james
I don't think wads are essential. There are shooters that don't use them. There may even be historical evidence that they were not used in the Civil War and at other times.
The real question for me, is fouling. Will using a lubricant allow more shots between swabbing the barrel? Most folks think that it does, I believe.
So then the question becomes how to best implement the lube.
Some believe that 'over the ball' lube, will lube each ball as it travels through the barrel and will prevent chainfires, even though that's a messy proposition to shoot. In this case, the lube won't contaminate the powder, being protected by the ball, but leaving the pistol loaded ( for carry etc. ) is also messy. The tight fitting ball will remove all lube from the barrel, and I think the ball probably does not need this lubrication anyway.
Others think that lube 'under the ball' will leave a smattering of lube in the barrel, that will soften the remaining powder residue. I have subcribed to this theory, having been convinced by Geo John's writings.
If you lube under the ball, you then must consider how to keep the powder dry. Probably if you shoot right after you load, this is not a problem, but if you don't shoot for some time, I think it could be. So a solution then, would be a wad between the lube and the powder.
A variation of this would be a lubed wad for convenience, but to me, that still might very slowly contaminate the powder. There will be those that will dispute this from experience, and I think that they are right, but I just feel better about a dry wad.....unless I am in the middle of a grass fire that it has caused.
And then too, I have acquired the proper felt, tallow, bee's wax and modified my Harbor Freight hex punches to make the lube and wads. At this point I can't see buying expensive lubed wads.
So pick your poison....it's interesting to hear what works or not from other shooters.