Claudian Solin's page

(...) unless this is a house rule or a homebrew feat/class feature/ability that creates an exception.

That's my point, it is class features that allow additional attacks and spells (plus attacks in case of Spell Strike).

I understand there is concerns about balance. Sticking to the economy metaphor, I don't see a problem sticking to "the ecomony" by paying the proper price, which is "stacking check penalties".

@ Kazaan, interesting. Who is SKR?

@ Komoda, I read from your post that you also regard Flurry of Blows multiple attacks in combination with additional attacks for wielding a second weapon in your off-hand illegal, right?

Let me read your thoughts, the SRD 3.5 FAQ on that topic is irrelevant, because this is Pathfinder which is evolved and based on 3.5 and thus not subject to 3.5 ruling.

So you are all saying, regarding spell combat:

Doing multiple attacks with my primary attack plus spell combat and/or spell strike is okay, as long as those multiple attacks come only from a single source that allows full-attack actions, namely the BAB.

So all the other reasons for multiple attacks as full-attack action, namely "because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason," are not valid for spell combat?

And the reasoning behind is that "off-hand" attacks is part of an action economy. And "making all of his attacks" specifically refers to haste.

I doubt that. The way I see it,
Spell combat can be used with any other full-attack actions, as long as it qualifies for the restriction on Spell Copmbat "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

Heck, how much more specific can a rule be written "he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."

Hence viable options are,
- Spell Combat with single primary attack
- Spell Combat with full-attack from BAB
- Spell Combat with full attack from FoB
- Spell Combat with full-attack for some special reason

I see that my view is a minority in this forum. Praying there will be further FAQ clarification.

@Chess Pwn. sorry I didnt mean to be rude
see this FAQ here http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9r45 :
"You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon."

'and you can't take a full round action and a full-attack action in the same turn' => yes, but clearly as per FAQ above Spell Combat makes the full-attack action a full round action and is not an *additional* full round aciton.
[edit] aahm okay, the full-attack is also a full-round action, ... which makes spell combat a bonus/not an action? [/edit]

@Chess Pwn,
per your reasoning spell combat would not work with multiple attacks with the first-hand weapon for BAB>5 reason.

Hands up who disagrees on that, please.

--

@ Komoda, this is not comparable, as
1) the off-hand could be free for casting per the latest FAQ on FoB with a single one-handed Weapon.
2) the feat only reduces penalties for an attack action everybody can do being armed in each hand, and armor spikes are not a wepaon associated with any hand.

I say doable, FoB is a full-attack action and Spell Combat, which then makes it a full-round action, states "all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast...".