Harry Potter Durability Upgrade

[LuckyEmile]

I noticed that Harry Potter's durability, without magic enhancements and the like, is only Human Level. Whilst I don't know an awful lot about Harry Potter, I feel this is a bit low, and here's why.

In the film Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, which this wiki appears to accept as a source (as I saw it mentioned on the Harry Potter verse page), there is a certain scene which implies that Wizards (or whatever Harry's species is) are more durable than humans.

Newt (a Wizard like Harry) and his human friend are trying to recapture a large, rhino-like beast. Newt recommends that the human puts on a magically enhanced helmet so that he can be more durable, as he remarks that Wizards have better durability than humans. As Newt doesn't seem to feel the need for a helmet too, yet was the one who would be in most danger in his plan, this should imply they are quite a bit stronger. I'd probably rank this at at least Street level durability.

We could possibly take this a step further, as this was one huge beast, so by size alone should be very powerful, and was also to break down walls at the zoo where it was found. Not sure if this really counts towards durability, as Newt was never really hit by the thing, and this is all based on implication, but there could be the chance of Wall level durability.

So, what does this mean for the verse? I guess we would upgrade the base defence of Harry, and all other Wizards too, since Wizards as a whole were more durable according to Newt, not just Newt alone. So... yeah!

 

[Antvasima]

This all seems a bit too speculative for me. I also do not remember Newt stating that wizards are more durable than humans.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

Wizards are indeed more resilient than typical humans. But I recall no feats or statements indicating anything beyond Street level durability for wizards.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I trust your judgement, but do you remember any mentions of this?

 

[Soldier_Blue]

I'm just going by observation/feats. There are no explicit mentions of certain physical superiorities in human wizards compared to Muggle humans other than extended lifespans and Subsonic reactions (and that thing about resilience).

Hagrid once bent a shotgun barrel with two fingers. But he's part giant and that enhanced physical power would be unique to giants.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I am afraid that we need more to go on in order to upgrade their durabilities.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

I'd like to add that HP-Verse wizards are consistently shown being harmed by fairly simple means. Harry broke his arm after falling from his broomstick, Neville broke his wrist from a fall of his own, Ron was knocked out and nearly killed in the first installment during the life-sized Wizard's Chess segment (where the queen stabbed the knight he was riding [not Ron himself] and caused it to violently fragment) and also snapped his leg when it got caught in a tree branch while he was being dragged by Sirius Black, Malfoy was nearly killed by a Street level spell and would have died without medical attention, etc.

In terms of physicality, these characters are not superhumans. Looking at the evidence, Human level durability ratings are what makes sense for them.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that human durability makes sense as well.

 

[LuckyEmile]

The durability of wizards > humans in durability was mentioned in this very scene, I hoped I explained it clearly, but I guess not.

Basically, Newt (the one in most danger in his plan) went unprotected, but gave his human friend a special helmet because he claimed Wizards can take much more of a beating than humans, or words to those effects. As he was the one in most danger, if he wasn't confident of this, he'd probably wear a helmet too, plus he outright states it.

So, that is where it was stated, sorry I didn't make that clear enough.

Edit: just to clarify, that wall level part was really just a "whilst we're on this scene". The main point was they should probably be street level, but since he could have technically been interpreted to be confident he could takes hit from a wall-level entity, I thought I'd mention it, but due to him never actually taking hits from it in the end, we don't have enough to go off to actually say Wall level unless people found it legitamate. As for the street level, I think that was seems pretty legitimate, hence why I made the blog.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

It does make sense that wizards have higher durability than humans. Humans, when prepared to receive certain hits, like falling from a horse, can safely take hits that would otherwise break bones. Same thing goes for wizards.

 

[LuckyEmile]

True, but what does you analogy mean for saying they have higher durability than humans?

 

[EliminatorVenom]

I say this because, even when unprepared, they take blows that should otherwise cripple humans. (Should've clarified more, sorry)

Most spells are capable of causing pretty hefty damage to an unprepared human, even the most basic ones. When prepared, I am not sure since it's been years since I last read the books, but I'm positive they could take spells that hurled them several meters in the air (I vividly recall Snape doing so to Lockhart) or even had explosive effects, which would probably fall under the lowest bounds of Wall level.

I think they should be Street level normally, tbh.

 

[LuckyEmile]

I agree with you, especially due to Newt's statements, which inspired me to upgrade when I saw how low the durability was.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

I should have clarified up above. I'm sorry for not doing this earlier. My mind is in three places at once today.

Street level durability for wizards is okay. It's just that Wall level seems a bit much.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

Wall level is too much indeed, considering they're still hurt by things that hurt normal humans as well.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that street level might be acceptable.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

We should probably make it an 'at most' Street level rating then, given how fairly normal threats can still hurt/kill all of them. I still feel as if human durability is what these characters have, but I suppose low-end Street level is not that much of a difference.

 

[Antvasima]

"At most Street level" should work.

 

[LuckyEmile]

Okay, sounds pretty good.

"It's just that Wall level seems a bit much." - Soldier Blue

"Wall level is too much indeed" - EliminatorVenom

I agree with you two there. I was just throwing it out there, but it's based on an odd interpretation not even I really agree with. I think "At most Street Level" is apt for reasons above.

 

[Kepekley23]

I remember an interview where someone asked J.K Rowling something like:

"Would a wizard die after being hit by a bullet?"

Her response was "It's not that simple".

 

[AidenBrooks999]

I a long time ago asked Gwyn about upgrading HP characters to Street and Athlete level durability

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

I remember an interview where someone asked J.K Rowling something like:
"Would a wizard die after being hit by a bullet?"

Her response was "It's not that simple".

This is a prime example of how unreliable Word of God can be.

There is absolutely nothing in HP that suggests the verse's wizards can survive being shot with guns, and this statement in particular is far too vague to take as any sort of fact by itself.

 

[Kepekley23]

I remember an interview where someone asked J.K Rowling something like:
"Would a wizard die after being hit by a bullet?"

Her response was "It's not that simple".

This is a prime example of how unreliable Word of God can be.
There is absolutely nothing in HP that suggests the verse's wizards can survive being shot with guns, and this statement in particular is far too vague to take as any sort of fact by itself.

I agree with you 100%

I was just posting it for fun.

 

[Heilergott]

I remember an interview where someone asked J.K Rowling something like:
"Would a wizard die after being hit by a bullet?"

Her response was "It's not that simple".

This is a prime example of how unreliable Word of God can be.
There is absolutely nothing in HP that suggests the verse's wizards can survive being shot with guns, and this statement in particular is far too vague to take as any sort of fact by itself.

I think this just means, well, that it depends on the wizard. I mean, look at Neville. Neville survived a fall that should have killed him by making himself bouncy. Harry could apparate without a wand.

Accidental Magic is really a powerful force - especially when you think that a Obscurus is just accidental magic in it's highest state. Sadly it is not yet stated what exactly decides when accidental magic can be triggered. Voldemort and Grindelwald can do it whenever they want it seems, in the form of wandless magic. Maybe her weird answer had something to do with this?

 

[Soldier_Blue]

Please stop quoting walls of text.