Magus and Improved Unarmed Strike Question

[Mynameisjake]

Does having IUS qualify as "wielding a light or one handed weapon" for the purpose of using Spell Combat?

[Matt Stich]

Mynameisjake wrote:

Does having IUS qualify as "wielding a light or one handed weapon" for the purpose of using Spell Combat?

Well unarmed strikes are always considered light weapons, so yes, I'd say it would.

[Skerek]

personally i wouldn't worry about IUS for a magus, just get a cestus, 1d4 instead of 1d3, 19-20 crit threat and doesn't need a feat to do it properly. funnily enough RAW disarms actually work against a cestus

[Mynameisjake]

Matt Stich wrote:

Well unarmed strikes are always considered light weapons, so yes, I'd say it would.

Could the Magus then use the disarm maneuver in place of the melee attack? While still using Spell Combat, I mean.

Edit: The tactic that I'm to determine the legality of, is using Spell Combat to cast True Strike, then, with IUS to fulfill the weapon requirement, using Imp. Disarm to make an "empty handed" disarm, thus allowing the Magus to end up with the opponent's weapon.

And I'm not trying to spring something on my DM, since that would be me.

[Matt Stich]

Mynameisjake wrote:

Matt Stich wrote:

Well unarmed strikes are always considered light weapons, so yes, I'd say it would.

Could the Magus then use the disarm maneuver in place of the melee attack? While still using Spell Combat, I mean.

Edit: The tactic that I'm to determine the legality of, is using Spell Combat to cast True Strike, then, with IUS to fulfill the weapon requirement, using Imp. Disarm to make an "empty handed" disarm, thus allowing the Magus to end up with the opponent's weapon.

And I'm not trying to spring something on my DM, since that would be me.

Yes, I'd say he could. A disarm could be used in place of a melee attack, so yes he could.