Okay, this is a farshot i understand that.
But Spell Combat needs clearer definition about TWF, does it or doesn't it stack with TWF ? All it says in playtest is that it works "... much like like two weapon fighting..."
I am asking this cause in fact it is possible for Magus to use Spell Combat and TWF. Its a little cheesy, but glove of storing does the job (free action to use, not swift), especially how Spell Combat says that you've got to choose whether you want to cast spell first or do a full attack first.
Any thoughts ?
Also, unarmed strikes leave one's hand empty, although I'd argue that you'd have to call the strikes kicks, elbows, or whatever, if you were actually using them at the same time as spellcasting.
Still, I think it's clear that the character is already using a TWF-like ability, so that Spell Combat and TWF should overlap, not stack. However, I'd argue that ITWF and GTWF should give extra offhand attacks. Note, "should," my opinion, blah blah.
ETA: Would the offhand attack be at -5? Would it incur an extra penalty above that for Spell Combat? What about when the penalty for Spell Combat disappeared?
Also, unarmed strikes leave one's hand empty, although I'd argue that you'd have to call the strikes kicks, elbows, or whatever, if you were actually using them at the same time as spellcasting.
Still, I think it's clear that the character is already using a TWF-like ability, so that Spell Combat and TWF should overlap, not stack. However, I'd argue that ITWF and GTWF should give extra offhand attacks. Note, "should," my opinion, blah blah.
ETA: Would the offhand attack be at -5? Would it incur an extra penalty above that for Spell Combat? What about when the penalty for Spell Combat disappeared?
Unarmed strikes, spiked gauntlet both are "weapons" that leave hand usable for spell casting and still be able to attack with it.
I am guessing that it doesn't stack neither, but its worded in such a way that TWF is but a reference.As for penalties, if it works out that it stacks (whole tree), it should be -2, if just ITWF and GTWF than yea, its -4 and it disappears over levels, at least i would of ruled it like that.
|
I would like to play a gnome magus who fights with a gnomish hook-hammer, but the fact that it's a two-handed weapon makes that weapon choice unplayable for magi.
I don't believe that it's unbalanced so long as I only use one end of the weapon for my attack (with no strength bonus for a 2H attack).
Then again, I guess this really is more about redefining that a 2H weapon can be used single-handedly with a minimum strength requirement (I would say Strength 13 in this instance).
And again, all through this was playtest, Spell Combat was somewhat written poorly. I would allow for all kinds of combination, and it wouldn't be overpowered, If rogue can sneak attack with a 2H weapon which when you try to imagine it, looks truly silly, so can Magus cast spells and use 2H weapon, last paragraph does state that he chooses will he attack first or will he cast spell first, so cast a spell, quick draw that 2 hander and pummel enemies... again as this is a play test, i would talk with my DM and explain to him - even show him some of the threads where Magus's attack's were getting crunched if you must, its nothing to write home about.
Okay, this is a farshot i understand that.
But Spell Combat needs clearer definition about TWF, does it or doesn't it stack with TWF ? All it says in playtest is that it works "... much like like two weapon fighting...
Any thoughts ?
Is it not a moot point? Using the ability 'Spell Combat' is a full round action. Getting extra attacks from regular TWF of any level is a full attack action, (which takes a full round) since getting any extra attacks from any source requires you to full attack.
Hence they cannot be done at the same time in any case since you only get one full attack action in any round.
While they are conceptually similar they are not mechanically compatible.
Okay, this is a farshot i understand that.
But Spell Combat needs clearer definition about TWF, does it or doesn't it stack with TWF ? All it says in playtest is that it works "... much like like two weapon fighting...
Any thoughts ?Is it not a moot point? Using the ability 'Spell Combat' is a full round action. Getting extra attacks from regular TWF of any level is a full attack action, (which takes a full round) since getting any extra attacks from any source requires you to full attack.
Hence they cannot be done at the same time in any case since you only get one full attack action in any round.
While they are conceptually similar they are not mechanically compatible.
Except that Spell Combat allows you to full attack and cast a spell, so while they are mechanically "different" they are still compatible, cause Spell Combat adds a spell on top of full attack.
Except that Spell Combat allows you to full attack and cast a spell, so while they are mechanically "different" they are still compatible, cause Spell Combat adds a spell on top of full attack.
Yes but spell combat has explicit restrictions stated with it that regular full attacks do not have. As such it is it''s own unique 'Ability'. It shares much with spell casting and full attacks but you still cannot combine it with either in addition to it's already stated benefits.
Otherwise everyone would already be able to cast a spell and full attack.
'Spell Combat' is a Full round action with specific abilities and drawbacks, just as Full Attacking is and Casting a spell with a Full Round casting time for example.
If they could be stacked then would it not be more logical to say that you would simply Full Attack as a full round action and cast a spell as a Standard action in the same round? After all a full round stacked with a standard is less effort than stacking two full round actions (Spell Combat and a Full Attack) wouldn't it?
If the ability was simply to add spell casting to a full attack then I would agree with you, but the ability's description starts by saying "As a full round action...' indicating that it is a unique power combination all it's own that takes your whole round to perform, exactly as it states.
As a full round action, spell combat let's you make all of your attacks and cast a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action. If you get 4 iterative attacks, 3 off hand, 9 tentacles, 2 bites, and 1 haste, well, that's all of your attacks.
Gilfalas, while i see logic in your statement and i personally would love to see whole Spell Combat written as clearly as you are stating, it simply does not duo to writing of spell combat, and its not just that i am interpreting it the way i see fit, cause Spell Combat is pretty clear about that part, its unclear wherever you can combine TWF with it or not. While as i said above, what you are saying sounds logical, Spell Combat trumps you:
...As a full round action he can make all of his attacks at -4 penalty. He can also cast any spell with a casting time of 1 standard action from the Magus spell list.
Can you use a throwing weapon as your off hand weapon, and throw it as your last off hand attack, and then cast a spell, all while using Spell Combat?
You can, but if i am not wrong, throwing weapons get penalty on attack rolls in melee (or those were just javelins in 3.5).
Anyway, its totally unneeded, if you are trying to get rid of the weapon, just so you can use it with Spell Combat.
High cost trick: Glove of Storing, preferably wielding 2x sawtooth sabers, for maximum cheese, but anything works.
Low cost trick - get yourself spiked armor :)
Gilfalas, while i see logic in your statement and i personally would love to see whole Spell Combat written as clearly as you are stating, it simply does not duo to writing of spell combat...
You may have missed the important part of the ability that rules out two weapon fighting, it is the very first line of the power:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a fullround action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –4 penalty. He can also cast any spell with a casting time of 1 standard action from the magus spell list. He must cast this spell defensively, and he takes a – 2 penalty on the oncentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still suffer the –4 penalty.
That would clearly and unambiguously indicate to me that you cannot two weapon fight while using spell combat. You must have one hand free and you must be using a Light or One Handed melee weapon in the other hand. Since the attacks line refers back to the sole melee weapon, not weapon(s), then that precludes any use of TWF when using spell combat at it is currently written.
Is that clearer?
Can you use a throwing weapon as your off hand weapon, and throw it as your last off hand attack, and then cast a spell, all while using Spell Combat?
No since it clearly states that you have to have one hand free to even use the ablity to start with. If you light or one handed melee weapon was also throwable then yes I would think you can throw it at any time as normal, but to use Spell combat you can only be wielding ONE melee weapon and must have a free hand.
While weapon spikes or unarmed attacks do not necesserily take up an actual 'hand' it at least seems clear to me that the intent was to allow you to make a full attack with a single melee weapon
As a fullround action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –4 penalty.
and cast one spell if you can make the required checks.
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a fullround action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –4 penalty. He can also cast any spell with a casting time of 1 standard action from the magus spell list. He must cast this spell defensively, and he takes a – 2 penalty on the oncentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still suffer the –4 penalty.That would clearly and unambiguously indicate to me that you cannot two weapon fight while using spell combat. You must have one hand free and you must be using a Light or One Handed melee weapon in the other hand. Since the attacks line refers back to the sole melee weapon, not weapon(s), then that precludes any use of TWF when using spell combat at it is currently written.
Is that clearer?
The Magus would still keep a free hand if he was TWFing with armor spikes or unarmed strikes.
Edit: Which if I actually read your post, I would see that you addressed that. Bad Steve! Read before you post!
Gilfas, as i said, i agree with you, and thats the whole point of this thread - they need to clarify it, not base it on intent - intents are like opinions, everyone have a set of different ones.
Armor spikes don'tturn you into a monk. If you're attackng with them you're attacking with hands. You can not TWF and Spell Combat because Spell Combat is in and of itself a TWF mechanic. the spell in this case being the secondary weapon.
The Magus would still keep a free hand if he was TWFing with armor spikes or unarmed strikes.
Edit: Which if I actually read your post, I would see that you addressed that. Bad Steve! Read before you post!
And yet, thats intent, only thing ever in Spell Combat that does mention TWF is that Spell Combat works much like TWF.
Again, i am not saying it must stack, all i am trying to say is that they should not leave it on imaginary intent, but specify it, cause there are ways around free hand restriction to make TWF work.
I would like to play a gnome magus who fights with a gnomish hook-hammer, but the fact that it's a two-handed weapon makes that weapon choice unplayable for magi.
I don't believe that it's unbalanced so long as I only use one end of the weapon for my attack (with no strength bonus for a 2H attack).
Then again, I guess this really is more about redefining that a 2H weapon can be used single-handedly with a minimum strength requirement (I would say Strength 13 in this instance).
I'm not sure if it's unbalanced exactly -- I'd have to look at the weapon -- but it gives you extra flexibility, because you COULD use it TWF or two-handed whenever you didn't use Spell Combat, and that's worth something.
There is already precedent for using a 2H weapon single-handedly, but rather than a strength requirement, it's a feat requirement: bastard sword is martial used in two hands, exotic used in one*. A gnomish hook hammer is already considered non-exotic for a gnome, but -- unless the weapon is crazy good -- it seems reasonable to let you use it one-handed if you paid a feat to do so.
* (And if I were building a Magus and had the stats to spare for Str, it is probably the weapon I'd choose.)
As far as the original discussion goes, I think Gilfalas caught it with the (singular) "melee weapon," quote.
Here are a few options...
First there's Somatic Weaponry feat, but it doesn't follow RAW at all since a SINGLE one handed/light weapon is given full iteratives, and you have to have a hand free PERIOD.
The following 3.5 ruling could be used:
Wizards ruling, under Adjacent squares and reach.
Although the rules don't mention it, letting go of a two-handed weapon with one hand or putting a free hand back on the weapon is a free action for you.
If the link doesn't work, and it has been known to, then simply Google the quoted term and then run a find for the term on the first result.
So I'm thinking you can take a small double weapon and freely use your hand when it suits you and get full iteratives with it, which would include off hand attacks, or using a one handed weapon in 2 hands for more strength.
Now at first, I figured RAI the character is casting a spell while SIMULTANEOUSLY swinging a weapon, but Duskblades were casting spells and getting full iteratives with both hands no problem, so...Somatic Weaponry would work for the RAI, but not RAW. By raw the above should work, but it's cheesy and you get a -2 for the wrong sized weaponry if going the off hand route.
I think that RAW and RAI this doesn't work. RAI I don't think that the Magus is intended to have TWF but RAW the can only take attacks with one weapon, singular.
Further you need at the least a 15 intell for a magus. To go into the 2 Weapon Fighting tree you need a 15 Dex as well. Since you are need to do some damage it would see you need to have your str up and with most point buys/dice rolls you just don't have that stats to make this a playable build.