
imjohnnyrah |

As Spell Combat specifies:
"... A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks if he has more than one attack."
It takes two hands to attack with a greatsword but I wouldn't imagine you'd need both hands on it before and after. Its cast THEN attack (or vice versa) so why do you always need a free hand?

Makarnak |

The concept of constantly 'needing' two hands for a weapon always bugged me. By the strict letter of the law, a wizard couldn't cast spells when wielding a staff (of any sort). Because, you know, his hands would be full... There may be a listed exception to this rule somewhere, and I'm running short of sleep so I may not be able to remember it. In the same vein, a bow 'requires' two hands, so loading it is hard to do since you need both hands to wield it effectively. (Common sense wins out in that case, though, hopefully).
Anywho, we've nearly always house-ruled that you can briefly switch to one hand CARRYING a weapon (not fighting with it), even for non-wizards. I.e. a barbarian with spiked gauntlets switching to a punch from a greatsword for one round.
But in this case, I think the intent is to make the attack/spellcasting simultaneous (i.e. 'is like Two-Weapon Combat') The Magus is literally attacking while casting, which requires a free hand. In the 'cast, then attack version,' the Magus needs to threaten opponent with his weapon enough to keep from provoking an attack of opportunity, so he must wield effectively.
On the other side, an arcana or feat allowing him to wield a two-handed weapon (or two weapons) might be neat.

Rogue Eidolon |

The concept of constantly 'needing' two hands for a weapon always bugged me. By the strict letter of the law, a wizard couldn't cast spells when wielding a staff (of any sort). Because, you know, his hands would be full... There may be a listed exception to this rule somewhere, and I'm running short of sleep so I may not be able to remember it. In the same vein, a bow 'requires' two hands, so loading it is hard to do since you need both hands to wield it effectively. (Common sense wins out in that case, though, hopefully).
Anywho, we've nearly always house-ruled that you can briefly switch to one hand CARRYING a weapon (not fighting with it), even for non-wizards. I.e. a barbarian with spiked gauntlets switching to a punch from a greatsword for one round.
But in this case, I think the intent is to make the attack/spellcasting simultaneous (i.e. 'is like Two-Weapon Combat') The Magus is literally attacking while casting, which requires a free hand. In the 'cast, then attack version,' the Magus needs to threaten opponent with his weapon enough to keep from provoking an attack of opportunity, so he must wield effectively.
On the other side, an arcana or feat allowing him to wield a two-handed weapon (or two weapons) might be neat.
Your houserule is in the rules as written. For the Magus, the fighting and the casting happen essentially simultaneously, though (presumably you are running through the gestures as you swing the blade), so that trick won't help here.

![]() |

I would like to see the Magus be able to use two-handed weapons or TWF. Make them able to use Spell Combat without needing somatic components. Easy fix.
Still spell already does this and is an arcana choice already. If they can't use TWF for balance reasons, it's unlikely to change(and given the -6 to all attacks that would be involved early on, I'm not sure many players would bother with the combo anyway).

![]() |
The concept of constantly 'needing' two hands for a weapon always bugged me. By the strict letter of the law, a wizard couldn't cast spells when wielding a staff (of any sort).
It's not an issue because when a wizard is casting his spells. he's not wielding his staff, he only needs one hand to hold it upright, Gandalf style.

![]() |

Makarnak wrote:The concept of constantly 'needing' two hands for a weapon always bugged me. By the strict letter of the law, a wizard couldn't cast spells when wielding a staff (of any sort).It's not an issue because when a wizard is casting his spells. he's not wielding his staff, he only needs one hand to hold it upright, Gandalf style.
Otherwise an arcane bond with a staff might as well be an arcane bond with a pair of manacles.

![]() |

Wielding a two-handed weapon requires two hands absolutely. Holding a two-handed weapon only requires one hand. So if you're going to wield a greatsword as a magus, you can't swing and spell in the same turn, but you can swing and then spell and then swing again without penalty, and without dropping/sheathing your sword.
You only need to wield the weapon if you're going to attack with it, in other words. You can hold it just fine if you aren't.

![]() |

Wielding a two-handed weapon requires two hands absolutely. Holding a two-handed weapon only requires one hand. So if you're going to wield a greatsword as a magus, you can't swing and spell in the same turn, but you can swing and then spell and then swing again without penalty, and without dropping/sheathing your sword.
You only need to wield the weapon if you're going to attack with it, in other words. You can hold it just fine if you aren't.
Can you threaten with it if you were merely holding and not wielding it on your turn?
I would like to see the Magus be able to use two-handed weapons or TWF. Make them able to use Spell Combat without needing somatic components. Easy fix.
I think this is the key, it still means no shield, all though you could probably slap a buckler on.

![]() |
Can you threaten with it if you were merely holding and not wielding it on your turn?
If you're spellcasting on your turn, then you're threathened, not threathening anyway. It's the same deal as if you're spellcasting and you're not armed.
And I did suggest a fix called the Somatic Strike arcana which should server the TWF freaks happily

imjohnnyrah |

TWF and sword/board both go against the rules of spell combat because both your hands are full. You don't need to have both hands on a greatsword to carry it around a battle field. You can take a hand off of it for however many seconds it takes to cast a spell then go ahead and use it to cut people. The other fighting styles will keep both hands busy at all times.

![]() |

Lyrax wrote:Wielding a two-handed weapon requires two hands absolutely. Holding a two-handed weapon only requires one hand. So if you're going to wield a greatsword as a magus, you can't swing and spell in the same turn, but you can swing and then spell and then swing again without penalty, and without dropping/sheathing your sword.
You only need to wield the weapon if you're going to attack with it, in other words. You can hold it just fine if you aren't.
Can you threaten with it if you were merely holding and not wielding it on your turn?
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
I would like to see the Magus be able to use two-handed weapons or TWF. Make them able to use Spell Combat without needing somatic components. Easy fix.I think this is the key, it still means no shield, all though you could probably slap a buckler on.
Why couldn't they use shields? They would just have to take the proficiency to avoid the penalty. I like this fix and I think it gives the class a big boost. I'll be doing some playtesting this weekend and I'll make some variations with a few different tweaks.

Caineach |

the closest you will get to a two handed weapon so far is exoctic weapon prof bastard sword.
You can wield it in one hand and cast a spell.
Alternatively if you aren't casting you may use it with 2 hands and gain the str bonuses and power attack bonus.
Technically, you can 2 hand any non-light 1 handed melee weapon except the rapier (which has a rules exception). I would take the scimitar in 2 hands before going bastard sword with this guy, since spell damage multiplies on crits using the weapon's crit range if using spellstrike and it doesn't need the feat.

![]() |

Can you threaten with it if you were merely holding and not wielding it on your turn?
Only if you cast as a standard action or less. Allow me to elucidate:
Switching a weapon from 'wielded' to 'held in hand' is and/or should be a non-action, or at least a free action.--Turn Begins--
1) Switches weapon from 'wielded' to 'held in hand': Free Action
2) Casts spell: Standard Action
3) Switches weapon back to 'wielded': Free Action
4) Uses Move
If you cast a spell as a full-round action, you don't get to move the weapon back into both hands during the cast (you're still using that hand for casting) and don't get to threaten with it until you're done casting that spell.

![]() |

Galnörag wrote:Why couldn't they use shields? They would just have to take the proficiency to avoid the penalty. I like this fix and I think it gives the class a big boost. I'll be doing some playtesting this weekend and I'll make some variations with a few different tweaks.Lyrax wrote:Wielding a two-handed weapon requires two hands absolutely. Holding a two-handed weapon only requires one hand. So if you're going to wield a greatsword as a magus, you can't swing and spell in the same turn, but you can swing and then spell and then swing again without penalty, and without dropping/sheathing your sword.
You only need to wield the weapon if you're going to attack with it, in other words. You can hold it just fine if you aren't.
Can you threaten with it if you were merely holding and not wielding it on your turn?
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
I would like to see the Magus be able to use two-handed weapons or TWF. Make them able to use Spell Combat without needing somatic components. Easy fix.I think this is the key, it still means no shield, all though you could probably slap a buckler on.
I was confusing myself by talking about two threads of this conversation.
I had in my head the two handed weapon discussion, where you hold instead of wield. So for shield and two weapon fighters you can't really "hold" the item in your off hand the rounds you choose to cast instead of use them. So my thought had been maybe using a buckler in your offhand, and in rounds you cast it gives no AC bonus.
So if you changed

IkeDoe |
The OP is ignoring parts of Spell Combat requirements, like "cast spells and wield his weapons effectively at the same time", "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the offhand weapon is a spell that is being cast", "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
About why the designer ruled this that way I can only think about balance issues, I guess he may have ruled it in many different ways. I don't think it will change unless it becomes clear that the class needs to deal more damage.

Caineach |

The OP is ignoring parts of Spell Combat requirements, like "cast spells and wield his weapons effectively at the same time", "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the offhand weapon is a spell that is being cast", "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
About why the designer ruled this that way I can only think about balance issues, I guess he may have ruled it in many different ways. I don't think it will change unless it becomes clear that the class needs to deal more damage.
Judging by many of the comments, and any numbers I have run for damage output, the magus is way behind the curve in the damage department. Bards trivially outmatch him by a significant margin.

YawarFiesta |

Judging by many of the comments, and any numbers I have run for damage output, the magus is way behind the curve in the damage department. Bards trivially outmatch him by a significant margin.
Thats because they can add an intensified Shocking Grasp for an extra 10d6 and non damage measurable effects like Sirocco, Black Tentacle, Walls, Pits and Grease.
Also, they can haste themselves and the party and full-attack in the same round.
Humbly,
Yawar

Caineach |

Caineach wrote:Judging by many of the comments, and any numbers I have run for damage output, the magus is way behind the curve in the damage department. Bards trivially outmatch him by a significant margin.Thats because they can add an intensified Shocking Grasp for an extra 10d6 and non damage measurable effects like Sirocco, Black Tentacle, Walls, Pits and Grease.
Also, they can haste themselves and the party and full-attack in the same round.
Humbly,
Yawar
Damage which still does not bring them up to the power level of the other martial classes baseline. Seriously. Adding shocking grasp, even intensified, results in them being almost at the acceptable power level, and they need to spend a greater percentage of available resources than any other class to do it. A fallen paladin outdamages this guy.

![]() |

Bear in mind that while Spell Combat stipulates 1-handed weapon, 1 hand free, Spellstrike does not - you can use it with any weapon you're wielding. It also references being able to make a free touch as usual.
In PF you can cast, move, and then touch. Can you do the same with Spellstrike? Cast, move (including put a hand back on a TH weapon or free draw a weapon as you move with +1 BAB), and then touch/attack?
Perhaps the solution for a mid-level magus is just to take Still Spell, and still *EVERY* spell they have any intention of using mid-combat. True, your spells will all be effectively 1 level behind the curve, but you avoid every part of potential complications. Wear the heaviest armor you can find and go to town with THF, TWF, or S&B. You can still use your 1st-level slots for out-of-combat utility spells.
Then again, this strategy would work better if you had more variety of touch spells available on the magus list. Otherwise... not so much, unless you just keep spamming Still Shocking Grasp. Hey, if it works... :)

Caineach |

Bear in mind that while Spell Combat stipulates 1-handed weapon, 1 hand free, Spellstrike does not - you can use it with any weapon you're wielding. It also references being able to make a free touch as usual.
In PF you can cast, move, and then touch. Can you do the same with Spellstrike? Cast, move (including put a hand back on a TH weapon or free draw a weapon as you move with +1 BAB), and then touch/attack?
Perhaps the solution for a mid-level magus is just to take Still Spell, and still *EVERY* spell they have any intention of using mid-combat. True, your spells will all be effectively 1 level behind the curve, but you avoid every part of potential complications. Wear the heaviest armor you can find and go to town with THF, TWF, or S&B. You can still use your 1st-level slots for out-of-combat utility spells.
Then again, this strategy would work better if you had more variety of touch spells available on the magus list. Otherwise... not so much, unless you just keep spamming Still Shocking Grasp. Hey, if it works... :)
Part of tthe problem is that with a 2 handed weapon you cannot cast spells if you use arcane weapon. At least based off of James's current ruling. You are forced to take the concentration check for not wielding it because you need 1 hand free to cast and thus you cannot be wielding with 2 hands your arcane bond.
Thus, if you want to use a 2 handed weapon, you are forced to not use your only ability that increases your hit, lest you sacrifice spells. Even then, you cannot use your most powerful class ability because that requires a free hand.
Personally, I see every magus 2 handing 1 handed weapons like the longsword or scimitar, or taking Bastard Sword profficiency by 5th level.