I get why this comes under Charm, but should it really also be under Transfiguration? Transfiguration is considered "the art of changing the form and appearance of an object". Now admittedly, when Hermione used Deprimo to blast through the floor, the form of the floor was changed, but I'm fairly sure Transfiguration is more about changing on a molecular level, rather than just smashing something up. Otherwise, such spells as Diffindo (Severing Charm) Bombarda (provokes small explosions), and Confrigo (Blasting Curse/Charm), as well as curses like Crucio which can cause an inanimate object to shatter they miss the target, would also be Transfigurations, when they're clearly not. So, anyone with me on this?Nia River 00:13, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

I understand the confusion, but no - as I explained on the edit history, its a charm through & through. A transfiguration changes what an object is, its innate being. A piece of rock blasted into tiny pieces by this charm is still rock (admitedly its rock in pieces, but the pieces are still rock) no change has actually occurred to what it is, only its state. A charm changes what an object does & how it behaves - exploding is certainly a different behaviour for the rock and "in millions of pieces" is certainly a different state. Hence: charm (and in this light the transfiguration category should be removed). This is also why the blasting charm is a charm. As for curse vs. charm, in general a charm is a charm unless its main use is malicious, against others - then it is termed a Dark spell and hence (if strong enough) a curse, even though it operates the same way a charm does. See the classification section on the spell page for more. Green Zubat 03:37, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
...Okay, I think you've completely misinterpreted my comment, because everything you're correcting me on, is precicely what I was arguing; that is to say, I was arguing for the same thing you are. It looks like someone's changed the spell type since I saw the Deprimo page last year, but it used to be double-listed under both Charm and Transfiguration (and still is actually, on the tagged categories down the bottom of the page). Someone's since erased the Transfiguration listing from the red box (but not categories at the bottom), which we both seem to agree was incorrect. So yeah, it's all good now (except maybe the categories). 04:05, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
...OMG, I don't even know how I managed to misinterpret that, very sorry! I must have been very tired at the time. But yes, the category does need changing.Green Zubat 17:02, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Basically put, anything a Muggle would deem a physical or kinetic change is a Charm; what a Muggle would deem a, for lack of better example, chemical change is a Transfiguration spell. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:07, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Dumbledore's Spell in HP5?

Okay then, so I get that I'm probably being an idiot. But Deprimo is a spell which places immense downward pressure on the target. Or so the wiki says. Dumbledore uses a spell that is described as being extremely powerful, making the hair on the back of Harry's neck stand up. Also, Voldemort must produce a shield to deflect the power of this spell; a gong-like note reverberated from the shield (it was oddly chilling). Perhaps, the gong-like note was from the copious amounts of pressure; it would be 'chilling' because of the mental image of what would happen to Voldemort if the spell had hit him. Perhaps Dumbledore used Deprimo, or some variation thereof such as Deprimo Maxima (it is never ascertained that Deprimo Maxima is a real spell, but it might be). I mean, the only use of it was Hermione in 1997 or 1998 (not sure), and she was pointing her wand downward, thus providing downward pressure. If Dumbledore pointed his wand forwards, would it not make sense for pressure to emit forward from his wand? I know you probably think it's just twisting facts to suit one's odds and ends, but a theory is a theory, whether or not it's right. Luna Malfoy 23:56, December 16, 2011 (UTC)Luna Malfoy


How do we know that this spell forces the target to the ground (as the page says) as opposed to pushing the target in general? Could it be used the same way Ventus is used in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (video game), to push logs and such away, or does it have to force something to the ground? If that's true, could someone use it to hold someone against the ground (i.e. authorities holding criminals to the ground to arrest them? 20:08, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please don't delete other's comments unless they are spam/vandalism. Anyway, we have to go by what we see in canon, and this is only confirmed to be used once. Based on the etymology, it would seem that it is only used to push with a downward force, and as the only use in canon shows it doing that, that's what we list its effect as. Extending it to anything else would be speculation. (This pretty much goes for both this and the above topic.) -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 20:16, August 24, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my deletion of the previous comment was accidental. Anywho, thanks for answering - I just wanted to make sure. 20:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)


I put the image up. I think it is good enough, the only problem being is that the gif doesn't loop. It plays once, then stops. Help please?

Oerk (talk) 02:23, September 4, 2015 (UTC)

Wormtail Use

I saw the effect of this spell in Hogwarts Mystery and was wondering maybe this was the spell Wormtail used when Sirius confronted him after Wormtail betrayed the Potters. It was said Wormtail blow up the street causing a large crater large enough that the pipes were showing. What does everybody think? Seasrmar (talk) 14:43, January 5, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.