so we all know that in the fantasy archetype of Wizards there are three major apparatus that a wizard can use

Wands: Harry Potter, Dungeons and Dragons

Staves: Lord of the Rings (namely Gandalf) Dungeons and Dragons

Hand-casting: TES, Merlin the Wizard (I think)

so which do you prefer, personally I'm partial to a staff, every wizard should have a kick-ass staff

Hands due to inherent weakness of relying on a stick

Hand casting for me. If I had a wand I'd lose it and a staff would be cumbersome I reckon - I don't even think it would fit in the boot of my car.

Staves, provided that they can also be used as a melee weapon like a quarterstaff or something.

Wands are lame.

Staves are only cool when you have a robe and a huge beard. I prefer hand-casting, Merlin is awesome.

Definitely hands.

Wands look kinda gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

And Staves; as mentioned before, would be way to hard to carry around, and would look awkward unless you're in a fantasy setting.

Hands make casting spells look cool. Some more examples you could use could be Fable, Star Wars (although it's not magic, but force; it's the same principle), or Sorcerers Apprentice (although in that, unless you're the most powerful wizard of all time; you need a trinket of some sort to be on your person.)

Mind. Basic users however need the movements to help them bring forth the necessary thoughts to summon the magick. Skilled users could just think and things change, but you don't see that too often.

Hands. Cause how is some stick more badass than shooting lightning from your [censored] hand?

Problem with that is getting distracted by boobs or leaf

There's no reason spell casting needs to be constrained to the three options presented. Why no option for casting via speech? Or thought? Or symbols? Or maybe something more unusual? Out of the presented options, though, I'd go with hands, why use a stick to cast spells when you can instead do it with your bare hands? In any case, wands have always come off as a little silly to me, it makes me think of someone who does parlor tricks to entertain crowds, not some powerful wizard. And I've never got why wizards always have staves. How does a stick help with their spell casting, unless the staff itself is magic? Does a long wooden object just naturally make magic stronger? Or does the staff have nothing to do with using magic, but serve some other purpose? Is it some sort of status symbol among wizards? Or is it just because wizards are stereotypically frail old men who need the staff for support? Unless there's a specific reason explained in the story for the staff, it just seems to me like it's kind of a pointless stereotype only done because it's a stereotype.

Hands. It's magic, why should I need a device for it? Besides, in all my dreams, my "magic" casting uses no apparatus. Fireball directly from the hand! Telekinesis directly from the hand! And none of that "need to scribe sigils in the air" and "need to speak words" stuff neither.

If I was gonna go with hands, I'd also have to have a sword, that way I could enchant it.

Personally, I'd go with the staff. Magic + Beating Stick + Walking Stick. "Hey old man, nice cane. Hahahaha!" *woosh* "MY HAIR'S ON FIRE!!!"

I don't think they should limit the magical items to the cliche wizard/warlock stuff we've seen for years. I'd like a more original approach.. perhaps the leg bone of a demon could be a magical item used as a staff or severed hand of an ancient witch atop a lance.

Exactly, the best casters this way tend to be the most iron willed. Or have uh... different tastes.

Hands of course. And with my Portuguese heritage I feel more inclined to use http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfh6WU6IJMo&feature=related.

Wands are for prissy little rabbit tricks at birthday parties. Jury is out on the staffs...

Hand-casting+staves. Channeling magic though a magic staff should make magic more powerful, but you should never need an implement to cast.
Wands are pretty lame though, and Harry Potter magic is weak.

Yup, always disappointed with the lack of spells only like 9 were used most of them some weak added spells...

Don't get me wrong I loved HP, but when their most powerful spell is one that kills a single person, than the magic is weak. Anyone who argues that Dumbledore would beat Gandalf is a blind really devoted fan.

I thought fiend fyre was more powerful, killed a guy or two and a horcrux

Lol we can’t say Fan Boy.
Anyway still, their reliance on implements and the fact that they have to speak the incantation. Only their most powerful wizards can bypass this. Powerful Potter wizard= average fantasy wizard.

I like a combination of the three, like Dresden in The Dresden Files.

He used his staff for general stuff, wand for burning things, and hands for when he didn't have a staff.

Overall, though, I would say that hands are definitely the most bad ass. I mean, staves are alright, wands I don't particularly care for, but hands are wicked awesome.

Gotta agree with the majority here. Hands>Staff>Wand. Gandolf>Dumbledore

That.

For HP I was more interested in the magical consumerism

I'm partial to all 3 to be honest and would love to see a game mechanic mix things up.

1. Wands/Sticks - Allows for channeling of spells and casting of advanced magic forms. Downside being a broken stick = no usable magic along this line + longer casting time.
2. Staffs/Tree Limbs - Highest magic casting form granting faster casting, but requiring alot of juice to cast.
3. Hand Casting - Fastest casting, but restricted to simple magic forms.

If I had to absolutely choose 1 form over another it would be the Stave/Staff since I play druid characters in almost every MMO game I play that allows for that type of healer. Really like using the Staff to perform healing abilities, curing illnesses, etc... seeing the animation play through.