Three related comments/queries about this sentence:
naQ is defined as either "staff" or "stick", which makes me wonder whether our reSwI' is holding a long staff (à la Gandalf the Grey) or a long magician's wand (à la Harry Potter).
If the answer to #1 is that naQ is referring to a staff and not a wand, I wonder whether woch (tall) or jen (high) would be more appropriate terms than tIq, since the staff is presumably held upright. At least, the use of a word like woch or jen may remove ambiguity over the meaning of naQ.
I refer to my comments about the word reSwI' in this post: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/28467060, and wonder if it woud be more appropriate to replace reSwI' with 'IDnar pIn'a' (especially if we are talking about someone with a staff like Gandalf) or perhaps mIn yuqwI' (if we are talking about a party magician with a wand).
1) In older forms of English, a wand is what we now call a staff. Look in The Hobbit and you'll find that Gandalf carries both a wand and a staff. In fact, he has just one item; it's just that Tolkien uses the two words as synonyms, which is what they are. See the Wikipedia entry for wand for a fascinating explanation of the word wand coming from an ancient unit of measurement.
The Klingon word naQ is the same: it means a stick of any length, whether a slender Harry Potter–style wand or a Gandalf-style walking staff. naQ by itself, of course, does not connote magic in any way.
2) tIq is fine to me.
3) Any of reSwI', 'IDnar pIn'a', or mIn yuqwI' are suitable here, as all might use a naQ.
Not all 'IDnar pIn'a'pu' necessarily reS, depending on their tradition of magic.
For 3, I refer you (and other future readers) to my response to your comment there and to https://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_161118.html ; summary: I believe that reSwI' and IDnar pIn'a' are synonyms.