Okay we all have wizards staffs so why not have wizard wands? Same concept but it a MUCH smaller single handed design so that you could dual wield it with a longsword or something. Would that not just look awesome shooting a stream of fire or lightning from a wand and hacking with a longsword at the same time? You could also have wands with constant effects such as when they are equipped a shield of pure glowing magical energy appears on your arm until the wand either breaks or is unequipped the opposite effect could be that a wicked looking glowing sword blade could appear from the tip of the wand until it breaks.

The gameplay trailer already confirms 1h staffs.

So you mean you want a staff but smaller? I don't get it, why would u want that? and about the magic shield, I think that's in as a spell called "ward" or something.

Because you want to RP as Harry Potter? LOL.

Never liked wands pretty girly and doesn't really say "badass wizard that can place the solar system into interplaentary alignment with sheer will alone" like a staff does.

So they should also have Griffindors robe? and everything else in Harry Potter?

There aren't any "real" wizards (in any books or movies that I'm aware of) who use wands. Everyone uses a staff in every book, movie, and game that exists when using some sort of tree branch for magic. Only in Harry Potter do they use wands. In addition the gameplay trailer has already shown a PC holding a staff in his left hand and a sword in his right and using the staff. Wands are unnecessary and feminine. Get a real tree branch like a wizard, not a twig like a weakling :toughninja:

Exactly my meaning :thumbsup:

Erm... -excuse- me?

I beg to differ! Hey, you might not count -him-... because he's a bit creepy and dark... but http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://gamefog.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/necromancer-history.jpg&imgrefurl=http://gamefog.tripod.com/&usg=__zVrLHKDWSFeqkJwQV8j8Gx0woBc=&h=450&w=275&sz=16&hl=en&start=0&sig2=wyHHAPqYopprVrq1oZ9eVA&zoom=1&tbnid=ekEMi-LSVArBEM:&tbnh=152&tbnw=95&ei=ZQVwTarDMMedOr7VgMAG&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDiablo%2BII,%2BNecromancer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D816%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=453&vpy=90&dur=1244&hovh=287&hovw=175&tx=98&ty=146&oei=ZQVwTarDMMedOr7VgMAG&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0 most certainly doesn't believe your trash talk about GIRLY wands.

And if you want to fight about it... I'd be more than happy to use your raise your corpse afterwards as a skeletal minion! :chaos:

(For the record, that's a Diablo II Necromancer. You know... a Death Sorcerer)

I would prefer one-handed staffs, wands look way too weak, staffs or two burning hands look more powerful.

wand = HP
sword and staff = gandalf
i'm pretty sure i know which one is better .. incase anyone cant work it out, im disagreeing to the idea of having a wand

Not that interested.

A Wand sounds like something a Fairy Godmother would use, not a powerful wizard.

Magical wands were around a LOT longer than Harry Potter, people. In fact, they were around before the idea of magical staffs... being used as shamanistic totems long before the term 'staff' even existed. Staffs are, in fact, an extension of the wand... in a magical sense... having encapsulated the 'essence' of being a channeling device for magic within the WEAPON which was a 'staff'.

They are not mutually exclusive items.

Staffs are WEAPONS...

Wands are tools.

A decent mixture of both would be perfectly fine... so long as I can fight with my staff again.

Oh please, how can you call him badass? He hides behind skeletons and golems and lets them do all his fighting for him Besides, using a kris was better, you just didn't get bonuses to spells.

That, wands are not something specific to Harry Potter, I'm a bit surprised that anyone thinks that. There's a good history of wands in RPGs too and there was nothing wimpy in Baldur's Gate about firing off a wand of missiles in some enemy's face.

Wands make a lot of sense for an Illusionist, or any sort of stealth basic magician. Staffs are great, but they are large and obvious. The wand is like the magicians dagger, and the staff would be like a sword. I wouldn't want to walk around with a big staff if I wanted to be stealthy, just doesn't make sense.

I would like wands but, Since they were not in the previous ones i must say no...

To be fair, you don't need any kind of stave to be a stealthy mage. They just really help out in a pinch.

I dunno, Harry Dresden's "blasting rod" just seemed like a trumped up name for a wand.

To be fair, you don't need any kind of stave -ever-, as a mage.

You don't need -anything- to be effective... except spells and magicka... both of which you pretty easily can acquire. Staff, wand, shrunken-head totem... it doesn't matter what you're carrying, so long as it allows you to focus (or provides its own, in some cases) magicka through it in order to gain a useful effect.

Not only have we had this discussion several times in several other threads, but Col. Tannanbaum is right. LOL at people thinking wands and rods=Harry Potter.

It's already been confirmed that you can put a staff in one hand from the trailer. He casted a spell from a staff in his left hand while wielding a sword.

What are you responding to?

Nah, wands give the impression of cheap tricks and illusions. I want to be a real wizard with a staff that shoots fire

And yet Gandalf is said to have used a wand before, on several occasions in the Books (specifically The Hobbit). Not only that, but Gandalfs name means; Elf of the Wand.