We know that Hogwarts students learn how to do  in the 6th year. From which point they are expected to use magic nonverbally from there on out.  We also know that some wizards can do , such as Hermione with the Confundus Charm at the Quidditch trials.  Both of these variants come with warnings that:     Wandless magic [...] could be volatile and was often difficult to perform -    and     Performing spells non-verbally is very difficult and requires a good deal of practise -    So my question is, is there any instance of a wizard/witch casting spells/charms/hexes/jinxs both nonverbally and without a wand? And if not, is this explicitly stated to be impossible?  As a note, I mean intentional magic. The random loosing of snakes on 11th birthdays does not count.    This is not a duplicate of these other questions since none of those answer if a spell can be performed BOTH nonverbally AND without a wand at the same time.  For the second time, this is not a dup of  because that question deals with wandless and nonverbal separately.
36097
In the beginning of the series, it's mentioned that Muggle-born wizards/witches are identified due to inadvertent spell-casting. However, it seems like later in the book, disarmed wizards/witches are completely helpless.   What is the explanation for why some spells can be cast without a wand and is there an in-universe explanation for why this isn't done? Also, are there spells that can be cast non-verbally (with/without a wand)?
114878
A lot of the spells in Harry Potter, including just about every offensive one like Stupefy are what I would call "missile" spells (if there's a better term for it, please tell me). That is, they basically involve shooting a spell out of your wand like a missile, as opposed to an "area of effect" form (a protective spell like Muffliato) or no really perceivable form at all (like Accio).   Do such directed spells have a limit to their range? Or will they travel until they hit something?   I'm interested because if spells have virtually infinite range and high accuracy (which is another matter), then there should be "snipers" in battles that fire curses from long range, and it would be possible to "assassinate" somebody like Voldemort or Dumbledore given appropriate conditions. Of course, people may see the spell coming, but if they're distracted enough or if there's enough interference (a firework show, for example), then this could be a very effective means of killing people from afar.
30143
While looking into broomsticks and their use in Harry Potter, I found that there was no spell or charm that would make a human fly.  Originally, once they found ways to make objects fly, they needed to use objects that they could have handy and keep in the house, but which would not seem suspect to muggles.  One easy choice was the broom, since it'd be inconspicuous in any home and would always be handy.  But I can't find any mention of spells, charms, or enchantments are used to make brooms fly.  However, Voldemort and Snape have both flown on their own.  So the only examples of flying people are two dark wizards.  What is it about the magic used to make a broom fly but that only dark wizards seem to want to use it on themselves?  (Or, perhaps, did Snape and Voldemort use magic on, say, their clothes or something different?)    Addendum: In Quidditch Through the Ages it specifically states that there is no known spell that makes a human fly.
87199
In the first book Hermione mentions that she has tried a few spells, before ever arriving at Hogwarts, Sorcerer's Stone, Ch 6:     I've tried a few spells just for practice and it's all worked for me.   Clearly she didn't get into trouble for that. In the second book after Dobby performs a Hover Charm Harry receives a letter from the Ministry of Magic, in Ch 2:     We have received intelligence that a Hover Charm was used at your place of       residence this evening at twelve minutes past nine.      As you know, underage wizards are not permitted to perform spells outside school,       and further spellwork on your part may lead to expulsion from said school (Decree for       the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Socery, 1875, Paragraph C).        We would also ask you to remember that any magical activity that risks notice by        members of the non-magical community (Muggles) is a serious offense under section 13       of the International Confederation of Warlocks' Statute of Secrecy.   In the fifth book (Order of the Phoenix) Ch 2 Harry receives a letter after saving Dudley from the Dementors:     We have received intelligence that you performed the Patronus Charm at twenty-       three minutes past nine this evening in a Muggle-inhabited area in the presence of a        Muggle.      The severity of this breach of the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of        Underage Sorcery has resulted in your expulsion from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft        and Wizardry. Ministry representatives will be calling at your place of residence        shortly to destroy your wand.      As you have already received an official warning for a previous offense under        section 13 of the International Confederation of Wizards' Statute of Secrecy, we        regret to inform you that your presence is required at a disciplinary hearing at        the Ministry of Magic at 9 A.M. on August 12th.   Students appear to use magic outside of Hogwarts, without getting in trouble, except for Harry Potter. In the movies the violations are even worse, with Hermione repairing Harry's glasses, Harry casting Lumos Maxima repeatedly in his bedroom.   What is the level of severity (or complexity) of spell which will generate the notice of the Ministry of Magic?
65358
In the Harry Potter world, when a magical person casts a spell, sometimes they target a specific object, like when Harry has a wand only and needs his broom, he casts "Accio Firebolt" and his broom comes to him.  But a lot of the time people point their wands just in the direction of someone to cast a spell.  One example would be in a duel.  When they do this, are they casting a spell on a particular person or at that person?  It seems, from what I remember of the movies, that some spells travel in a straight line while others specifically target a person or object.  Do any spells travel in one direction, like a laser beam?  What kind of spells are directional (instead of focusing on a particular person or object)?  And can directional spells be deflected or blocked by something like a mirror or another physical object?  (By "directional," I could have said linear, but didn't want to start sounding mathematical or scientific.  In other words, do they travel in one direction, like a laser beam would, or will they change direction to hit the intended target?)
17743
Suppose a Fighter/Wizard without the War Caster feat is wielding a sword and shield.  If she is hit and wants to cast the Shield spell as a reaction (it has a somatic component), can she drop her sword and cast the spell all as part of the same reaction?  The rules don't seem to specify anything about object interactions other than as part of your main turn's move or action.    As a DM, I think I would rule that she could, since opening her hand seems like a reasonable start to whatever gestures she might need to make to cast the spell.  But I wanted to check, is this just a DM discretion thing, or are there explicit rules/examples somewhere that help clarify how this should be ruled?
78712
So me and my DM have been arguing on how Twinned spell works. Twinned spell:  When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and  doesn't have a range of self, you can spend a number of  sorcery points equal to the spell's level to target a second  creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if  the spell is a cantrip).  I argued that &quot;a second creature&quot; can be a the same target as it is not worded as &quot;another creature&quot; For this example counter spell with twinned spell.  A wizard casts fireball on me I use CounterSpell#1 with Twinned Spell Wizard casts CounterSpell on my CounterSpell#1 I use him as the same target for my twinned Spell CounterSpell#2  Result countered Is this possible?
4503
Most of the wand-carriers that come from a non-Muggle family seem fairly uneducated when it comes to interacting with Muggles.  This implies that they don't go to any type of Muggle school before entering into their education at Hogwarts (or whichever Wizarding school they go to), or else they would at least understand some Muggle culture.  What do children from magical families do before going to Hogwarts if they don't go to a traditional school?  Is there any evidence that they're homeschooled?
36533
I know that , but  made me question whether they could Side-Along Apparate a human to/from Hogwarts. From what canon tells us, it is impossible for humans to Apparate within the grounds of Hogwarts, which seems to indicate that this should be a simple question, but the events that took place in the Malfoy's cellar in The Deathly Hallows made me curious.  Ron was now trying to Disapparate without a wand. “There’s no way out, Ron,” said Luna, watching his fruitless efforts. “The cellar is completely escape-proof. I tried, at first. Mr. Ollivander has been here for a long time, he’s tried everything.”  According to  from Slytherincess, somewhat of our resident expert on Harry Potter, a wand does not seem to be required to Apparate. The fact that Ron was unable to Disapparate, as well as Luna's assurance to him that &quot;the cellar is completely escape-proof&quot; seems to indicate that some sort of enchantment was put over the cellar to prevent people from  Disapparating out of there. Further evidence for the enchantment happens when Dobby arrives, and Harry asks;  “You can Disapparate out of this cellar?” he asked Dobby, who nodded, his ears flapping. “And you can take humans with you?”  The fact that an enchantment seems to be present, and that despite this Dobby is still able to Side-Along Apparate them out, to me indicates at least some evidence that it should be possible within the grounds of Hogwarts (assuming that the same enchantment was used). So my question is, is there canonical evidence (other than listed above) that either backs up this theory, or that refutes it?
97774
Looking at  questions  casting  has left me trying to keep a lot of information in my head about whether a given combination of spells is legal according to the official 5th edition spellcasting rules. So I'd like to consolidate all these rules into a single easily accessible table, containing all the possible combinations of spells that could possibly be cast in a single turn, and hopefully create an easy reference for future use. But I'm not certain about how some of these combinations should be treated. Based on the second question I linked, the ordering doesn't matter, so I've simplified the chart to ignore order of these actions, and only focus on what actions are being taken. But if I'm mistaken (i.e. the answer provided to that question was wrong) then this table will need adjusting.     Action Bonus Action Action Surge LEGAL?     Non-Cantrip   Yes   Cantrip   Yes    Non-Cantrip  Yes    Cantrip  Yes   Non-Cantrip Cantrip  No   Cantrip Non-Cantrip  Yes   Non-Cantrip Non-Cantrip  No   Cantrip Cantrip  Yes   Non-Cantrip  Cantrip Yes   Non-Cantrip  Non-Cantrip ?Yes?   Cantrip  Non-Cantrip ?Yes?   Cantrip  Cantrip Yes   Cantrip Non-Cantrip Non-Cantrip ?No?   Non-Cantrip Cantrip Non-Cantrip ?No?   Non-Cantrip Non-Cantrip Non-Cantrip ?No?   Non-Cantrip Non-Cantrip Cantrip ?No?   Cantrip Non-Cantrip Cantrip ?Yes?   Non-Cantrip Cantrip Cantrip ?No?   Cantrip Cantrip Non-Cantrip ?No?   Cantrip Cantrip Cantrip Yes    Is this table (Column 4 in particular) correct? The core issue for me is that it's not clear to me how Action Surges interact with the spellcasting rules, hence the question marks listed there. It seems like an Action Surge might permit 2 leveled spells to be cast in a turn, unless a Bonus Action is used to cast a spell, in which case this is no longer permitted. If this is correct, then my table above should be correct, minus the question marks. But I need that validated.
52226
My DM and I have been having friendly arguments, and we recently came to what would happen if my character lost all their limbs.  As a gnome beastmaster I said I would always sit on my mount and use mage hand (from magic initiate) when I need to eat or lift things. HOWEVER he argues I wouldn't be able to perform the somatic component.  So, I ask: is there a way to cast spells without arms? My argument is that since I am learning the cantrip after losing my arms I would have learned it in a way that works with my stumps, but he points out the PHB is pretty clear you need a free hand.
40478
In the Harry Potter and the Deathy Hallows, Harry used three wands to perform the Stupefy Charm to Fenrir Greyback, who was lifted off his feet by the triple spell, flew up to the ceiling and smashed the ground.  Having said this... using more than wand is ABSOLUTELY a quite huge advantage for wizards and witches to win a battle or a duel. If someone tries to cast a spell on someone, particularly the stunning spell, the one that receives the attack will surely fly high up into the air.  The question is, if every wizard in the books wants to win every single battle blocking their way, why don't they use more wands? That will surely help them a lot!
30043
In the PHB page 202 under the bonus action heading it states:     You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.   This seems to state that if you cast a bonus action spell, you could not cast a reaction spell in the same round.  That is to say, there is no limit to how many spells you could cast in a round (action economy willing) as long as you don't cast a bonus action spell.  Is this correct? What is the maximum number of spells that a character could cast in a round? Does anyone know the reasoning to exclude casting both a bonus action spell and a reaction spell in the same round?
22290
, it was asked, why did Hermione whisper Levicorpus, instead of using it non-verbally. This is in the scene in The Deathly Hallows, where the trio are in the Lestrange Vault, trying to steal Helga Hufflepuff's cup. Harry couldn't reach the cup, so Hermione used the Levicorpus spell.  However, as shown when Harry first used that spell on Ron, and when James used it on Snape, that this particular spell lifts up the target by his ankle. Which would obviously cause the target to swing completely upside down if he is standing up. That's why James used it to embarrass Snape. Of course, then you'd have the difficulties of being upside down.   In the Lestrange Vault, Griphook warned the trio that Geminio and Flagrante curses had been added to everything, so the treasures would burn and multiply if touched. Ron demonstrated this by touching a cup. So subsequently, everyone avoided touching anything as far as possible. Now, Hermione knew that the effect of Levicorpus is to hoist the target up by his ankle, and at the same time, swinging him upside down. As shown in the book, Harry actually did hit something after being yanked up.  So out of all the spells, why did she use Levicorpus, and risk Harry hitting more things? She certainly could have used another spell, like Wingardium Leviosa. After all, she had mastered the spell before anyone else in their class. And it would definitely have given her more control of where Harry would move, so he wouldn't have hit anything. Why use Levicorpus and not Wingardium Leviosa?
120599
Can a bonus action or reaction spell be cast while already casting a spell with a casting time of more than a turn?  (If the bonus action or reaction spell is not a concentration spell.)  I found this on D&amp;D Beyond about spells with :     Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.   Since this only mentions requiring your action each turn, not bonus actions and reactions, it seems you can still take such actions.
73572
is a conjuration spell that is able to be used to duplicate lower level spells as follows:     The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect.   When used in this way, does the resulting spell count as a conjuration spell or whatever the school duplicated spell is?    As an example (since there was some confusion): say I used wish to cast  on a creature. After a period of time passes I cast detect magic on the creature. What school of magic do I detect?
122752
Say I have a Warlock that takes the Ritual Caster feat. Do the spells learned from the feat have to be prepared by the Warlock before being cast as a ritual or do they always have the spells available to cast as a ritual?  My confusion stems from the fact that most of the mechanics from the Ritual Caster feat seems to mirror the way a Wizard casts spells. Wizards are the only class that are specifically allowed to cast spells as a ritual without preparation by default. However, nothing in the feat actually describes that it works the same as Wizard ritual casting or different from it.