The car is also bigger on the inside and has an Invisibility function. It's an Intelligent Magic Item.
You didn't notice the part where it drove off on it's own?
Printable View
Why would this open D&D magic items up to Potterverse? They can craft magic items and D&D magic items are also magic items but their ability to craft isn't comprehensive; they can craft magic items, not all magic items.
Indeed, the more logical approach would be seeing what we have seen in Potterverse (and on the flipside in Tippyverse for the other side) and assume those are all they can craft. I'm not transporting the worlds, I'm just trying to model the effects on a comparable platform for reasonable transparency (which seems surprisingly easy to achieve).
For the comparison to be relevant, both sides need to be restricted to the spells, the items, the creatures and the magic the sides are known to possess; transparency would lead to an irrelevant mirror match, and has no foundation to boot.
My point is that most posters here assume we should make this comparison by porting over Potterverse to DnD rules. You claim not to do so, but you're explicitly using the DnD system as frame of reference.
Alternatively, we could try porting Tippyverse to Potterverse, using one of the Potterverse PC or board games. However, I don't have any such rules at hand, unfortunately.
Therefor, using DnD as frame of reference is reasonalbe, but if we do so, we should do so completely, and not only when it's advantageous to Tippyverse. Warlocks are the best fit, so IMO, if we do the full translation, Potterverse wizards should be statted out as warlocks.
Well, their magic is similar to Warlocks at least but we should, of course, just model them based on their abilities instead of forcing them onto an existing class and handle all their abilities based on their functioning in Potterverse.
I feel we need to treat them as a custom class but we can use Warlock abilities as a baseline (most relevantly, model their magic as spell-likes).
I still seem not to have made myself clear: by doing so, it's, in my opinion clear that Tippyverse will win. The universe we use for comparison will always be in advantage, which is why this approach is fundamentally flawed unless we do a full conversion - which leads to loss of exactness/information.#
But for the sake of having fun, I will try to map as many effects from Potterverse as possible to DnD, to see where we land. I expect the result will be far, far below Tippyverse.
I will base my post on the harry potter wiki (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/), which includes material from books, films and games as sources.
Tippyverse Potterverse:
Assumption one: Wandless magic is observed in the books. A Tippyverse Potterverse caster would only use wandless magic, as it is clearly superior by virtue of not being subject to disarming (Tom Riddle, a.k.a Lord Voldemort, also only performed wandless magic in the films, not counting the controlled magic he performed prior to going to Hogwarts. In the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire film, Voldemort wandlessly knocked Harry to the ground, deflected Harry's Disarming Charm by waving his hand, and magically lifted Harry from the ground with one hand, apparently applying force to the latter's face whilst forcing him to his feet. He again used wandless magic on Harry in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, impatiently disarming the boy with a wave of his wand-free hand. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Voldemort again used wandless magic to move a dead giant out of the way and to restrain Harry by using his cloak.)
Assumption two: the same is true for non-verbal spells. Our hypothetical Potippy-caster only casts non-verbally.
Spells:
Anapneo - Prevent Choking. No DnD equivalent. Protects against Dust of sneezing and choking?
Brackium Emendo/Ossio Dispersimus - Bestow Boneless Quality (Osteomancer, Dragon Compendium p. 82)
Episkey - Treat mild to moderate injuries: Cure Light Wounds?
Ferula - Binds and splints fractures: Also Cure Light wounds?
Reparifors - heals minor magically-induced ailments like paralysis: Remove Paralysis
Tergeo — spell for clearing up dried blood from a bleeding wound: Prestidigitation
Vulnera Sanentur — spell used to heal deep gashes like those caused by the curse Sectumsempra: Cure Moderate Wounds?
Accio — Telekinesis
Aguamenti - Create Water
Alarte Ascendare - Telekinesis
Albus Dumbledore's forceful spell - Bigby's Forceful Hand?
Alohomora - Knock
Antonin Dolohov's curse - Harm?
Aparecium - See invisible
Aqua Eructo - geyser effect of decanter of endless water with higher dc?
Arania Exumai - Repel vermin limited to arachnids?
Aresto Momentum - Paralysis?
Arrow-shooting spell - Launch Bolt
Ascendio - Levitate
Avada Kedavra - Power Word Kill without HP limit, but as a ray
Avifors - Polymorph, Bird only
Avis - Summon swarm (of birds)
Babbling Curse - Bothersome Babble (Complete Mage)
Bat-Bogey Hex - Summon swarm (of batlike bogies)
Baubillious - Light of Lunia
Bedazzling Hex - equivalent to hide enchantment on armor
Smashing spell - Kelgore's Fire bolt/orb of fire
Bewitched Snowballs - Snilloc's snowball swarm
Bluebell Flames - Light
Bombarda - same as smashing spell
Bombarda Maxima - delayed blast fireball?
Bubble-Head Charm - reproduces effect of necklace of adaptation
Bubble-producing spell - ???
Calvario - ???
Cantis - as Bothersome Babble, except target sings instead of babbling
Carpe Retractum - Animate Rope without needing a target rope
Cascading Jinx - Ball lightning?
Caterwauling Charm - Alarm
Cauldron to Sieve - Polymorph any Object, with limited target and limited form the object can be changed to.
Cave Inimicum - Greater Alarm?
Cheering Charm - Good Hope /Tasha's hideous laughter
Cistem Aperio - Knock
Colloportus - Arcane Lock
Colloshoo - Stun
Colovaria - Prestidigitation
Confringo - Shatter/Disintegrate and fireball?
Confundo - Confusion
Conjunctivitis Curse - Contagion, Blinding sickness only?
Cornflake skin spell - Contagion, Red ache?
Cracker Jinx -
Cribbing Spell -
Crucio - targeted symbol of pain
Mucus ad Nauseam -
Cushioning Charm -
Defodio - Passwall/Soften Earth and Stone
Deletrius - Dispel Magic?
Densaugeo -
Depulso - Telekinesis
Off to bed... To be continued. HP Wizards seem astoundingly versatile from A to D, I think they would fit in well in a mid-op campaign. Among the spells I have reviewed up to date, there aren't any gamechangers that would allow them to win against Tippyverse.
What does said wizard have that will stop Tippy's favourite spell - Eschewed Materials'd Ice Assassin?
The crafting aspect of HP can be equalled relatively easily.
Between thought bottle chaining, farming wishes to get magic items, dark craft xp and gold from repeated sacrifice. (Demiplane with fast time, put in a couple people, mind rape them into reproducing and you got an ultra fast breeding perpetual XP situation) crafting is essentialy free for the tippyverse.
And now the situation in crafting is nowhere near remotly equal because what can be achieved with crafting in DnD blow out of the water whatever can be crafted in the HP verse.
These discussion go back and forth but effectively, the tippyverse can match and counter everything the HP verse can make while the reverse is far from true.
The problem with this comparison is that we know what generally no-op Potterverse looks like and Tippyverse-flavor D&D looks like, but that's not a fair comparison.
What we don't know is what Tippyverse-flavor Potterverse would look like. (e.g., "Forget the Deathly Hallows, Voldemort's master plan should have been to build a bundle of a thousand wands, use a potion to enlarge his hand, Apparate next to Hogwarts and Avada-Kedavra the entire chateau into a crater."reference and then dial it up to eleven).
As has been mentioned, we could compare low-op D&D to vanilla Potterverse (where Harry Potter and the Natural 20 has already been mentioned); Milo is a "munchkin" with a few op tricks but woefully optimized in other regards. Even so, even at the low-to-mid levels he is comparable to Potterverse wizards, and one suspects that the D&D quadratic/exponential wizard progression is a lot steeper than the Potterverse one.
If nothing else, the Unforgiveables seem directly defeatable by D&D magic (protection from evil/mind blank, limited wish: death ward, and limited wish: favor of the martyr/Ilmater, though spamming limited wish directly is not something one would wish to have to do a lot without XP exploits).
Quote:
Regeneration (Ex)
Atropals take normal damage from good weapons or sentient weapons (or otherwise living weapons).
Only weapons are effective against it's regeneration.Quote:
Regeneration (Ex)
A pit fiend takes normal damage from good-aligned silvered weapons, and from spells or effects with the good descriptor.
EDIT: Of course perhaps an effect like veraverto on a rat could produce a flail that could fulfill the requirements.
Well if we can always compare and contrast the HP D20...
https://sites.google.com/site/harrypotterd20/
would it not be easier then to better flesh out the VS thread?
And to the Fiendfyre spell or is it called charm?, would energy immunity-fire work?
Well fiend(whatever its spelled) fyre is living fire pretty much, if it would be considered a living spell it might not work (duno about the ruling there)
but if its more like a stylized fire elemental then it could hurt the Atropal.
The main issue (again) is that we do not know what a spell/ability/item would be considered if we translate it to d&d, we can only guess.
/edit on another thought with all the wand lore etc etc wands could very well be considered sentient weapons, question would be if the sentient property is conveyed to ray attacks made with the weapon?
That's not the problem:
It converts all damage not dealt by those weapons (and only weapons not effects or spells) to nonlethal damage no matter how much it is.Quote:
Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid (the regeneration entry lists the exceptions), deal damage to the creature normally; that sort of damage doesn’t convert to nonlethal damage and so doesn’t go away.
As a result it converts all damage except from the specified sources to nonlethal but it is immune to nonlethal. It could walk on the surface of the sun or take billions of points of damage or even an infinite amount without taking any if it weren't the right type. Combined with the immunities of being an undead and the immunities of an abomination make it difficult to defeat. It's not so hard for a 3.5 wizard to find a way but with the more limited nature of hpverse might be more difficult.Quote:
Traits
An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain.
Also:
Either its a reference I just dont get or your spoiler is empty :smallbiggrin:
Ah I see now, you tried an image, some websites (ie where you saved or got the image) dont allow embedding their images that way sadly, while the user ie you sees it because its in the cache :-/
I seem to remember that the Killing Curse can be blocked by physical objects. So it would be a normal ranged attack and not a ranged touch attack.
In D&D if someone threw a shield into the air to intercept a scorching ray (and the DM allowed it), then that would probably stop the ray. That doesn't mean it isn't a touch attack. If AK hits you, you are dead -- no defenses can stop it short of an extremely special set of circumstances.
I am not sure if an object ever intercepted AK, besides cover. An animated object did and a pheonix did, but that's it as best I recall.
Just a random comment but what does it say about D&D if Harry Potter wizards are much less munchkinish and exploitable than D&D arcane casters?
Narrative, vaguely established system versus rules-heavy precisely defined, poorly balanced system? I don't know where you get munchkinism from but naturally D&D is going to have more potential power simply because D&D has magic designed in a very open-ended manner and simply far more spells for different purposes (3.5 alone has probably thousands of spells, versus the under 100 seen in HPverse).
Actually, there are likely a lot more than 100 spells seen - I only managed to compile those up to D and am already at 58 spells. So a rough estimate would put the number of observed spells somewhere between 250 and 500, assuming a somewhat equal distribution of spell names over starting letters (yes, I know there aren't that many spells that start with 'z' - thus the large confidence interval).
However, many of those spells have extremely similar effects (Bombarda and the smashing spell, for example, are functionally identical, as are alohomora and cistem aperio).
After looking into it, I concur that an optimization of observed potterverse would be on-par with mid-op dnd - they get unlimited at-wills, as warlocks do - but they gain access to between 250 and 500 spell-likes, which gives sufficient versatility for most situations even if some of those spell-likes are functionally identical.
An optimization of implied potterverse (or, as another poster called it, Potippyverse) is hard to gauge, in my opinion: Spell research exists in that universe, but we are never, ever given even the slightest indication of the rules behind that research, knowing only that it exists and that skilled student-level practitioners (Snape, Hermione) can practice spell research.
One (extremely shaky way) to establish boundaries of HP-Spell Research for the purpose of discussion might be to continue my above list, find out what the level equivalent of the highest level effect HP-wizards can produce is, and set this as the upper limit of spell research.
After that, we run into issues of the DnD system - namely that Gate is far more powerful than Meteor Swarm...
If we leave spell research out completely, that would be like ignoring, say, Gate and Teleport Circle in a discussion of the upper bounds of power possible in DnD.
Yes, that is true for the spells Snape created. However, I'm working on the assumption that all spells were researched, therefore, we should take the most powerful ones as an upper limit if we try to answer the original question (Tippyverse Potterverse).
Indeed, the idea that all spells have been researched at some time is supported by the fact that the natural state of Potterverse magic is accidental, uncontrolled magic that children exhibit.
Gate is an established fact of Tippyverse, while spell research is extremely rare because it requires DM intervention.
Spell research is an established fact of Potterverse, while very powerful spells like Gate are extremely rare because they make it harder for the narrator to establish a believable story.
DnD and Potterverse work differently and have different established facts, and if we try at all to make this comparison, we should try to consider these differences when making it.
Yes, that would be the result of trying to convert the widespread ability of Potterverse casters to DnD and turning it up to 11 as in the scenario stated by the OP (Potippyverse...).
Huh. Well, I'll be; I guess I just never picked 'em all up.
Doesn't D&D have at least equal spell research and new magic item potential, if not greater? These are usually just ignored 'cause they're effectively limitless and remove any baseline to work off, just like Potterverse's.
Yes, that is true. If we only look at established spell effects, Potterverse (PV) would be equivalent of mid-op DnD and lose against Tippyverse.
Obviously, open ended abilities always greatly increase power (Gate, Manipulate Form,...). Spell Research, by its very nature, is more open ended than most other abilities, but more frequent in the books because Rowling can arbitrarily limit the power of magic whenever she wants.
Do you have an idea how we could port this ability, maybe taking away some of its open-endedness, but still showing that it's a capability PV has? You suggested a limit on magic item creation that's sensible for this discussion (only the magic items observed in PV are assumed to be creatable with the given, far less xp-, time- and gold-intensive process), but here, we explicitly want to implement the ability to generate new effects.
Could just call J.K. Rowling.Quote:
Yes, that is true. If we only look at established spell effects, Potterverse (PV) would be equivalent of mid-op DnD and lose against Tippyverse.
Obviously, open ended abilities always greatly increase power (Gate, Manipulate Form,...). Spell Research, by its very nature, is more open ended than most other abilities, but more frequent in the books because Rowling can arbitrarily limit the power of magic whenever she wants.
Do you have an idea how we could port this ability, maybe taking away some of its open-endedness, but still showing that it's a capability PV has? You suggested a limit on magic item creation that's sensible for this discussion (only the magic items observed in PV are assumed to be creatable with the given, far less xp-, time- and gold-intensive process), but here, we explicitly want to implement the ability to generate new effects.
But facetiousness aside, the limit is that there is no limit. neither D&D 3.x nor the Harry Potter novels ever published more rules for creating new spells than, ask the DM/author.
Unless you're willing to port in one of the myriad third party rulesets on the subject but then, again, it's a can of worms probably best left unopened.
That's just not how it work logicly.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges.
What you're doing is this :
We should allow HP verse spell research because we can see proof it happen in the book. Therefore it's an integral part of it.
Then you compare it to : DnD research is different because it require a DM.
The real comparaison are those:
New spell in the HP verse are limited by the author
New spells in DnD are limited by the DM
Those two are equals.
And then
Spell research is well established in the HP verse: we see evidence Snape and Voldemort did it.
Spell research is well established in DnD: we see evidence Mordenkainen, Bigby's, Kelgore and countless other did it.
Those two are also equal. But argument from 1 are not equals to arguments from 2. One is a metagame issue the other is an in story possibility.