How much of his power does Harry Potter lose if he does not have his wand? Are there things he cannot do without his wand? Are there things for which the wand makes no difference?
That sounds like a homework question.
It seems that a wizard is completely powerless without a wand. Wand motions are a key component in practically all of Harry’s spells, including making potions. The first thing they do with dangerous wizards is take away their wands. This works pretty well until they can steal another one, or get access to some other enchanted device. They can, however, unconciously cast spells. We’ve never seen an adult do it, and never seen a wizard do it on purpose. It could be a trait that vanishes once someone’s trained to do magic, which raises the possibility of alternate training methods allowing a wizard to do without a wand.
Some wizards have certain innate traits that work even without a wand. Harry, for example, can talk to snakes.
In the new movie Harry does some pretty mean magic on that old woman at the beginning. Is this something an adult could not do?
The Weasley Twins are able to effect a number of magical transformations and other spells using their practical jokes and prank gags – without a wand.
It has long been established that Harry, Voldemort and Dumbledore are among the most powerful wizards in existence. Harry is a wizard in training; but it may be that as a being of power he can willfully produce some spells without a wand, simply by virtue of his giftedness.
It also strikes me likely that many of the spells attributed to Harry without his using a wand (making the glass vanish at the snake pit at the zoo, disappearing from Dudley’s bully friends only to appear on a rooftop, the mean trick on the Muggle lady) perhaps work because they’re cast on non-wizard artifacts, places and people. I can’t remember – did he have that wand on him when he and Dudley were attacked by that Dementor in the alley?
As animagi – did Wormtail, Moody, Padfoot or Prongs needs wands to transform into animals? Can’t remember, too lazy to look it up.
Fred and George’s joke items had to be enchanted by using their wands, most likely… same for all of the enchanted Muggle artifacts that Mr. Weasley deals with daily. Though they are thereafter self-propelled, a wizard apparently had to have a wand to enchant them in the first place. Ditto for the animagi; they probably had to have wands to become animagi in the first place, but apparently not to transform once they had become so.
Other than that, Harry is apparently only able to control his magic while in possession of his wand; all other magic acts that occur without it, have been unconscious. This is in line with what I understand to be the tradition of both the wand and the pointed hat–to provide a point of focus for energy and enable the sorceror to harness it.
House elves apparently do not need a wand to perform magic, but they are not human.
In the movie, Pettigrew needed his wand to turn back into a rat. I can’t remember how it worked in the books, though.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but in the book Pettigrew didn’t try to turn back into a rat. I think it was just kinda pointless at the time he was found out. I know that the teacher that turns into a cat doesn’t need one to make that change, so I imagine that the rest of the animagi don’t either.
It seems kinda silly that the wizards need a wand to work magic. Seems that they should be able to focus their “magik” or whatever in some other more convenient way. Someone needs to start thinking outside of the box.
–==Mike==–
Back when I was crazy and thinking seriously about the probabilities of magic, I realized (other people might have too) that you dont need wands or spell components or magic words or anything. Know how everyone says we only use 10% (or whatever) of our brains? know how energy can be transformed into matter somehow? There ya go. Its inside your mind, you just have to learn how to let it out.
But thats boring, so the stories have eye of newt and phoenix-feather wands and alakazaam.
Yes, he did, and yes, he had to get his hands on a wand first. He’s probably a little out of practice, though…
I agree with the idea that they can do some magic without the wand, but the wand focuses and strengthens it; people were doing “wave the hand, move the chair” kinds of things throughout the movie, but they were all adults. One assumes they could throw much bigger things around if they had their wands out.
Slight tangent.
Background : I’ve seen the three movies, but read none of the books yet.
Question : At the end of Azkaban, there’s a lot of wand-trading going around … Lucius, Harry, Sirius, Peter… in fact Harry lifts Hermione’s wand from her pocket and uses it to blast Snape.
I thought Wizards were attuned to their own wands? Harry had so much trouble with the other wands in the store in the first movie… can they use anybody’s?
Remember, he was quite young and inexperienced, being brand new to the whole wizarding thing. Experience with maturity would give better results, much like borrowing someone else’s car and having to deal with the fact that the steering wheel pulls to the left, the horn is on the turn signal handle, and the passenger side A/C unit doesn’t work. However, it does have a 6 disc CD changer with a remote control unit on the center drink console, while your car only gets AM radio and the washer fluid leaks, but it does have a removable moon roof and electrically heated reclining bucket seats.
Okay… but if I’d randomly picked that other person’s car to learn on, I’d be just as well off learning using it as I would learning using the car the salesman told me I was ‘destined to have.’
Do they explain the wand thing somewhere in the books?
Actually, I meant more mature wizards would be able to handle the quirks of using someone else’s wand in a situation, pinch, or an emergency, just as an adult (someone with more driving experience) driver would be able to adapt more quickly to ‘oddities’ in someone else’s car than a teen (someone with less driving experience) driver.
(Sorry if I was not fully clear in my post. Gotta get to the gym and trying to catch up on a lot of stuff.)
In the first book, when Harry has to get his wand, it’s talked about. I’m doing this from memory, so I don’t have a quote, but the idea is that other wands would work – but not as well. The more attuned you and the wand are to each other, the more difficult spells you can do. So it’s probably not a big deal if you’re trying a simple “Expelliarmus”, but if you want a good Patronus charm… you need the right wand.
Or, in the words of Tim Allen, the right wand gives you “MORE POWER!” (ug, ug, ug.)
It is my thought that the whole “destined to have” thing on Harry’s wand had more to do with the prophecy and…
his wand being a mate (brother?) to Voldemort’s wand. In GoF, if memory serves, Dumbledore explains that Harry’s wand and Voldemort’s wand both have one of Fawkes’ tailfeathers…in fact, the only two Fawkes had ever given.
So like I said…this may be a special case for Harry, and most newbie wizards just try out for feel or look before they buy.
FB
Okay. I had just formed the idea from the first movie that using another wizard’s wand was something not easily done. All caught up now.
And there’s some line somewhere (book? movie? both?) about “the wand picks the wizard”.
In times of crisis we’ve seen plays made for other people’s wands, so it seems that any wand is better than nothing. However, you’re going to get the best results from a particular kind and length of wood and a certain type of magical core. The wand salesman’s job is to help you find the wand that’s best for you. It may be kind of like choosing the perfect golf club.
I don’t think wands are necessary for potion making, although I can’t remember for sure – it may be that the potion isn’t really complete until it’s given a final “zap”.