Wandless magic is easy, huh?

[Bassilth]

I thought only powerful and practiced wizards can do wandless magic in HP lore reliably. Sure, some small spells can be done without a wand but all spells? Wandless magic is supposed to be difficult and unruly in the HP universe.

But according to Hogwarts Legacy writers, there is no difference between wandless magic and magic used with wands. Which means Expelliarmus is obsolete because you can just use all your spells without your wand. Oh and wand material, core, and length apparently dont affect magic either for some reason anymore.

Did the writers/devs just break the lore at its foundation?

[Nippleguy1968]

less talk, more play

[MonkeyBone]

Most people view it as cope. In the same conversation the girl even admits she'd find it hard to return to non-wand spellcasting.

[Ansgar Odinson]

I just assumed she was telling tall tales and exaggerating to a degree.

[Jerroser]

In the first book I remember that prior to learning about Hogwarts Harry did have several moments where he clearly used magic without knowing and obviously without a wand. But I agree that if wands didn't help then they wouldn't be something used by basically every wizard we encounter in the story.

The best explanation I can think of is that the Ugandan magic users focus so heavily on wandless magic that they can perform decently. But its more a case of stubbornly making do with a style they're used to even if its no where near as efficient just doing it with a wand instead.

[Bassilth]

Originally posted by MonkeyBone:

Most people view it as cope. In the same conversation the girl even admits she'd find it hard to return to non-wand spellcasting.

Yes but it still breaks HP lore. Wands are supposed to make spells way more potent and focused, easier to cast. Plus wandless magic is unruly and only practiced wizards can use it without issues. But the girl literally says that there is no difference. Like what? You even HP universe, bro?

In HP universe wands, their type, their core, and their length is supposed to have a meaning and how powerful or versatile you will be with magic. Your magic depends on the wand.

If wandless magic was possible, then Voldemort could have wandless AK Harry instead of duelling him at the end.

I am not deep in HP lore but that girl and her tales about wandless magic gave me a 'bruh' moment.

[Swamp Fox]

Game isn't written by the franchise's living author, so game is non-canon. Don't let it bother you too much.

[Bassilth]

Originally posted by Patrick Swayze's Ghost:

Game isn't written by the franchise's living author, so game is non-canon. Don't let it bother you too much.

Yeah, I am trying to look the other way but wands are such a huge part of the HP universe that it is an outright crime to disregard it. It is like making Hogwarts into a regular school for normal children.

[werwolfgaming]

no hp lore is that hogwarts dont teach wandless magic so its not common meaning unless ur powerfull u wont be able to do it since ur used to using wands in africas school they all teach wandless magic making most off those students where natty is from very common and easy its confirmed by jk rowling that wandless magic in africa is way more common and taught its just that they grow up learning wandless magic so its way easier for them than someone like harry who grew up using a wand

[werwolfgaming]

Originally posted by Bassilth:

Originally posted by Patrick Swayze's Ghost:

Game isn't written by the franchise's living author, so game is non-canon. Don't let it bother you too much.

Yeah, I am trying to look the other way but wands are such a huge part of the HP universe that it is an outright crime to disregard it. It is like making Hogwarts into a regular school for normal children.

it is lore than wandless magic is very common where natty is from seeing as they grow up learning it and is activly taught it while hogwarts dont teach wandless magic making it very rare for someone to do wandless magic unless they powerfull

[Shahadem]

Originally posted by Bassilth:

Originally posted by MonkeyBone:

Most people view it as cope. In the same conversation the girl even admits she'd find it hard to return to non-wand spellcasting.

Yes but it still breaks HP lore. Wands are supposed to make spells way more potent and focused, easier to cast. Plus wandless magic is unruly and only practiced wizards can use it without issues. But the girl literally says that there is no difference. Like what? You even HP universe, bro?

In HP universe wands, their type, their core, and their length is supposed to have a meaning and how powerful or versatile you will be with magic. Your magic depends on the wand.

If wandless magic was possible, then Voldemort could have wandless AK Harry instead of duelling him at the end.

I am not deep in HP lore but that girl and her tales about wandless magic gave me a 'bruh' moment.

The books don't mention wands being better so much as easier to control children's use of magic than wandless magic. Wizards use wands because Rowling wanted to write about wizards casting spells with wands. There is no need to take the discussion any further as that is the base reason for the use of wands.

Also the wand isn't what makes a wizard's magic stronger or weaker. Rather wizard's have wands based on what their destiny will be and their personality is. Riddle was very vane and overly proud of his heritage. So his wand had an incredibly rare core to match his own vanity and sense of self importance.

[Bassilth]

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

no hp lore is that hogwarts dont teach wandless magic so its not common meaning unless ur powerfull u wont be able to do it since ur used to using wands in africas school they all teach wandless magic making most off those students where natty is from very common and easy its confirmed by jk rowling that wandless magic in africa is way more common and taught its just that they grow up learning wandless magic so its way easier for them than someone like harry who grew up using a wand

So, again, wand lore, core, material, length means nothing at all?
Why give yourself a handicap with a wand when wandless magic is just as easy and powerful regardless of wands? Does this mean that Hogwarts is knowingly giving their students a handicap? Why didnt they teach their students wandless magic to trump the dark lord, then? Expelliarmus could be avoided. Why didnt Voldemort do wandless magic to avoid weakness? If wandless magic is just as potent?

[werwolfgaming]

"However, the wand was a European invention, and some cultures did not traditionally rely upon such tools for performing magic.[1][2] Native Americans had their own practices that predated European colonisation, and did not require a wand;[1] African witches and wizards only adopted the wand in the 20th century, and even in the modern era, wands were not necessary for many of their practices.[2]"

[werwolfgaming]

Originally posted by Shahadem:

Originally posted by Bassilth:

Yes but it still breaks HP lore. Wands are supposed to make spells way more potent and focused, easier to cast. Plus wandless magic is unruly and only practiced wizards can use it without issues. But the girl literally says that there is no difference. Like what? You even HP universe, bro?

In HP universe wands, their type, their core, and their length is supposed to have a meaning and how powerful or versatile you will be with magic. Your magic depends on the wand.

If wandless magic was possible, then Voldemort could have wandless AK Harry instead of duelling him at the end.

I am not deep in HP lore but that girl and her tales about wandless magic gave me a 'bruh' moment.

The books don't mention wands being better so much as easier to control children's use of magic than wandless magic. Wizards use wands because Rowling wanted to write about wizards casting spells with wands.

yes wands was invented by european wizards to make it easier to channel the magic making it easier to teach younger wizards while it wasent needed it just made it easier to cast spells

[Bassilth]

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

"However, the wand was a European invention, and some cultures did not traditionally rely upon such tools for performing magic.[1][2] Native Americans had their own practices that predated European colonisation, and did not require a wand;[1] African witches and wizards only adopted the wand in the 20th century, and even in the modern era, wands were not necessary for many of their practices.[2]"

I have an issue with the comment that it is equally potent (girl says no difference at all) and easy to learn (See: students learn it), which is not the case in the HP universe we see.

[werwolfgaming]

Originally posted by Bassilth:

Originally posted by werwolfgaming:

no hp lore is that hogwarts dont teach wandless magic so its not common meaning unless ur powerfull u wont be able to do it since ur used to using wands in africas school they all teach wandless magic making most off those students where natty is from very common and easy its confirmed by jk rowling that wandless magic in africa is way more common and taught its just that they grow up learning wandless magic so its way easier for them than someone like harry who grew up using a wand

So, again, wand lore, core, material, length means nothing at all?
Why give yourself a handicap with a wand when wandless magic is just as easy and powerful regardless of wands? Does this mean that Hogwarts is knowingly giving their students a handicap? Why didnt they teach their students wandless magic to trump the dark lord, then? Expelliarmus could be avoided. Why didnt Voldemort do wandless magic to avoid weakness? If wandless magic is just as potent?

plot armor? and after using wands for thousands off years since its invention i doupt many wizards at hogwarts except some powerfull once like dumbledore could even do it plus the dark lord dident become an issue untill harrys fourth year meaning by then learning wandless magic would be like switching ur fighting style completely in the middle off everything it would just trip him up trying to learn a new type off magic casting