You just need to wield armor spikes, blade boots, or a similar weapon in order to keep one hand free.
I admit it's a bit more MAD, but if you really want to go for it, there is no reason you couldn't attack somebody while dual-wielding two weapons and still use Spell Combat to cast a spell. After all, the only requirement in Spell Combat is that you leave one hand free.
|
Would you take a -4 on the attack roll?
It seems you would. Spell combat applies a -2 penalty, TWF applies another -2 penalty.
On the touch attack roll, too?
You're attacking with your off-hand in the same round you used TWF, so you'd have a -2 penalty. The spell combat penalty doesn't apply because you're not using a melee weapon (not even an unarmed strike).
A glove of storing allows you to store and retrieve a held item as a free action. Could be another option for Magus wanting to use TWF while using Spell Combat.
Doesn't Spell Combat state that the ability functions as two-weapon fightning except that you use your off-hand to cast a spell? I would reason that this means you're already using your second hand that round for spellcasting purposes, and it couldn't be used to perform another action.
In any case, I think it's fairly clear that the intent of the ability is to restrict you to using a single one-handed weapon. You're scrambling for loopholes here, and that just tends to escalate the monty haul.
Doesn't Spell Combat state that the ability functions as two-weapon fightning except that you use your off-hand to cast a spell? I would reason that this means you're already using your second hand that round for spellcasting purposes, and it couldn't be used to perform another action.
In any case, I think it's fairly clear that the [i]intent[/b] of the ability is to restrict you to using a single one-handed weapon. You're scrambling for loopholes here, and that just tends to escalate the monty haul.
The exact wording is "This functions much like two-weapon fighting..."
"Much like" is not the same as "just like."
However, you may be right about the intend due to the second half of the sentence, "...but the offhand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
Though you can wield as many weapons as is physically possible, you are still limited to declaring one off-hand weapon at a time. If the spell in question truly replaces your off-hand weapon, than magus characters will never be able to dual-wield and use spell combat at the same time.
I wouldn't mind getting developer input on this one.
The offhand is casting the spell so must be free. You can not have a weapon and both hands and use spell combat. You can still TWF, but not while using spell combat
Doesn't Spell Combat state that the ability functions as two-weapon fightning except that you use your off-hand to cast a spell? I would reason that this means you're already using your second hand that round for spellcasting purposes, and it couldn't be used to perform another action.
In any case, I think it's fairly clear that the [i]intent[/b] of the ability is to restrict you to using a single one-handed weapon. You're scrambling for loopholes here, and that just tends to escalate the monty haul.
The exact wording is "This functions much like two-weapon fighting..."
"Much like" is not the same as "just like."
However, you may be right about the intend due to the second half of the sentence, "...but the offhand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
Though you can wield as many weapons as is physically possible, you are still limited to declaring one off-hand weapon at a time. If the spell in question truly replaces your off-hand weapon, than magus characters will never be able to dual-wield and use spell combat at the same time.
I wouldn't mind getting developer input on this one.
They commented during the first playtest that the magus is restricted to one one-handed weapon. I saw many complaints about it. I pretty much stopped participating at that point. I was hoping things would change for the this round, but with them going out of their way to say the spell takes up the other hand, it only seems to be enforced more.
The offhand is casting the spell so must be free. You can not have a weapon and both hands and use spell combat. You can still TWF, but not while using spell combat
Um...Blade boots...you're right about the free hand having to be free, so traditional TWF is impossible. But if you use something that takes up the feet, you can easily TWF while Spell-Combating. As stated, you'd take a -4 on your attacks, due to a -2 from both spell combat and TWF, but it's totally possible. Actually, with the boost that Arcane Accuracy got, it's quite viable. A magus could totally kick some ass with a scimitar in one hand and a pair of blade boots. That's 2 attacks and a spell.
Just a second note, this also makes TWF a viable option with Dervish Dance.
A glove of storing allows you to store and retrieve a held item as a free action. Could be another option for Magus wanting to use TWF while using Spell Combat.Doesn't help, since you still have to have a free hand when you make your melee attack, as discussed in the other thread.
Make the weapon go away as a free action, cast the spell and do all your attacks with the primary weapon, bring the weapon back at the end as a free action and take the rest of your offhand attacks. It can be a free hand the entire time you are doing spell combat, since these are free actions and can be done at any point in time.
But yeah.. I agree with the idea that the intent is that the spell being cast is your offhand "weapon".
Its not just the "intent" it says in Spell Combat that the off-hand weapon is the spell. That means no two-weapon fighting with other things its just a Full-attack with a one-handed or light weapon as your main hand and a spell as your off-hand attack.