transfiguring defences and weapons, it's rather different. I actually think this is (at least in the film there are several occasions of wizards pushing their power against one-another). Is it down to willpower or some kind of reserve of magical power? I don't know. Does the amount of magic available to you correspond to how much you can put out down your arm and through your wand?

We have the difference between a clash of mages such as Dumbledore and Voldemort, where powerful magicks are wielded with great care, against a quick-and-dirty street-fighting style. Personally I would go for the curse someone in the back and escape method, less personal risk.

On a slight divergence, I recall reading in Book 7 of the words 'Might is Right' being carved on the squashed-muggles statue. I actually somewhat agree with that statement. Might is Right, but power is a responsibility to be wielded with care. Unfortunately such is rarely done, the stern hand of justice regularly descends on the wrong people (Sirius Black in HP, and many miscarriages of justice in the real world), while the powerful concern themselves almost exclusively to the gathering of more power.

ElMarquis.

 

People view Magical Dueling in such a simple way as if it has the binary flow and everyone fights the same, uses some pre-set spells, etc, etc... This is especially idiotic to assume when many of Voldemort's supporters are from completely different countries with completely different education systems and dueling styles.

From what I see, people are attempting the canon flow of Dueling where it is simply shooting of a couple curses at someone's shield until either they give up or you give up. This is especially annoying when we have to assume that there is no such thing as Magical Exhaustion, and there are no real side-effects to using larger than life spells. Or we can just assume that there is such a thing as Magical Exhaustion and Rowling failed to mention it (as with the Hogwarts Dormitory Showers and bathrooms), which is extremely plausible.

As for Magical Power, it most definitely exists, and it most definitely is both inherent and gained in wizards through various means. It's like weight lifting essentially, the more you use magic, the more powerful you become at it, though it's a slow climb.

These are mainly the reasons why I think Dueling is infinitely more interesting than Quidditch, as a pure display of Power upon Power, Skill upon Skill, and Wit upon Wit. Is more interesting than, "who can get lucky enough to spot the ball that's flying at Mach 2". It's almost a testament to how the series goes afterward, with luck being the deciding factor in many things.

The main problem with Fanfiction and Dueling, however, is that Magic is treated so terribly in these fics. There's no variation, no interesting quirks. It's almost hard to believe that Magic is this infinite library of versatility when people are using spells that are learned in Third-Year and are resisted naturally by many creatures and people themselves.

 

I'll say it again. Magical exhaustion (aka magical cores, aka mana pool) isn't necessary when there is regular, physical exhaustion that comes with being a living creature.

On variation and third year spells: in canon, Harry becomes familiar with the Unforgivables in fourth year and uses them in the war in DH. He learns the Patronus Charm in third year and it's one of the most badass spells in his arsenal. He learns the disarming spell in second year (IIRC) and uses it to great effect through the series, to the point where him using it to shoot Death Eaters out of the skies is what Voldemort uses to identify him during the flight of the seven Potters. There's a reason why wizards get seven years of education and it's all they seem to need, while us muggles have like twelve years before college, a bunch of years at college and then there might be more if you want to become a master of your discipline. Meanwhile, seven years apparently gives a wizard all they need to become Dumbledore, but not everyone does for whatever reasons.

Basically, spells learned early aren't "worse". It's how you use them. It's what spin you put on that spell that identifies you as a badass wizard. At some point the stuff you do escapes the confines of specific spells. Dumbledore used some powerful spell against Voldemort in the Ministry, Voldemort used some spell to create his silver shield, Dumbledore used some spell to animate the guardians. It doesn't matter what spell, it matters what they could do with it. I think that this is one of the mistakes fanfiction makes. At some point you don't need a specific kind of Transfigured spell to change unliving metal into animated wood, you just need to know how magic works and be able to do it. You don't cast a spell at that point, you just do magic.

 

Not when it comes to someone like Voldemort's Duelling style where all he does is stand still and block spells with a shield and shoot off spells before apparating out of the way of something that could be deadly. Magical Exhaustion isn't a Magical Core/Mana Pool, as Magical Exhaustion is definitely something that affects not only you magically, but you physically. It's pretty anecdotal to only use Harry's experience as a gauge for how most wizards duel.

Yet, the Patronus Charm is a perfect example of what I was saying. It's a niche spell that only has one purpose (excluding Dumbledore's founded communication technique that seems more like a plot device, as he's sent Howlers, Letters by Owl, etc... before as well).

Actually, the only times he's been capable of Disarming someone is when he either catches them by surprise or requires it for "muh plot". The reason why I'm saying a spell that is learned early, isn't useful, is because it's specifically designed for School Children. It's also something that Death Eaters should be deeply familiar with, meaning that just using it, in general, is a weak spot.

The whole point of him using a Disarming spell, is because he doesn't want to shoot people out of the sky. He is abhorrent to killing, so he uses the equivalent of a Magical Pool Noodle against everybody.

Yet, there are also wizarding colleges. But, that's the point of what I'm trying to say. If they all get the same Seven Years with the same base required curriculum, the spells Harry is using are known. Known enough to be both blockable and predictable.

Oddly enough, almost every spell we see Dumbledore cast is either unknown or rare. Even the spell he uses to disarm Snape is white instead of the usual Expelliarmus Red. It can be assumed then, that more powerful wizards use more powerful variants of Spells.

No. That is where I disagree with you when it comes to the confines of canon. Canon teaches us several things about the Potterverse's Magic, words have power, and you have to say a spell in your head even though it is 'non-verbal'.

Unless the whole point of Transfiguration is that most of what you can do is done with a couple general spells that require visualization, power, and creativity to mold. It makes sense as well since most of the specific spells we see that transfigure things are hexes (Bat Boogey, Hermione's Bird Spell, etc... and Hexes, Jinxes, Curses are generally easier to cast due to them being fueled on 'Dark Magic'). I feel like you're trying too hard to apply Muggle rationale to people that don't live in Muggle Rationale and generally, don't apply to it.

 

You know, just because you don't like a certain fact about canon, you can't really dismiss it by saying it's just because "muh plot". Also, there's no indication that the disarming spell is a spell invented for school children.

Accidental magic. Harry's wand using some sort of golden flame against Voldemort.

Source?

Source? Is this a Pottermore thing or are you making it up?

Yes, it turns out that it doesn't matter how well known a spell is if it hits you. This is why Voldemort uses the killing curse time and time again even though it can be blocked. He is attempting to maneuver Dumbledore in to a position where he can't defend against the killing curse.

Obviously, there are instances where someone doesn't know a spell and it costs them or nearly costs them. For example, Harry doesn't know occlumency and so Snape defeats him easily. Harry, Hermione and Ron are all ignorant of how to control fiendfyre, so they nearly die to it, and so on.

We've seen Dumbledore use a normal stunner at least once. Actually, typically when we see him do advanced magic, its effects are also different from more common spells. Snape isn't only disarmed if I recall, he also falls on his knees, whether as a result of the spell or not.

 

Other than the fact that it is taught to School Children.

Anecdotes. But even then, accidental magic is not consistent enough to be used normally. Even Riddle figured that out after a while so he stuck to wanded magic. We don't know fully well how the Golden Flame worked or what was behind it, I call 'muh plot' on it.

The fact that a Wizard's most readily available magic (accidental magic) is brought forth by emotions. Therefore it isn't disingenuous to assume that the reason almost everyone can cast a Hex or Curse but not a Shield Charm is because it is easier.

Ah, I was mistaken with the 'Specialized Schools' and 'Universities' as I assumed you go the Specialized Schools post-standard education. But there's a lot more than that, such as Aurors requiring training before being accepted and Healers as well. Showing that there is a large portion of Skills you don't learn in Hogwarts.

 

Canon debunks magical universities after the seven years of schooling. Percy got a job directly under Crouch Sr right out of Hogwarts (presumably, he's in that job in the summer of 94 after graduating in PoA) and later in the year he effectively takes over Crouch's duties (he represents him at the Yule Ball). Not that I think special training for Aurors/Healers is a bad idea, but you graduate Hogwarts at 18/19, and 17 is the age is majority. Hogwarts grads are able to land Ministry jobs right out of Hogwarts.

 

Ah yes, all the spells taught at Hogwarts must only be "school children" spells with no real use in the real world. This despite the fact that we see these spells being used by adults all the time.

Anecdotes? Citing canon evidence is an anecdote now? Voldemort, while of course preferring a wand to perform magic, was capable of controlling his magic before he knew a single spell. He could in fact perform extraordinary controlled feats of magic before he knew a single spell; we have evidence of this.

Actually, we do know how the "golden flame" worked, or we at least have Dumbledore's (likely correct, given that it's Dumbledore) guess.

I find it hilarious that you keep calling all canon evidence presented to contradict your view "anecdotes" or "muh plot" and then engage in completely baseless speculation like this:

To be clear, there is absolutely zero evidence "dark magic" is easier to cast than anything else. There is also no evidence you need emotions to cast most of it, or that you can't use emotions to cast a Shield Charm. In fact, from what we see, Harry wasn't even able to use Crucio precisely because it required a sort of perverse enjoyment of torture. I bet that's an anecdote or "muh plot" though.

Also, things you wouldn't call dark magic can also require emotional involvement yet that doesn't make them any easier to cast. Patronus for instance.

The whole concept of "dark magic" is mostly ill defined in canon, and the terms for jinx, curse and hex are not defined precisely.

 

I would think of it more as the foundation. Kind of like how you need to walk before you can run.

When you use singular events or people? Yea, still an anecdote there, buddy.

Not really baseless, considering the canonical evidence that actually exists. I was just putting two and two together.

You mean other than the fact that concentration is almost as key as having Magic when it comes to casting spells? Yep, you're right.

Except forcing yourself to be angry is easier than forcing yourself to be happy.