bobarella_1234

it's only better in fighting, and we have more people. We have more guns. Eventually, we'll win simply because you ran out of people. and sure you could kill a bunch of us, but after about 3 or 4 people die, they're gonna notice something is up. And we have more than guns. If we only had guns, wizards would stand a chance. And the other guy already said how this one wizard could cast a spell to destroy a whole city, but how many wizards can do that, a few? Not many wizards wouldn't have to hide. Otherwise. We have things that can do it, and they can do it better. Not just nukes, there are just normal bombs capable of that. On a smaller scale and way less destructive than a nuke, though. I would like to say I'm thinking if wizards and normal humans had like a war, in the case where it's just a wizard in a city, then the wizard is gonna win because regular people can't do anything, most don't even have gun on them.

Both of you chose such specific things to say. In utility, a gun works better than Harry Potter magic simply for the fact that, anyone can pick a gun up and shoot, however not everyone can pick up a wand, and you have to have your wand for you to even use your magic. So, looking at just fighting, a gun is better because it's more accessible and easier to use. So what if I don't see you? You kill me now you're exposed, even if they can't see you, they expect you now.

I would say these aren't really needed, I think a better way to differentiate between the two narratives is instead of writing authors' pov. Just use a line to separate them. kinda like this "-------" or "______", though if you like the way it looks, then just ignore this.

To shorten your essay, this magic is magic, but that magic isn't magic. sound right to you? I agree that magic is usually something you're born with, something you slowly grow over time as you get better, but that is exactly what cultivation is. Most novels are written where you have to have a cultivation root or you can't cultivate. That's something you're born with, and then over time, you get better, stronger. Though this is most definitely a broad term for both of them. But the idea of both just equates magic. One is European, while the other is eastern. just like an eastern dragon and European dragon are both dragons. Plus, the other 2 novels I mentioned are based on magic just in both a more efficient and complicated way.

reverend insanity, the oracle paths, the primal hunter, my divine diary, and that's just a few of them. And before you say anything, cultivation is magic, just a different way of implementing it. All these are complicated, and all have magic that's actually good in combat and other areas. Most of these even go more indept than Harry Potter.

huh?! gun doesn't work? Guess I'll just nuke em. What you want is complicated magic, not versatile. Everyone can write about magic that can erase peoples memories. They can put in alchemy or even magic that forges weapons. It just depends on how deep they wanna go to complicate it. The only reason you chose Harry Potter is because it's overly complicated, and one spell could take the whole book just to set up. so yes, your choice was bad because Harry Potter magic is stupid.

I see a lot of authors promise how many words each chapter is gonna have, and I honestly think that's a bad idea. It just becomes a burden after enough time. don't write because you remixed us too, wrote because you want to.

you couldn't have picked a worse magic type than Harry potter, all you need is a gun and poof. Every single wizard in that universe is dead, not chance. oh, you wanna kill me by saying avadacadavra? Well, here's a bullet instead.

type shit

isn't she just influencing him all she wants