This has probably been asked and answered I just want to make sure I'm on the same page.
Ok, so I officially think it's dumb that you can't use 2H weapons with spell combat, even with spells with no somatic components.
Be that as it may, you CAN use 1H weapons. Is there anything keeping you from two-handing them to get extra str and PA damage once you've cast the spell?
It would seem Scimitar would be the best weapon for a Magus in this case, no?
The way the game balances these extra abilities that a magus gets is by forcing the off hand to be free as well as with swift action limitations. This prevents the use of a Shield, two weapon fighting, and two handed weapons. All of these would increase the AC or damage output of the magus.
Otherwise the ability to cast spells and full attack with an extra attack in one round would be too much.
Primary casters are better at magic then a Magus due to higher level spell access faster. Primary warriors are better due to having more options beyond a single one handed weapon. But neither primary casters nor primary warriors can cast magic and fight in the same round so that is what give the Magus a spot in the lime light.
I think it is a good class and well written.
Scimitar and Rapier are both good choices if you are going for the high crit chance and damage spells. But many other one handed weapons have their place and work well based upon how you want to play. A Dwarven WarAxe could work well for a dwarf, and a war hammer may work better for use in some fights as well. It really depends upon the campaign you are in.
A Dwarf Magus using a waraxe and spell buffing with haste, mirror image, stoneskin, displacement, etc each round while full attacking could be fun.
The way the game balances these extra abilities that a magus gets is by forcing the off hand to be free as well as with swift action limitations. This prevents the use of a Shield, two weapon fighting, and two handed weapons.
Yes, but as far as I can tell it doesn't prevent the Magus from wielding that 1H weapon with two hands, like you would a longsword, to get 1.5*Str and the two-handed bonus from Power Attack. So you can cast your spell with your weapon in one hand, then grip your weapon with both hands to do the actual stabbing.
Correct?
|
I don't know the rule in question. But if the language of the rule requires a free hand to do cast the spell or otherwise prohibits the use of a two-handed weapon, it sounds like using a one-handed weapon is functionally the same thing as what's prohibited, yes? If the concept is that you need a free hand to do your thing, then trying to find a loophole to negate the concept is likely to be problematic.
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
You're certainly able to wield a one-handed weapon, and you can even hold it two-handed, but you can't use spell combat while you're doing so. So each round you'd either hold it one-handed and Two-Weapon Fight with it and a spell, or hold it two-handed and not. It's the same choice wielders of double weapons have to make.
The way the game balances these extra abilities that a magus gets is by forcing the off hand to be free as well as with swift action limitations. This prevents the use of a Shield, two weapon fighting, and two handed weapons.Yes, but as far as I can tell it doesn't prevent the Magus from wielding that 1H weapon with two hands, like you would a longsword, to get 1.5*Str and the two-handed bonus from Power Attack. So you can cast your spell with your weapon in one hand, then grip your weapon with both hands to do the actual stabbing.
Correct?
I'll quote the text when I get home (dont have my copy with me) but I believe it specifically indicates that you must have a hand free. So no 2handing a one handed weapon. The idea here is that the magus should be using the least optimal means of attack (one handed) because he also gets to cast a spell. If you start allowing the better attack routines the class stops being balanced.
I don't know the rule in question. But if the language of the rule requires a free hand to do cast the spell or otherwise prohibits the use of a two-handed weapon, it sounds like using a one-handed weapon is functionally the same thing as what's prohibited, yes? If the concept is that you need a free hand to do your thing, then trying to find a loophole to negate the concept is likely to be problematic.
It's not trying to find a loophole, and using a one-handed weapon is not functionally the same as using a 2h-er. Using a two-hander requires two hands to wield. A one-hander requires one hand, but you have the option of gripping it with two hands for additional damage.
Two handed weapons are usually functionally superior in that they have larger damage dice. Wielding a Scimitar in two hands is possible, but it's only 1d6 not 2d6 (greatsword) 2d4 (falchion) or 1d10 (elven curved blade).
The rules for the class don't prohibit you from EVER wielding a one handed weapon two-handed, only when you are casting a spell (presumably) so, since you can cast the spell before or after your attacks per the rules of Spell Combat, you should be able to cast the spell and then, free of the burdon of requiring a free hand, grip your blade properly.
The rules for the class don't prohibit you from EVER wielding a one handed weapon two-handed, only when you are casting a spell (presumably) so, since you can cast the spell before or after your attacks per the rules of Spell Combat, you should be able to cast the spell and then, free of the burdon of requiring a free hand, grip your blade properly.
Yes when not casting a spell you can weild any weapon you want. You can weild a tree if you can pick it up. But spell combat is a single action. So the required state (having a hand free) must be in place for the entirety of the action.
|
|
If this is the text (from d20pfsrd):
then, I'm quite comfortable with the opinion that you need to do what it says to use the ability: have a hand free, wield a weapon in the other hand. If you want to argue free-move manipulation to negate that, you'll need to debate it with someone else.
|
|
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.You're certainly able to wield a one-handed weapon, and you can even hold it two-handed, but you can't use spell combat while you're doing so. So each round you'd either hold it one-handed and Two-Weapon Fight with it and a spell, or hold it two-handed and not. It's the same choice wielders of double weapons have to make.
Sort of. A double weapon requires two hands to use if sized for you; you can opt to use it for TWF, or you can use as a two-handed weapon. To use it in one hand, it would have to be sized for a smaller creature. There are developer posts that have confused the bezeus out of this (James has said one thing, reversed himself citing lack of being a computer, and Jason has said as above). I expect it will take a FAQ reply to ever straighten it out.
The problem is spell combat is a Full round Action. Not two separate actions. So you can no more have the hand free to cast the spell then grab the weapon with both hands for the attack as it is all one action. The rules are clearly going for the intent of you have a free hand to cast the spell and the other hand is for the weapon. This goes so far as they actually point out that it is irrelevant if you need your hand for the components or not you still have to have it free.
The problem is spell combat is a Full round Action. Not two separate actions. So you can no more have the hand free to cast the spell then grab the weapon with both hands for the attack as it is all one action. The rules are clearly going for the intent of you have a free hand to cast the spell and the other hand is for the weapon. This goes so far as they actually point out that it is irrelevant if you need your hand for the components or not you still have to have it free.
Except that a full attack is also a full round action. There's no prohibition from switching between weapons, weapon hands, and how you hold the weapons with a full attack.
Also a response to you, Kolokotroni.
Sure, meatrace.
You CAN switch hands mid-action during Spell Combat.
And then guess what happens? Nothing. Your action is over.
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
That restriction applies to the entire Spell Combat action. So you can completely switch hands mid-actions.
Once you don´t have one hand free while wielding a one-handed melee weapon in the other,you can´t use the ability anymore, meaning any remaining components of the action are wasted.
No FAQ needed.
Wow, I never expected such vitriol in asking a genuine rules question. It seemed obvious to me that it was possible, since it is possible to do so in a full-attack action.
But I guess an extra 1-6 damage with a power attack OMG BREAKS THE F+$!ING GAME and I'm a munchkin for not wanting a swashbuckler with one hand in the air all the damn time.
This has probably been asked and answered I just want to make sure I'm on the same page.
Ok, so I officially think it's dumb that you can't use 2H weapons with spell combat, even with spells with no somatic components.
Be that as it may, you CAN use 1H weapons. Is there anything keeping you from two-handing them to get extra str and PA damage once you've cast the spell?
It would seem Scimitar would be the best weapon for a Magus in this case, no?
Key word is wielding
Except that a full attack is also a full round action. There's no prohibition from switching between weapons, weapon hands, and how you hold the weapons with a full attack.
Also a response to you, Kolokotroni.
You've been answered and re-answered. Its obvious to everyone here but you. I don't think that means its a problem with the text.
And you don't have one hand in the air all the time, you have one hand waving in the air while you're casting a spell. If you're not using spell combat and just using a full round attack you can certainly grip with two weapons. But your vitrol seems to indicate that you're upset that your attempt at munchkinism got shot down. I can't say I'm sorry.
How on earth is that munchkinism? It was a genuine question, and I've (since) gotten a legitimate mechanical answer. I'm happy with that. I'm not sure how a legitimate rules question is munchkinism but hey, whatever.
How on earth is that munchkinism? It was a genuine question, and I've (since) gotten a legitimate mechanical answer. I'm happy with that. I'm not sure how a legitimate rules question is munchkinism but hey, whatever.Except that a full attack is also a full round action. There's no prohibition from switching between weapons, weapon hands, and how you hold the weapons with a full attack.
Also a response to you, Kolokotroni.
You've been answered and re-answered. Its obvious to everyone here but you. I don't think that means its a problem with the text.
And you don't have one hand in the air all the time, you have one hand waving in the air while you're casting a spell. If you're not using spell combat and just using a full round attack you can certainly grip with two weapons. But your vitrol seems to indicate that you're upset that your attempt at munchkinism got shot down. I can't say I'm sorry.
I'm not judging by any means. But some of your replies could be taken as someone who came here looking for verification for their munchkiny combo they just found. Not saying you did that, I'm saying I don't blame others who thought that.
I'm not judging by any means. But some of your replies could be taken as someone who came here looking for verification for their munchkiny combo they just found. Not saying you did that, I'm saying I don't blame others who thought that.
Even so, I'm not sure how eking out an extra couple damage is munchkiny.
The thing I was afraid I would encounter is the woefully large group of gamers ignorant of the fact that you can, in fact, wield a one handed weapon with two hands for increased damage. I've gotten a bizarre amount of resistance to that basic concept, even though it is clearly described in the core rules, with people I have gamed/interacted with.For the record I was not looking legitimize my reading of the rules, merely that when I first read it the first thing I thought was "what would keep you from just two-handing the sword after you've cast your spell?" So I came here asking what exactly, mechanically, keeps you from doing that. Quandary pointed out that it is not in fact a full attack action and thus is a special rules exception. Makes sense, though then they have to clarify the term "all your attacks" in the language because that implies that you are in fact getting a full attack action with all the versatility allowed therein.
Removed a post. Keep it civil, please.
We are not saying you cannot wield a one handed weapon in two hands. That is allowed and you can do it for extra STR damage as well as extra power attack damage. What we are trying to answer is that you cannot do that with Spell Combat as it is specifically spelled out as not allowed due to the requirement of one free hand. If you are using a one handed weapon two handed then it is not a free hand.
No attack or belittling is intended and we are trying to answer the question asked.
Let me ask you this, would you allow someone with two weapon fighting and quickdraw to attack two handed, switch grips, quickdraw an offhand weapon and attack with it? I certainly hope not.
Even if you somehow would, the restriction in spell combat is 100% clear. It doesn't say you must have a free hand to cast the spell, it says you must have a free hand. So you have to have a free hand while using spell combat. Spell combat encompasses BOTH the casting of the spell and the full attack.