I don't think there's any other class that's as dependant on going for a single type of fighting style. Although not every style is as optimal, the rest of the classes can go for a number of different styles, except for the magus, which relies on using only one weapon.
I'd like to see the option, possibly in the form of a Magus Arcana, to use a two handed weapon and even a bow when used in conjunction with spell combat. The downside would be a higher penalty to attack rolls, something like -2 (we're probably going to see a lesser penalty with the revised version of the Magus so I don't think it would become -6 at 2nd level (ouch!)).
What do you think?
I quite like the idea Another option could be to include in in the spell combat say for instance two handed weapons (including bows and crossbows) Have -4 (uses the current total) whilst one handed weapons and light weapons get a - 2
Yeah, I was thinking something to the likes of that.
I think it could be handled by finagling the wording for how Spell Combat works.
Personally, I`d prefer that when fighting w/ a 1Handed Weapon and casting a Touch spell via Spell Combat, that the spell be delivered via via your weapon, with a free attack included if vs. other opponent, but if targetting the same opponent it would be via the EXACT SAME melee attack roll (with wording such that the spell effect triggers if the melee attack only beats Touch AC but not normal AC... that aspect of the rules isn`t 100% clear to me in the Core Rules). That is just a style thing, personally.
But getting rid of needing the free hand for DELIVERING the touch spells means a 2-Handed Weapon Magus is free to Cast a Spell, Hold the Charge (or not, if it has a duration like Calcific Touch), and deliver the effects on top of their melee attacks with the 2-Handed weapon.
Those are very different approaches and builds, but I think both are workable on their own merits. Certainly if the 1-Handed Weapon Magus runs out of spells they probably might think about wielding their weapon 2-Handed in the first place, so the 2-Handed Magus probably is more of a ´steady goes it´ type, not casting as many spells DURING combat so their spells last longer.
This is kinda like asking for a character that can use Two-Weapon Fighting, but one of the weapons needs to be a two handed weapon.
Not going to happen right now.. lets stay on course for the time being.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, that's just because you've defined it as being similar to Two Weapon Fighting. If it was just described as casting while making a full-attack, we'd be fine :)
Anyways, that's that for now, then. Still plenty of time left to polish, especially since Ultimate Magic only has one class instead of six. Don't rush it!
This is kinda like asking for a character that can use Two-Weapon Fighting, but one of the weapons needs to be a two handed weapon.
I often use Two-Weapon Fighting with a greatsword (primary weapon) and armor spikes (off-hand weapon).
This is kinda like asking for a character that can use Two-Weapon Fighting, but one of the weapons needs to be a two handed weapon.I often use Two-Weapon Fighting with a greatsword (primary weapon) and armor spikes (off-hand weapon).
So... how about using a weapon that requires both hands means you can only use spells that are half your highest spell level (0-3rd over 20 levels).
Or cast spells at half caster level.Or both of those things.
The class seems like it would be perfect for Arcane Archer... so it's just so sad to see this option cut out.
*Edit*
Just to add... you can *hold* a two handed weapon (and bow or crossbow) in one hand. So I can see Magus using a twirling his elven curveblade in a dance of death, to let go one hand partway through is routine and make a tossing action with one hand as he sends a ray of frost at a guy charging in.
To me this is the biggest problem right now with the magus. It feels more like a prestige class or and archetype than a full class in how restrictive it is in play style. No other base class seems this restrictive.
|
This is kinda like asking for a character that can use Two-Weapon Fighting, but one of the weapons needs to be a two handed weapon.
Not going to happen right now.. lets stay on course for the time being.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Seriously? It HAS to be this way? There's feats for letting people cast in armor with lesser penalty, but this is a taboo? A balancing problem you are taking far too seriously. The 2H damage is needed to make the class better, as opposed to limiting it to 1H because fears that it'll break the class. Damage will not break the class. It's going to be spell list, Spell Combat, Spellstrike, and possible Magus Arcana.
At least make the damage output not suck when using one hand. That doesn't take care of the thematic issues that other people have, but it might help with damage output when not using a weapon.
This is kinda like asking for a character that can use Two-Weapon Fighting, but one of the weapons needs to be a two handed weapon.
Except it's not.
And let's not even get into the fact that you CAN Two-Weapon Fight with a two-handed weapon.
|
Well as mentioned before - pay the feat cost and go for bastard sword.
I suspect (suspect only mind you) that the real issue here is being able to use the extra bonus from power attack and extra strength, plus whatever feats can be added on this way.
I don't have my rules at hand so I can't back this up but maybe the thought of having a Power attack backed Vital strike or Over hand swing or whatever with a two handed sword then cutting loose with a spell as well could be viewed as a bit too much?
Like I have said I haven't crunched the numbers - I don't know what the equivalent Fighter would be capable of - and Im not really trying to build a case for or against. I'm just passing you my thoughts.
Oh and as a final thought about the Magus - wasn't even the idea of this class start because everyone was complaining how bad an EK was or how much people wanted to play core class 20 level Fighter Mages?
I seem to remember that the Pathfinder team originally didn't really want such a thing in the first place in their game.
There was a lot of discussion along the lines if you wanted a Fighter/Mage then play a bard, and use one of the (at that time soon to be released) APG kits.
So maybe you have to accept that this is what a Magus will be - house rule it as you will, just don't expect to be able to play it in Pathfinder Society games the way you want.
Please note that this is not a personal attack on anyone, but I have to say that anything to do with the Magus seems to generate a lot of emotion. So before replying to me (if anyone thinks that this is even reply worthy) take a deep breath and think it out.
cheers all
Nik
|
I'm in 100% agreeance with Jason on this. You wouldnt give a class the full spellcasting ability of a wizard and the full spellcasting ability of the cleric, you would "handicap" his spell selection from both. The same should apply to fighters.
"handicapping" the magus with both spell selection and attack style guarantees the validity of a pure fighter and a pure wizard. excluding two handed fighting (while wielding spells at the same time) makes perfect sence from a flavor point of view and a balance point of view. A magus can still use 2 handed weapons he just cant cast spells at the same time so hes not breaking any realms of plausability.
As pointed out this is an ideal candidate for the bastard sword
As pointed out this is an ideal candidate for the bastard sword
It certainly is. If you want to ignore the actual problem with an entire class being pigeon holed into using one handed weapons to access a class ability. Want to use Smite? Too bad! You need a two-handed weapon. Sneak Attack? Not without a light weapon. Etc
|
|
It certainly is. If you want to ignore the actual problem with an entire class being pigeon holed into using one handed weapons to access a class ability. Want to use Smite? Too bad! You need a two-handed weapon. Sneak Attack? Not without a light weapon. Etc
As pointed out this is an ideal candidate for the bastard sword
Cartigan. You need a free hand to cast spells. This is NOT going to change, nor should it. The class is not being pigeon holed into anything, it is simply obeying the rules. Would you say PC races are pigeon holed because they only have land speeds instead of flight? Would you say fighters are pigeon holed into being martial characters because they cant cast spells? Your logic is broken at best.
Cartigan. You need a free hand to cast spells. This is NOT going to change, nor should it. The class is not being pigeon holed into anything, it is simply obeying the rules. Would you say PC races are pigeon holed because they only have land speeds instead of flight? Would you say fighters are pigeon holed into being martial characters because they cant cast spells? Your logic is broken at best.It certainly is. If you want to ignore the actual problem with an entire class being pigeon holed into using one handed weapons to access a class ability. Want to use Smite? Too bad! You need a two-handed weapon. Sneak Attack? Not without a light weapon. Etc
As pointed out this is an ideal candidate for the bastard sword
I provided examples, you are ignoring them in favor of hyperbole. My logic is perfectly exact. The class' major ability forces them to use one-handed weapons. Fact. I don't particularly care about why or what for. If spell-casting requires one hand free, then that is a bad ability as written because it pigeonholes the class into one-handed weapons. And, unlike restrictions for other classes, there is no out or workaround.
|
|
I provided examples, you are ignoring them in favor of hyperbole. My logic is perfectly exact. The class' major ability forces them to use one-handed weapons. Fact. I don't particularly care about why or what for. If spell-casting requires one hand free, then that is a bad ability as written because it pigeonholes the class into one-handed weapons. And, unlike restrictions for other classes, there is no out or workaround.
You're right, just like how a rogue has conditions to be able to sneak attack, and a pally has for smite, so do these class features. I fail to see why you think that it is reasonable to expect a PRIMARY spellcasting class to be able to swing a 2 handed weapon and still be able to complete somatic components to spells.
You're right, just like how a rogue has conditions to be able to sneak attack, and a pally has for smite, so do these class features. I fail to see why you think that it is reasonable to expect a PRIMARY spellcasting class to be able to swing a 2 handed weapon and still be able to complete somatic components to spells.
I provided examples, you are ignoring them in favor of hyperbole. My logic is perfectly exact. The class' major ability forces them to use one-handed weapons. Fact. I don't particularly care about why or what for. If spell-casting requires one hand free, then that is a bad ability as written because it pigeonholes the class into one-handed weapons. And, unlike restrictions for other classes, there is no out or workaround.
I equally fail to see why you think it is reasonable for a class ability to be unusable except with certain weapons.
For the same reason that you cant trip someone with a dagger, it's not feasible.
I equally fail to see why you think it is reasonable for a class ability to be unusable except with certain weapons.
I most certainly can try to trip some one with a dagger. I don't see anything saying I can't.
And I wasn't aware a class had an inherent tripping ability that banned daggers.
|
|
I most certainly can try to trip some one with a dagger. I don't see anything saying I can't.
And I wasn't aware a class had an inherent tripping ability that banned daggers.
Equipment section under special abilities. Trips attacks can only be done with weapons with the trip quality. Any other interpretation would mean that the trip quality is redundant and a waste of text.
That being said, you are being both argumentative in tone, and intentionally dense to try to prove some point. I would recommend a nice hot bath, and a root-beer float to relax.
You need a free hand to cast spells. This is NOT going to change, nor should it.
I cast still spells without a free hand all the time.
The problem is that this is an arbitrary restriction. It doesn't say "you need a free hand to cast, so you can only use one-handed weapons." It says "you can only use one-handed weapons".
This means you can't cast spells without somatic components and use a bow or twohanded weapon. Same with using the Still Spell feat.
Or, as a free action, letting go with one hand to cast a spell (since you can hold a weapon in one hand, though not wield it), and then put that hand back on as another free action.
This is a balance issue? An extra 2.5 damage or being able to do ranged combat is going to make this class broken?
What about using two weapons, and one (or both!) are not held in hands.. such as a Monk/Magus build using unarmed strikes? Spiked armor? How about flurry of blows... how does that interact?
These are questions that need to be answered so there isn't a pile of errata or FAQ needed immediately after Ultimate Magic comes out.
.
And really... if the choices are pigeon-holed primary feature and stronger class abilities, or wider range of Magus builds with slightly lesser class abilities, I'd rather have the option that lets my Magus have the option of using a bow (even if it's with a greater penalty).
I most certainly can try to trip some one with a dagger. I don't see anything saying I can't.
And I wasn't aware a class had an inherent tripping ability that banned daggers.
Equipment section under special abilities. Trips attacks can only be done with weapons with the trip quality. Any other interpretation would mean that the trip quality is redundant and a waste of text.
That being said, you are being both argumentative in tone, and intentionally dense to try to prove some point. I would recommend a nice hot bath, and a root-beer float to relax.
To be more specific, in PF if you are using a trip weapon, you can drop it instead of being tripped if you fail your trip and the countertrip. No weapon is specified in the tripping maneuver, so the actual usage of weapons to start a trip is not mentioned anywhere.
I most certainly can try to trip some one with a dagger. I don't see anything saying I can't.
And I wasn't aware a class had an inherent tripping ability that banned daggers.
Equipment section under special abilities. Trips attacks can only be done with weapons with the trip quality. Any other interpretation would mean that the trip quality is redundant and a waste of text.
That being said, you are being both argumentative in tone, and intentionally dense to try to prove some point. I would recommend a nice hot bath, and a root-beer float to relax.
I thought the point of the trip quality was you got bonuses to it? And I still can't find that written anywhere.
And that really doesn't answer the point of who is forceably pigeonholed by that?
Yeah.. I don't see a class that has a primary class feature that includes using the trip combat maneuver.
Regardless of whether it is restrictive in a similar way, it's not being applied at all in a similar way... it's not applicable to this discussion.
Also, doesn't anything think it's ridiculous that wizards can TRY to cast a spell in heavy armor and hope to make it, but a magus CAN'T EVEN TRY to cast a spell unless he has a free hand?
Are we in 1980?
I dunno, Fraggle Rock is back on tv...
|
|
OK first off lets sort out the Trip issue...
Combat Maneuvers
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Bull Rush
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.
Disarm
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.Grapple
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.Overrun
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.Trip
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.
As you can see Each combat maneuver required a specific action. The most ambiguous of these rules is the bull rush as part of a charge in place of a melee attack - it implies that you can use a weapon to bull rush but the "intent" of bull rush is to push someone back without doing any harm. What the rules should read is ...
"You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, instead of the melee attack."Overrun specifies its a part of the movement of a charge while grapple is a standard action and not an attack at all.
Disarm, Sunder and Trip, however, are all "in place of an Attack" meaning that you can perfom them instead of makeing an attack to do damage with whatever weapon you are wielding.
so yes you can trip with a dagger but doing so provides you NO advantage whatsoever over triping with an empty hand.
Also, doesn't anything think it's ridiculous that wizards can TRY to cast a spell in heavy armor and hope to make it, but a magus CAN'T EVEN TRY to cast a spell unless he has a free hand?
Are we in 1980?
Cast a Spell
Most spells require 1 standard action to cast. You can cast such a spell either before or after you take a move action.
To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. You can't cast a spell of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your hands full or occupied.
To cast a spell with a material (M), focus (F), or divine focus (DF) component, you have to have the proper materials, as described by the spell. Unless these components are elaborate, preparing them is a free action. For material components and focuses whose costs are not listed in the spell description, you can assume that you have them if you have your spell component pouch.
Yes a magus CANT'T EVEN TRY to cast a spell unless he has a free hand same as a wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer or any other spell casting class CAN'T EVEN TRY to cast a spell unless he has a free hand.
Yes I agree the rules need to cover how spell combat interacts with Verbal (V) only spells but the argument still holds that spells are a standard action! you cannot swing a weapon and cast a spell at the same time.
The Magus grants the class the unique ability to cast a spell while fighting as part of a full round action without the need for quicken spell to turn the spell into a swift action or a Still spell to avoid the empty hand dependancy This is effectively 2 effects.
Even a wizard casting a quickened (S) spell cannot do so while holding a two handed weapon...
Quicken Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells in a fraction of the normal time.
Benefit: Casting a quickened spell is a swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full-round action cannot be quickened.
At no point does quicken spell state "You can now cast Somatic (S) spells without the need for a free hand." although it is a rather mute point since releasing a hand on a weapon and regrasping it is a free action It may be an issue if the wizard is using both hands to cling to the edge of a cliff!.
Yes I know the magus still needs an empty hand and this makes Quicken superior to Spell Combat in that respect. The effect of spell combat still remains that it grants the use of spells as part of a full round action... hmmm ... sidetrack incoming (see next post).
Still Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells without moving.
Benefit: A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic components. Spells without somatic components are not affected. A stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Likewise Still spell does not change a (S) into a swift action so casting a spell is still a standard action and cannot be combined with a normal attack as part of a full round action.
|
|
Sidetrack...
You know it just occurred to me while writing the previous post that spell combat could actually become a Special Action all of its own...
Spell Combat as a Special Action would allow any spellcaster to cast a spell “[b]in place of a melee attack[b] as part of a full round action”.
The penalties would be the required concentration check and I would say make them identical to the TWF penalties (-6 to your main hand attacks and -10 concentration check). You could even allow the reverse of this making wizards decide if the spell is a main hand weapon or not taking just a -6 on the concentration check and a -10 on the weapon attack although it would bring in the discussion of “if my weapon is a light weapon shouldn’t the penalties be -4 concentration / -8 attack?.” It would not dilute the spell combat ability of the magus but the magus could be replaced by a simple feat chain.
I don't think anyone was arguing that this could have been done before, without making a new rule.
What I'm arguing is that restricting it to one-handed melee weapons or lighter makes this as restrictive as a prestige class (Duelist to be specific), such that we now have a base class that only allows for a very specific build concept.
No arcane archer Magus types. No zweihander Magus types. No ranged combat focus at all Magus types, not even throwing a weapon. No Monk/Magus combos (for an arcane fist like combination).
I'd rather have less powers than "must be melee, onehanded, or cut out a major class ability". No other base class has such a specific restriction on method of combat.
|
|
I don't think anyone was arguing that this could have been done before, without making a new rule.
What I'm arguing is that restricting it to one-handed melee weapons or lighter makes this as restrictive as a prestige class (Duelist to be specific), such that we now have a base class that only allows for a very specific build concept.
No arcane archer Magus types. No zweihander Magus types. No ranged combat focus at all Magus types, not even throwing a weapon. No Monk/Magus combos (for an arcane fist like combination).I'd rather have less powers than "must be melee, onehanded, or cut out a major class ability". No other base class has such a specific restriction on method of combat.
Thats a valid point but then no other class tries to bridge the gap of a gish class into a "new" base class like the magus does either (with perhaps the exception of the bard).
If you look at my suggested changes on the "Better late than never..." post the magus becomes more of a melee character than a wizard/fighter gish by effectively limiting him to evocation spells while increasing his BAB to match a fighter.
I don't think its the spell combat ability that restricts multi-classing though, more like the limited capability it has been presented in with this first printing. By using the TWF mechanic without actually applying logical combat rules you are handicapping the class into that style of combat. if however you took the ability, as an improvement on a new "Special Action" rule then the magus would have regained some multi-classing validity. interraction with unarmed strike needs to be clearly written, not hinted at, and spell combat from the magus "should" encourage a broader specialisation similar to that of a ranger selecting his combat style. The result would create different styles of magus meaning in a single party you could have a twf magus alongside a ranged magus and even a 2hf magus.
|
|
Unfortunately if people are feeling so strongly about these sort of issues in a class, maybe it would be better that the class doesn't go live at all.
Why do I say that? Well already the play test has been declared closed. Yet people are still bringing up objections/observations/desires after this fact.
You need to realise that they will not change the basics of the class - The attempt at implementing the Magus has been with the parameters shown which is to say a 2 weapon lightly armed fighter that substitutes a spell for one of the weapons. THIS is Pazio's vision of a Magus
Any variation to this will not be a Magus in the eyes of the developers.
Look at all the discussion about the Eldrich Knight - apparently to make it more desirable to everyone, all that was required was to give it a prestige benefit that made some swift actions to be treated as free.
Months later and still nothing, nor do we really expect to see a change (at least in this edition anyways).
If you really are having a problem with the perceived restriction just think of it as the fighting style which allows spell casting and combat at once.
No other combinations of weapons will allow it.
A Fighter/Mage cannot fight this way, he has to be one or the other.
A Eldrich Knight cannot fight this way - he has learned too late the synergy that can arise from the use of the right weapons and the movements - he can only approach it as his capstone ability.
Only the Magus through an intuitive understanding of the magics and motions of combat can work with both at once.
There was some mention before about 'oh its only 2.5 points of damage on average whats the big deal' - but if I was to say to you all 'sure you can use 2 handed weapons - but none of the combat feats that pertain to them can work including bonus power attack damage' would you accept this?
I could even justify it by saying its because you need to have some focus to be able to cast and fight so these feats would use up too much of your concentration.
Is the real problem not the flavour of the weapon styles but rather the efficiencies and bonuses for using these weapons?
Sure Im restricting the style - pigeon holing you so to speak, but ultimately if the Magus has free reign over all styles and can cast as well in armor then what does the Fighter get?
Please don't tell me better hit points because its only 2 hp better on average than the Magus.
Don't say better Armor because towards the end game the armor class differences are slight and the Magus can make up for it in the use of spells to buff himself over the fighter.
More combat feats and styles? Well this is the bread and butter of a fighter - his class unlike any other has the widest selection of combat feats and thus styles.
Can you see where Im going with this? A Fighter fights - its his job and in the general case he should be the best at fighting with the best selection of options.
A Magus fights as well but he should never have options even approaching those of the primary fighters because his options are different - he CASTS to add to her flexibility.
I hope that I'm making my point clear here, and once again - I'm not directing this at any one person specifically, rather I'm trying to answer to the general dissatisfaction I'm seeing.
The Magus grants the class the unique ability to cast a spell while fighting as part of a full round action without the need for quicken spell to turn the spell into a swift action or a Still spell to avoid the empty hand dependancy This is effectively 2 effects.
Except you can NEVER not only use one hand. If you Still all your spells, you can STILL not use Spell Combat except with one-handed weapons.
Also, doesn't anything think it's ridiculous that wizards can TRY to cast a spell in heavy armor and hope to make it, but a magus CAN'T EVEN TRY to cast a spell unless he has a free hand?
Are we in 1980?
Yes he can... by casting JUST AS A WIZARD DOES... with arcane spell failure, and being restricted to that ONE action for the round.
You seem to forget that what a Wizard CAN'T HOPE TO DO AT ALL is cast a spell and engage in melee combat in the same action phase. That's what defines the magus, the epitome of sword and spell combat.
But you know what a wizard can do? Still a spell and cast it however he wants. Wielding a weapon one-handed? Two-handed? Tied and hanging upside down? Sure, go ahead!
Huh, this thread is still alive.
Anyways, my original point was that no other class restricts its playstyle to something as narrow as a single weapon.
A paladin can go sword and shield, two handed weapon, two weapons or even a bow. So can an inquisitor, a bard and even a rogue (except maybe for the shield). All of these are viable, albeit some more than others.
Giving just one option to a class with an emphasis on martial combat (in addition to his spells) leaves you with a lot less options when it comes to character creation. I can't think of any other class where this is the case.
|
It certainly is. If you want to ignore the actual problem with an entire class being pigeon holed into using one handed weapons to access a class ability. Want to use Smite? Too bad! You need a two-handed weapon. Sneak Attack? Not without a light weapon. Etc
As pointed out this is an ideal candidate for the bastard sword
Um no you don't, you can smite with a one handed weapon and there are light one handed weapons that you can SA with, so i really don't understand your complaint here. In fact there's not a single thing (other than reach) that requires you to use a two handed weapon. So what's your point?
Um no you don't, you can smite with a one handed weapon and there are light one handed weapons that you can SA with, so i really don't understand your complaint here. In fact there's not a single thing (other than reach) that requires you to use a two handed weapon. So what's your point?It certainly is. If you want to ignore the actual problem with an entire class being pigeon holed into using one handed weapons to access a class ability. Want to use Smite? Too bad! You need a two-handed weapon. Sneak Attack? Not without a light weapon. Etc
As pointed out this is an ideal candidate for the bastard sword
Over your head. Those were examples of pigeonholing classes that don't exist.
|
|
But you know what a wizard can do? Still a spell and cast it however he wants. Wielding a weapon one-handed? Two-handed? Tied and hanging upside down? Sure, go ahead!Also, doesn't anything think it's ridiculous that wizards can TRY to cast a spell in heavy armor and hope to make it, but a magus CAN'T EVEN TRY to cast a spell unless he has a free hand?
Are we in 1980?
Yes he can... by casting JUST AS A WIZARD DOES... with arcane spell failure, and being restricted to that ONE action for the round.
You seem to forget that what a Wizard CAN'T HOPE TO DO AT ALL is cast a spell and engage in melee combat in the same action phase. That's what defines the magus, the epitome of sword and spell combat.
So can a magus, you just do it the same way a wizard does instead of as part of your full round attack.
|
|
Over your head. Those were examples of pigeonholing classes that don't exist.Um no you don't, you can smite with a one handed weapon and there are light one handed weapons that you can SA with, so i really don't understand your complaint here. In fact there's not a single thing (other than reach) that requires you to use a two handed weapon. So what's your point?It certainly is. If you want to ignore the actual problem with an entire class being pigeon holed into using one handed weapons to access a class ability. Want to use Smite? Too bad! You need a two-handed weapon. Sneak Attack? Not without a light weapon. Etc
As pointed out this is an ideal candidate for the bastard sword
Yeah it did go over my head, I'll admit it. I didn't understand that you were using examples that didn't exist to draw a comparison to the current version of this class.
All I know is that even if paizo doesn't change spell combat I'll be houseruling that the magus doesn't need a free hand to cast spells without a somatic component. If a person is going to go through the trouble to use still spell or look up which specific spells don't require use of his hands he deserves to wield a 2 handed weapon, lol.
One thing that I find mildly amusing about the Magus class is that the character 'Magus' from Chrono Trigger would have second thoughts about taking levels in this class since he uses a two handed weapon: a scythe. Of course, that's ignoring the fact that that game didn't support the ability to do melee and magic attacks in the same round ;)
So can a magus, you just do it the same way a wizard does instead of as part of your full round attack.But you know what a wizard can do? Still a spell and cast it however he wants. Wielding a weapon one-handed? Two-handed? Tied and hanging upside down? Sure, go ahead!Also, doesn't anything think it's ridiculous that wizards can TRY to cast a spell in heavy armor and hope to make it, but a magus CAN'T EVEN TRY to cast a spell unless he has a free hand?
Are we in 1980?
Yes he can... by casting JUST AS A WIZARD DOES... with arcane spell failure, and being restricted to that ONE action for the round.
You seem to forget that what a Wizard CAN'T HOPE TO DO AT ALL is cast a spell and engage in melee combat in the same action phase. That's what defines the magus, the epitome of sword and spell combat.
And what is stopping the Magus from using the Still Spell Feat to cast while wielding a two-handed weapon and attack in the same round? Developer fiat.