Hey would anybody agree with me that Harry Potter is holey?

Originally posted by §P0oONY
If a wand dictated the power why not just give a squib a powerful wand? The wizard uses their power through the wand, the wand itself doesn't give power (unless it's the Elder Wand) therefor having 2 wands is not really beneficial.

And even if multiple wands means being able to fire multiple spells...it'd seem to me that since the power is being channeled through three sources, each individual spell would be weaker than one single one. Also there's the fact that you still actually have to aim where you want to hit. Spells and curses don't have homing devices on them, hence why people are able to miss getting hit and stuff.

Originally posted by Lana
I don't recall any contradictions with the Imperius Curse.

However, there was a rather huge one with the Fidelius Charm - in earlier books it was explained that even if the Secret-Keeper died, the charm was still in place. In DH though they say that since Dumbledore (Secret-Keeper for Grimmauld Place) died, everyone who knew of it became a Secret-Keeper which weakened the charm.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well if the original Secret-Keeper died, don't you think the charm would be weakened? Made sense to me srug

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. Dead or not, the Secret-Keeper is still the Secret-Keeper. It just means that no one else would be able to reveal the secret.

Or at least that's how it always seemed to be, anyway.

Originally posted by Lana
And even if multiple wands means being able to fire multiple spells...it'd seem to me that since the power is being channeled through three sources, each individual spell would be weaker than one single one. Also there's the fact that you still actually have to aim where you want to hit. Spells and curses don't have homing devices on them, hence why people are able to miss getting hit and stuff.

So why did Harry use 3 wands at a time on Fenrir... Whats the point if it's easier to point with 1? And it clearly stated that Fenrir was soared over into the air by the triple spell. Frankly, we haven't ever seen a single stunning spell from a single wand do that.

Originally posted by Lana
Did you actually read his reply? Or the book, for that matter?

It had nothing to do with Lily's sacrifice.

Voldemort had, in GoF, taken Harry's blood. This originally broke part of the charm of Lily's sacrifice, in that Voldemort could touch Harry now.

But because Voldemort did this, as long as Voldemort was alive Harry couldn't die. Harry's blood being in Voldemort's body tied him to life.

It's really NOT that hard to understand. I don't know why people can't get it.

oh okay that makes sense.

And yes I did read the book you don't have to be rude about it. I just didn't take the time to re-read the first 6 books so I forgot a lot of the details.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
So why did Harry use 3 wands at a time on Fenrir... Whats the point if it's easier to point with 1? And it clearly stated that Fenrir was soared over into the air by the triple spell. Frankly, we haven't ever seen a single stunning spell from a single wand do that.

Actually I'm pretty sure we have.

Originally posted by tooa/presence
oh okay that makes sense.

And yes I did read the book you don't have to be rude about it. I just didn't take the time to re-read the first 6 books so I forgot a lot of the details.

Well, you didn't need to remember anything from the first six books to understand that part. It was explained very clearly.

Originally posted by Lana
Actually I'm pretty sure we have.

Well, you didn't need to remember anything from the first six books to understand that part. It was explained very clearly.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
If a wand dictated the power why not just give a squib a powerful wand? The wizard uses their power through the wand, the wand itself doesn't give power (unless it's the Elder Wand) therefor having 2 wands is not really beneficial.

edit: It's quite obvious why you wouldn't use several wands at once, it would make the spells erratic and unaccurate, using one is much more precise.