I assume it reasonable to allow spell combat for weapon+held charge.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.
"If you have a held charge, can you use Spell Combat to make an attack with your off-hand instead of casting a spell?" No.
You could use normal Two-Weapon Fighting for that. Full-round action to full attack, make your normal weapon attacks and one attack with your off-hand (which is armed due to the held charge). You'll take normal TWF penalties if you don't have the feat.
Your other option, though, is to use Spell Combat, make your weapon attacks first, hopefully hitting and discharging the touch spell. Then after your weapon attacks, cast a touch spell, which grants you a free touch attack, which you could deliver with your weapon via Spellstrike.
Do you feel stretching spellcombat rule to allow casting OR using a spell charge as off-hand weapon would be too strong?
You may find more suitable answers in the Advice or House Rules sections.
It might however be good for a Str-Build Magus with a non-light weapon -> TWF spellstriking a charge with a non-light weapon actually feels wrong to me or should be -4penalty.
He would need some dex to qualify for the feats if he wants to reduce the penalties or get more than one off-hand attack.
Attacking with a sword and a held charge in the offhand is -4/-8. The Two-Weapon Fighting Feat reduces that to -2/-2.
This assumes you are making the off-hand touch attack with your empty hand, as a touch attack, not using spellstrike. If you use Spellstrike you need a weapon, and if you use your main weapon then you've just attacked with your main weapon, and disarmed your off-hand, losing the attack and taking penalties for no reason. In order to use Spellstrike to deliver a charge and get an extra attack, you would need two weapons. Some DMs may not allow you to draw a weapon while holding a charge, saying that touching the weapon discharges the spell. This works a lot better with the Force Athame ability of the Spellblade archetype.
It just feels so random, that spellcombat allows casting+delivery but not simple delivery.
It's casting the spell that gives you the extra attack. If you don't cast a spell that gives you the extra attack, then you don't get an extra attack.
Basically you're asking that the Magus gets the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for free. I don't think many people will be in favor of this, but if you have an underpowered magus in your game, I guess this wouldn't really hurt.
It's casting the spell that gives you the extra attack. If you don't cast a spell that gives you the extra attack, then you don't get an extra attack.
Not quite - spell combat is giving the extra attack in exchange for a -2hit just as TWF, but limited to a spell being cast.
Spellstriking the charge is a different matter.
Wrong.
A level 2 magus making a full attack without two weapons can make one attack. He only rolls one d20 for his entire turn.
If he uses Spell Combat, casts Shield, then makes his full attack, he is only making one attack. He only rolls one d20 for his entire turn.
Spell Combat did not grant an extra attack.
Only if he casts a spell that grants a free attack, does he get a free attack.
If he casts Scorching Ray, he will make 2 attacks for his turn: The ranged touch attack, and the melee attack.
If he casts Magic Missile, he will make 1 attack for his turn: the melee attack.
If he casts Shocking Grasp, he will make 2 attacks for his turn: Either a melee touch attack and a melee attack, or two melee attacks.
Spell Combat is like TWF, but instead of attacking with your off-hand, you're casting a spell. That's why there's a -2 penalty. The ONLY time you get an extra attack is when the spell specifically grants it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seriously people, listen to Grick. He's very very very rarely wrong.
With no class features happening, you get "Attack".
Via Spell Combat, you get "Attack + Spell".
If that spell includes an attack roll (ala shocking grasp), then you get "Attack + Spell(attack)".
If that spell has a range of "touch", then you can deliver it with your sword via Spellstrike, converting "Attack + Spell" into "Attack + Attack(spell)".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seriously people, listen to Grick. He's very very very rarely wrong.
I dont feel like disagreeing with Grick at all. I share his opinions on all spellstrike/spell combat questions I have read. I further appriciate that his answers are often the ones most clear in these.
I am simply curious about his (and community in general) thoughts on allowing to stretch spell combat rule for held charges.
I dont feel like buffing the magus, but feel like the rule would be more consistent allowing charges as well.
Till now it seems like a reasonably small buff to allow it.
And I still think charges have been overlooked for spell combat and spellstrike.
Then it sounds like your question is more for your own GM than for the rules boards.
If you go purely by the book, then a magus who has a spare charge sitting around could try doing Spell Combat, attack with his sword first (and if he hits, discharge the spell), and then cast a new spell (replacing the old one if he didn't discharge it on his normal attack). Alternatively, he could simply use standard TWF rules to attack with the sword in one hand and the charge in the other (probably wanting to attack with the charge first).
If your question is "but would it be alright if we did X instead?" then, well, none of us here can give you "permission" to do things differently in your game. No matter what we say here, it's still up to your GM to decide whether or not to make that tweak.
EDIT: Or are you asking what each of us would say if we were your GM? In that case, I'd say I'm not sure. I'd lean toward no, I think, as I see no reason you couldn't just suck it up and spend the feat on TWF.
Is it not the same argumentation you use for allowing to spellstrike a held charge (eg chill touch)?
As by RAW spellstrike does not allow its use for held charges but only when he actually casts - just as spell combat.
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
It is not limited to the round in which you cast the spell.
If you're a level 2 magus, and you cast Shocking Grasp, which is a spell with a range of touch, which is also on the magus spell list, you have fulfilled the three criteria for being able to deliver that spell through your weapon.
A wizard can cast Shocking Grasp, wait three turns, then deliver the spell.
A magus can do the same thing. In addition, since he fulfilled those three criteria (he cast it, rather than it coming from a wand, it has a range of touch, rather than a range of close or personal, and it was on the Magus spell list, rather than a cleric spell list) then he can still deliver the spell through his weapon.
If you cast the spell, then don't touch anything for three rounds, you still cast the spell, it still has a range of touch, and it's still on the magus spell list. Thus, you can use Spellstrike.
If the wording was different, a Magus could use Spellstrike with wands and scrolls and whatever other weirdness might crop up. This limits him to only spellstriking with spells he has personally cast.
This probably should have been posted in the House Rules board, which is where a lot of the confusion seems to be coming from.
RAW - Spell combat clearly doesn't let a magus do this.
RAI - I don't think spell combat was intended to let a magus do this either. That's just my perception.
Opinion of this as a house rule - There isn't really any need for it. Magi are powerful enough as a class and they already have enough action economy combining the RAW effects of spell combat and spellstrike. You can gain the free attack from a touch spell while making a full attack, and even if it misses you can do the same next round (attacking first to not waste the held charge).
The only time that RAW hurts action economy is if you're trying to use a multiple charge spell like chill touch, and even then you can spellstrike to full attack and append a chill touch charge to each hit. The minor hit to action economy you take with this spell is made up for by the efficiency of only using one spell slot for the entire process.