What should be the magical difference between a wand and a staff?

>>54504050
Depends on setting obviously, but considering that a staff is harder to carry around, can't be concealed, and probably requires more materials to make, stafffs should be at least bit more magically powerful to compensate

>>54504050
What should be the technological difference between a submachinegun and a assault rifle?

Should a Soldier carry one of each, or have a preference?

>>54504050
I've always separated wands, rods, and staves based on the scale of the magic they're used for. You can move mountains with a staff, but you use a wand for charms and enchantments and the like, with rods serving as a sort of middle ground, mostly used for evocation magic.

>>54504197
Wands seem like they would be good for utility magic if they're smaller than staves since you could carry around a belt of wands with utility magic

File: e1327045397c08d32469242ec4a45cf7.jpg (91KB, 600x781px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x781px

[Case 1]
Wands
> Focuses the magic users powers, increases their natural arcane abilities through focus
Staffs
>Amplifies the magic users powers, increases their natural arcane abilities through Amplification

[Case 2]
Wands
> Able to cast a few spells with limited charges/recharge rates
Staffs
>Able to cast many powerful spells with plentiful charges/recharge rates

>>54504196
sub machine-guns and assault rifles are real things with known differences, wands and staves are not

>>54504050
The wand is a sidearm for non-magic users, prepared spells. Staves are tools to speed up your spell, you can do it without one but its for the best if you got yourself a staff.

Wands are for high ranking officers for a quick thunderbolt spell, staffs are for real wizzards.

>>54504050
Staves are for defense and covering a wide space, the tank/artillery option. Hold it out to form a barriee, slam it on the ground for wide shockwaves, and launch fireballs like a cannon.

Wands are for precision and subtlety, carefully scribing small runes in the air or an a surface, shooting a narrow beam of energy at a specific target, or otherwise being used for more methodical tasks.

Rods are for asserting control in a forceful way, and having contained but focused effects. It excels at commanding demons or other conjured creatures, strengthening mental commands, and forcing a fireball into a smaller but more intense flame.

Orbs are used to better harness ambient energy and make broad connections, making them best suited for clairvoyance or illusions. You can more easily peer into it to see an event in the distance or the distant future, use it to better blend illusions over an area, or have a fireball suffused a broad area with a more gradual rise in temperature, rather than a sudden burst.

There is absolutely no difference, but differing subgroups of wizards will argue to the death about the perceived merits and flaws in each and why their chosen stance on staff-vs-wand is obviously the correct one. Mage wars have plunged countries into chaos over arguments between Wanders and Staffers that have gotten out of hand, and attempts by the nonmagical community to convince the wizards that their feud is silly and both are equally valid casting foci are just met with derision and scorn - obviously the mewling masses just can't appreciate the obvious correctness of the argument for [staff/wand] and need it explaining to them again.

>>54504050
Magical Console wars.
Flame spit was a "timed exclusive" for wands, staff users got all butthurt over it.

t. Grimoire master race.