Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
In HP it's pretty clear that only the most basic of things can be done sans wand (the more powerful the wizard, the more powerful the non-wanded spells), however you don't see Voldemort running around killing people sans wand. It just isn't feasible within the realm of Harry Potter to cast without a wand since it seems to act as a focusing device for any magic.
Hrmm... just to point out in lotr the wizard's staff is just as important for channeling magic as the wands are in HP. Sarumon basically became a worthless nothing after Gandalf broke his staff and everyone seemed to universally know that the staffs were the key to a wizards power. The only thing i recall gandalf doing without his staff is lighting pine cones on fire in the hobbit.
Gandalf: We have no idea what his upper limit might be in terms of spell-casting.
Dumbledore: Knows the one-shot, insta-kill, a fixed Broken I.W.I.N. Button, though he might not use it.
Honestly, with Gandalf, there's even the possibility that he could magic up an immunity to the killing curse. J.K. Rowling sets clear limits on the magic her characters can do, J.R.R. Tolkien doesn't.
So, I say Gandalf.
gandalf is an istari, an agent of the valar. dumbledore is a wizard, and very mortal. while i love dumbledore, he has no chance in terms of raw power, mystical might or physical strength. that being said, they wouldn't ever fight, considering their alignment for the power of good, and lack of conflict whatsoever.
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.