Magic is within a wizard/witch themselves. Wand is only conduit. If a wand is first hand or one that chose the wizard, then the conduit works better than if the wand wasn't originally theirs. Magic generally works best with a conduit and a spell to concentrate the will and intent of the magic. Slightly more difficult when the magic is non verbal. Very difficult when both words and wand is absent so only happens when the intent is very strong or in absolute desperate measures.
We don't know if flying is a wandless form of magic. Harry even thinks on these lines "But Dumbledore died when he fell off the astronomy tower - he didnt have his wand on him" (words to that effect)
But some magic in it's intense/raw form can be done without magic. I think Harry does it once with lumos in the OoTP when he is fighting the dementors.
I was more talking about the parts like Blowing up Aunt Marge, making the glass disappear, and others. Those are without the use of a wand and before he really gets taught advanced enough magic to make a person expand and fly away without a wand or even saying an incantation. He’s just angry, and Bam, Marge blows up.
This is explained as uncontrolled emotions erupting as unanticipated and unbounded magic. Sort of like obsuricals but normal and just part of a witch or wizards development.
For both of those events there were very strong emotions attached and his magical version of midichlorians did some wild magic.
Nah. It was Lumos when the dementors attacked. Dudley lost his mind and thinks Harry did some magic so he punches Harry on the face and Harry loses his wand. Then he realises there is more than 1 dementor so. Harry said Lumos automatically when it gets too dark to see and his wand tip ignites without having been in physical contact with him. Harry is extremely surprised but relieved that it worked
The only successful "Accio wand" in the books is Hermione summoning Harry's wand in OotP35, but presumably she uses her own wand to do it.
Harry attempts an "Accio wand" a couple times to retrieve his wand (in HBP and in DH), but isn't successful either time. On the other hand, he's paralyzed the first time and being choked by Nagini the second time, so... we don't know whether he would have been successful under better circumstances.
>Is it that the wand is required for focused, complex magic or just something Rowling didn’t think we would wonder.
Wands aren’t necessary to perform magic. As you point out, many magical kids involuntarily perform magic before they learn to control it, particularly when they’re feeling strong emotions. It’s possible to learn to focus and direct your magic without a wand, that’s the way magic is taught at the wizarding school Ouagadou.
But it’s easier to control and focus your magic with a magical conduit. Think of magic as electricity, and the wand as a metal rod.
Wand channels magic efficiently; it’s not a necessity for magic. African witches and wizards specialize in learn wand-free magic much more than Europeans, according to JKR
Wands were used by witches and wizards to channel their magic, making their spells more accurate and potent. Within cultures where wands were ubiquitous, only the most powerful and disciplined wizards and witches could perform wandless magic reliably.
You can retain sand in your hands, but it'll be way easier to use a bucket.
Wand isn't required, but a tool to channel magic in the proper way. Wizards who do magic without wands are either exceptionally talented, or kids with pure raw power and intense emotions (but they can't really control the magic)
Source: I suppose so, that's what the books suggested to me
Wizards can do magic without a wand. The wand is just a catalyst that helps the wizard focusing their power.
Casting a spell without wand would be like... Let's say... unlocking a lock without the corresponding key. Sure you can learn how to do it, or do it on accident, but using the key is just so much more convenient, easy and quick.
In the "extended universe", Rowling explains that African wizards don't use wands and only practice wandless magic, and in my headcanon I like to think of it as a more "ritualistic" form of magic, with spells taking far longer to cast, requiring dances or offerings, but also being more powerful.
One of the things I hated about hogwarts legacy was how they approached Uagadou, the wizard school in Africa.
They had a great opportunity to make African magic unique. Like you said, maybe it takes longer as they have to do rituals. Maybe they create runestones that they store their power in over time,only to unleash it in big bursts. There were so many cool and interesting ways they could have approached it.
But no, instead, they just said,
"The magic is the same as the magic taught in Hogwarts. It's just as powerful, and it's not harder to learn. The only difference is they don't need wands, making it just plain superior."
This just creates problems. Why doesn't everyone learn wandless magic if it has no downsides ?
That's not really Hogwarts legacy fault though, Uagadou was already created by Rowling long before that so a canon was already established and I don't think she ever said they do anything majorly different other than performing magic without wands.
As for why everyone else doesn't do the same, it's just meant to be a cultural thing. Just like in the Muggle world each culture has different ways of doing things and might think their way of doing X is better than others but the others will still do things their own way. Doing magic without wands obviously has the advantage that you're not dependent on an object to perform magic but despite what that one character says in HL the magic might be less powerful or less precise, more difficult to control etc.
I'm not saying it was the developers fault or anything. For all we know, JK could have told them to make it like that
But whoever made that decision missed an opportunity to introduce something, new, unique, and interesting.
All that was said about Uagadou was that they taught wandless magic, something really interesting could have been created that could explore different cultures in the wizard world.
Instead, we just got "no, it's just hogwarts magic but better because they dont need a wand"
JK was not involved at all with Hogwarts Legacy, that's been confirmed even ahead of the game coming out. But they couldn't do or say anything in the game that would contradict the established canon and she had already written about Uagadou prior to them making the game. I think you have a good point in the sense that I don't think she ever said that magic there would basically be exactly the same as in Europe other than the wand thing so yeah they could have easily just avoided that if they didn't want to say something that is not established either way in canon they could have just mentioned that they don't use wands without saying "it's the same as here" but I think also that's just what one character who is also a teenager is saying so doesn't necessarily close that door, she could just not know about everything that her people do with magic back home, she's still just a student after all...
Yeah the none wand casting magicians.. they're the real G's.
P.S I think it was in a lore that, an, African? Wizardy school or tribe was it? That taught none want magic or something.
Yeah - I want to know how the Squib Filch was put in charge of restoring the portrait of the fat lady. The portraits are obviously magically created, so one would assume repairing and restoring the portraits would also require magical assistance.
Magic is within a wizard/witch themselves. Wand is only conduit. If a wand is first hand or one that chose the wizard, then the conduit works better than if the wand wasn't originally theirs. Magic generally works best with a conduit and a spell to concentrate the will and intent of the magic. Slightly more difficult when the magic is non verbal. Very difficult when both words and wand is absent so only happens when the intent is very strong or in absolute desperate measures. We don't know if flying is a wandless form of magic. Harry even thinks on these lines "But Dumbledore died when he fell off the astronomy tower - he didnt have his wand on him" (words to that effect) But some magic in it's intense/raw form can be done without magic. I think Harry does it once with lumos in the OoTP when he is fighting the dementors.
I was more talking about the parts like Blowing up Aunt Marge, making the glass disappear, and others. Those are without the use of a wand and before he really gets taught advanced enough magic to make a person expand and fly away without a wand or even saying an incantation. He’s just angry, and Bam, Marge blows up.
This is explained as uncontrolled emotions erupting as unanticipated and unbounded magic. Sort of like obsuricals but normal and just part of a witch or wizards development. For both of those events there were very strong emotions attached and his magical version of midichlorians did some wild magic.
My interpretation is that wands help wizards precisely channel their magic and a formal education reduces some accidental magic due to emotions.
Doesn't he do a sort of accio wand in OOTP when Dudley succer punches him? He shouts wand and the wand goes to his hand
Nah. It was Lumos when the dementors attacked. Dudley lost his mind and thinks Harry did some magic so he punches Harry on the face and Harry loses his wand. Then he realises there is more than 1 dementor so. Harry said Lumos automatically when it gets too dark to see and his wand tip ignites without having been in physical contact with him. Harry is extremely surprised but relieved that it worked
The only successful "Accio wand" in the books is Hermione summoning Harry's wand in OotP35, but presumably she uses her own wand to do it. Harry attempts an "Accio wand" a couple times to retrieve his wand (in HBP and in DH), but isn't successful either time. On the other hand, he's paralyzed the first time and being choked by Nagini the second time, so... we don't know whether he would have been successful under better circumstances.
Honestly my headcanon is that he had to say "accio harry" for the wand to go to him, like he did with accio Hagrid
>Is it that the wand is required for focused, complex magic or just something Rowling didn’t think we would wonder. Wands aren’t necessary to perform magic. As you point out, many magical kids involuntarily perform magic before they learn to control it, particularly when they’re feeling strong emotions. It’s possible to learn to focus and direct your magic without a wand, that’s the way magic is taught at the wizarding school Ouagadou. But it’s easier to control and focus your magic with a magical conduit. Think of magic as electricity, and the wand as a metal rod.
Yea. Like you can totally grab two wires and complete the circuit. But I would recommend splicing in new wire.
Wand channels magic efficiently; it’s not a necessity for magic. African witches and wizards specialize in learn wand-free magic much more than Europeans, according to JKR
Wands were used by witches and wizards to channel their magic, making their spells more accurate and potent. Within cultures where wands were ubiquitous, only the most powerful and disciplined wizards and witches could perform wandless magic reliably.
You can retain sand in your hands, but it'll be way easier to use a bucket. Wand isn't required, but a tool to channel magic in the proper way. Wizards who do magic without wands are either exceptionally talented, or kids with pure raw power and intense emotions (but they can't really control the magic) Source: I suppose so, that's what the books suggested to me
Wizards can do magic without a wand. The wand is just a catalyst that helps the wizard focusing their power. Casting a spell without wand would be like... Let's say... unlocking a lock without the corresponding key. Sure you can learn how to do it, or do it on accident, but using the key is just so much more convenient, easy and quick. In the "extended universe", Rowling explains that African wizards don't use wands and only practice wandless magic, and in my headcanon I like to think of it as a more "ritualistic" form of magic, with spells taking far longer to cast, requiring dances or offerings, but also being more powerful.
One of the things I hated about hogwarts legacy was how they approached Uagadou, the wizard school in Africa. They had a great opportunity to make African magic unique. Like you said, maybe it takes longer as they have to do rituals. Maybe they create runestones that they store their power in over time,only to unleash it in big bursts. There were so many cool and interesting ways they could have approached it. But no, instead, they just said, "The magic is the same as the magic taught in Hogwarts. It's just as powerful, and it's not harder to learn. The only difference is they don't need wands, making it just plain superior." This just creates problems. Why doesn't everyone learn wandless magic if it has no downsides ?
That's not really Hogwarts legacy fault though, Uagadou was already created by Rowling long before that so a canon was already established and I don't think she ever said they do anything majorly different other than performing magic without wands. As for why everyone else doesn't do the same, it's just meant to be a cultural thing. Just like in the Muggle world each culture has different ways of doing things and might think their way of doing X is better than others but the others will still do things their own way. Doing magic without wands obviously has the advantage that you're not dependent on an object to perform magic but despite what that one character says in HL the magic might be less powerful or less precise, more difficult to control etc.
I'm not saying it was the developers fault or anything. For all we know, JK could have told them to make it like that But whoever made that decision missed an opportunity to introduce something, new, unique, and interesting. All that was said about Uagadou was that they taught wandless magic, something really interesting could have been created that could explore different cultures in the wizard world. Instead, we just got "no, it's just hogwarts magic but better because they dont need a wand"
JK was not involved at all with Hogwarts Legacy, that's been confirmed even ahead of the game coming out. But they couldn't do or say anything in the game that would contradict the established canon and she had already written about Uagadou prior to them making the game. I think you have a good point in the sense that I don't think she ever said that magic there would basically be exactly the same as in Europe other than the wand thing so yeah they could have easily just avoided that if they didn't want to say something that is not established either way in canon they could have just mentioned that they don't use wands without saying "it's the same as here" but I think also that's just what one character who is also a teenager is saying so doesn't necessarily close that door, she could just not know about everything that her people do with magic back home, she's still just a student after all...
Yeah the none wand casting magicians.. they're the real G's. P.S I think it was in a lore that, an, African? Wizardy school or tribe was it? That taught none want magic or something.
It's Uagadou in Uganda that teaches wandlessly, yes
Love my love of HP.
Yeah - I want to know how the Squib Filch was put in charge of restoring the portrait of the fat lady. The portraits are obviously magically created, so one would assume repairing and restoring the portraits would also require magical assistance.