I'm gonna have to say no for 2 reasons.
1. Flurry of blows specifies it is a special kind of full attack action. Spell combat states that it is performed as its own special kind of full round action. IF they both said attack action, it might work, except...
2. They both say they are used as if using two weapon fighting. You get an extra flurry attack as if from TWF and then you'd be getting another attack from TWF with the spell.
I agree with Davick in principle and reason 1. I'm not in total agreement with reason 2, though. Although Flurry works as if using the TWF feat, Spell Combat specifies only that it "functions much like two weapon fighting." That's not the same thing.
I think much of the problem there derives from the less than perfect wording of the ability. But it does say that instead of an off hand attack you get the spell, so spell combat is kind of like a feat that lets you TWF with a spell, kind of.
Actually, it's quite dubious on whether or not it can be used.
1) Spell Combat is "A full round action where you do all your attacks and cast a spell"
2) Flurry is "a full attack action
The two abilities do not use the same actions (though both fill a full-round action), so if you interpret spell combat's "all your attacks" as "a full attack action", you can flurry in spell combat.
TWF doesn't really apply to anything here other than giving players something to compare.
RAW, it's quite dubious whether you can TWF with spell combat, except the devs have repeatedly stated you cannot. I doubt FoB would be any different. Of course "Your Game; Your Rules" I'd be interested to see how it would be handled in a PFS game.
Attacking at -4 with something shy of a full attack progression? I would allow it in my game, though I allow flurry and two weapon fighting to be used together. I don't think it's within the spirit or letter of the rules though.
RAW, it's quite dubious whether you can TWF with spell combat, except the devs have repeatedly stated you cannot. I doubt FoB would be any different. Of course "Your Game; Your Rules" I'd be interested to see how it would be handled in a PFS game.
Again, I think this comes from poor wording of the magus. I bet the final version of spell combat will more closely resemble the wording of FoB and prohibit TWF.
The problem i see is that spell combat requires the magus to wield a one hand or light weapon, so if the magus monk had a kama he could still flurry but he wouldnt get the increased monk damage because for some dumb reason the weapon damage doesnt go up along with his unarmed strike damage.
The problem i see is that spell combat requires the magus to wield a one hand or light weapon, so if the magus monk had a kama he could still flurry but he wouldnt get the increased monk damage because for some dumb reason the weapon damage doesnt go up along with his unarmed strike damage.
Unarmed strikes count as light too
yea just doesn't feel right as far as RAI
Strictly speaking, he needs to hold a weapon and have a free hand. The Magonk could flurry unarmed strikes as kicks and headbutts while holding a totally not-used-as-weapon weapon and cast on the remaining free hand. Oh, and the weapon doesn't have to be decorative or ever used as a weapon... put a wand or rod in it.
Strictly speaking, he needs to hold a weapon and have a free hand. The Magonk could flurry unarmed strikes as kicks and headbutts while holding a totally not-used-as-weapon weapon and cast on the remaining free hand. Oh, and the weapon doesn't have to be decorative or ever used as a weapon... put a wand or rod in it.
Spell Combat stipulates wielding, a term that lacks a specific definition (and really needs one) but that generally seems to mean to actually use the weapon. Carrying it wouldn't be wielding it. He would be wielding his unarmed strike in that scenario. Not that it matters, since they stipulate they require separate kinds of actions anyway.
|
Actually, as far as I can tell, wielding simply implies being able to make attacks with said weapon. As an example, look at the Wizard Arcane Bond (Weapon). It has been explained that, if you were to use a two-handed weapon as your bond, you could not technically cast spells without the appropriate concentration check (with somatic components, or via the Still Spell metamagic feat). People have asked if you could simply swap the weapon into one hand (as a free action), and the response from the dev.'s has been "no", as you cannot "wield" a two-handed weapon with one hand.
This seems to indicate that a wizard with a one-handed weapon would count as wielding the weapon so long as it was in hand (i.e., he CAN make attacks with it). Therefore, a Magus would not technically be required to attack with a weapon as long as it is one that can be used one-handed.
Actually, as far as I can tell, wielding simply implies being able to make attacks with said weapon. As an example, look at the Wizard Arcane Bond (Weapon). It has been explained that, if you were to use a two-handed weapon as your bond, you could not technically cast spells without the appropriate concentration check (with somatic components, or via the Still Spell metamagic feat). People have asked if you could simply swap the weapon into one hand (as a free action), and the response from the dev.'s has been "no", as you cannot "wield" a two-handed weapon with one hand.
This seems to indicate that a wizard with a one-handed weapon would count as wielding the weapon so long as it was in hand (i.e., he CAN make attacks with it). Therefore, a Magus would not technically be required to attack with a weapon as long as it is one that can be used one-handed.
Murky at best. Wield needs a definition, and magus needs editing either way.
|
|
Also, I believe Brass Knuckles would count as a weapon in this case, allowing the use of flurry of blows OR spell combat as the need arises. And you can still have a hand free just by using one brass knuckle.
That said, I personally wouldn't have a problem if a character tried to do Flurry of Spell Combat. You're combining MONK (generally under-appreciated, but noticably behind the power curve at times) with a non-full BAB class that doesn't stack for the purposes of flurry. That seems like enough of a penalty to me.
Alternatively, if the brass knuckles seem a little cheesy, just use a temple sword. Honestly, I rather like this multiclassing idea. If only there were some sort of prestige class or multiclassing feat to make it work...
(hint-hint, nudge-nudge)