i think it depends on how magic works... and i think the soul plays a big part in magic, because those who have their souls sucked out by dementors cant do anything, much less perform magic. And patronus charm requires strong emotion as does accidental magic. So the source of magic must be the soul directly interrelated with a person's emotions. Voldemort is not always logical but he is emotional. Rather than killing HP at the graveyard he lets the boy duel him. It is egoistical behavior but also the driving force behind magic. So if emotion and the soul are the driving force, then the wand is simply a lens to focus the power.

But for apparattion the focus is on the body and the destination so in my opinion wands arent required as an alternate focus is present in apparation.

 

English motherfucker. Speak it.

 

It was more a jab at his grammar and his illogical conclusions than anything.

This...is very poor reasoning.

 

I'm with Taure here. I'd need to reread DH to give you a quote, but I'm 99% sure it was at least strongly implied that Apparition wasn't possible without a wand. I remember stopping in my reading to acknowledge that fact. I even remember being quite pleased by it.

I had also come to the conclusion that you needed to carry the wand on you to Apparate, even though you weren't waving it around. Now I wonder if you also need a wand to transform when you're an Animagus. It would fit, I suppose...

 

It seems that you don't need a wand to transform if you are an animagus.

Sirius transformed while he was in Azkaban to escape the effects of the dementors, and to escape through the bars once he had saw the newspaper which Fudge had lent him, and was thin enough. Unless he is a super wizard who somehow hid a wand up his ass for 13 years from the Aurors and dementors, it doesn't seem that you need a wand to transform.

He also continued to transform while on the run...and I don't think it was ever implied anywhere that he had picked up or stolen a wand.

 

... Good point.

I don't know why I didn't even think of Sirius. The only thing I could think of was McGonagall transforming in front of Privet Drive. Must be tired...

 

That actually kind of helps the other point. Jim may use his glasses to drive, but it's not strictly necessary. Lack of glasses doesn't impede the car itself, or his hands and feet. He'll just be kind of shit at it.

 

That same argument could just as quickly move over to general 'wandless' magic logically. Unfortunately, we see very little proof of any wandless magic occurring in the series, and what little we do see is mostly illogical, as it either happens with the most difficult or the simplest of spells.

For example, the Animagus transformation doesn't take a wand (evidence of that in Sirius' escape), but it's supposedly intensely difficult, and you'd think that would be the spell where a wand is most needed.

Apparation may or may not take a wand (the evidence above works for both sides), but if it doesn't, that would be another difficult form of magic that can be done wandlessly.

I had points for the simpler spells (didn't Dumbledore do some?), but now I'm doubting the ones I think I remember.

 

Perhaps the Animagus transformation is only difficult because it can not be done with a wand. How would you transform back if it did? That implies the need for a much greater concentration and control that only very skilled wizards or those with the affinity for transfiguration can muster. I'd expect the same rules to apply to apparition, it could be done without a wand but would require more Delibiration and Determination.

Holding a wand while apparating can have several uses like casting a Notice-Me-Not Charm while apparating into a Muggle area or in Ron's case going to fight Bellatrix to save Hermione who was tortured by Bella at that time.

 

Animagus transformations seem to be yet another one of JKR's massive screw ups. On one hand, Sirius did not need a wand, as evident by his escaping Azkaban etc. However at the end of PoA, Peter uses the distraction from Lupin turning into a warewolf to steal a wand so he can transform into a rat. Unless Peter is actually doing human transfiguration, and is not, in fact an animagus(which is directly contradictory to canon) we can only assume that you need a wand to do the animagus transformation.

 

IIRC, this is movie canon, not book canon. In the books I think he just used the distraction as a chance to transform and escape without anyone able to stop him.

 

Er no.

If he picked up a gun and did the animagus transformation, it would amount to the same thing. Why would he escape without taking the opportunity to arm himself? The fact that he's holding a wand in no way means that it is necessary when performing the transformation, it's just something else that's on his person (like clothing, glasses, etc). McGonagal and Skeeter had markings around their eyes that resembled their glasses in human form, so does that mean that they can't transform without their glasses?

Same applies to apparation. The situations where they have their wand out while apparating are most likely for defensive purposes (see Bellatrix killing that fox immediately upon appearing in Spinner's End). Or to quickly correct a splinching problem, if it occurs.

Most magic in the HP-verse seem to be like learning the multiplication tables (albeit in various degrees): they start out as difficult when you're learning under a certain system, but then they become easier as you (a) memorize and get a hang of the system, or (b) learn or create little tricks to streamline the process.

 

think you are all forgetting the rules of magic.

rule number one : the only rules, limitation and restrictions to magic are the ones we make ourself,s .


the wand does not give them the ability to use magic it only help there focus it

 

It doesn't change the fact that they can't use their magic without a wand. Accidental magic doesn't really count.

 

I think that the wand is just a a way for wizard to be lazy. in the sixth book J.k. makes the point that tom riddle could do magic with out a wand.

I think its a case of quantity over quality sort like to take 1 week to learn a spell with a wand it take 2 weeks to learn a spell silently and 1 month to learn with out a wand. which one is your average wizard going to pick.

 

Yes, of course. That doesn't sound stupidly cliché at all. Oh wait...

I had a long ass debate about this with Taure in the Knowledge is Power thread. Basically they can, but its kinda vague in canon. Don't get me started on accidental magic.

 

So wait, I'm confused. Did Dumbledore use wandless magic in the books? I can't remember

 

I think you're forgetting that you're a fucking retard. I thought you might've learned your LURK MOAR lesson from that craptastic challenge thread you defecated onto the boards a while back but no, it apparently leaked out and here you are again.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's see, according to your infinite wisdom, (a) "J.k. makes the point that tom riddle could do magic with out a wand" and (b) "1 week to learn a spell with a wand it take 2 weeks to learn a spell silently and 1 month to learn with out a wand. which one is your average wizard going to pick." Fabulous spelling and grammar, by the way; way to make the effort.

So, continuing with your Holmes-like deductive skills, we know that Tom Riddle is anything but average, and who if not him would take the time to learn wandless spells? I mean he plans to live forever, what with all those Horcruxes, so what's "1 month to learn [a spell] with out a wand" to a guy who's immortal? So we've now deduced that Tom Riddle AKA Lord Voldemort will have taken that negligible extra time to learn all his spells wandlessly as well as silently.

Pardon me, but why the fuck would he then still bother carrying a goddamn wand? Why would this wandless-mastering magically immortal badass bother with kidnapping and torturing/interrogating Ollivander, then spend weeks or months searching for Gregorovitch and the legendary Deathstick or Elder Wand or Wand of Destiny, if he could just blast little ol' Harry Potter with a fucking Killing Curse without a damn wand?!? If you'll recall, his reason for all that shit went back to the brother-wand effect in the graveyard.

Yes, Tom Riddle could control his magic quite a bit at the orphanage before he knew about wands and being a wizard, but that in no way means he or any other person in the Harry Potter universe can up and decide they'll just learn all the spells without that pesky stick of wood. For fuck's sake, it was the first thing he wanted when he got his body back in Goblet of Fire. He broke open Dumbledore's tomb (remember, he feared dead bodies and D'dore in particular) to get the Elder Wand and killed his favorite Death Eater (Snape) when he thought that would finally make him the master of that wand. Dumbledore himself, on par with Voldemort as the most gifted and/or powerful wizard of his era, never went round without a wand either.

You tell me: Do you think having a wand might be important, that just deciding to go wandless - "the only rules, limitation and restrictions to magic are the ones we make ourself,s" - might not work out all that well?

 

^^That being said, a wand isn't necessary to complete the animagus transformation - as I explained in my last post. In September.