Pertinent info:
Fighter 1/Magus 1 with Two Weapon Fighting as a feat choice.
So here's my question: Spell Combat seems to automatically grant Two Weapon Fighting as a temporary feat for the purposes of casting in one hand and attacking with the other. The language says that the attack takes a -2, as would any attack roll made as part of the standard action spell. Under the table in Two Weapon Fighting this equates to a character with TWF as a feat, using a one-handed weapon in the primary hand and light weapon in the off-hand (much like the Iconic Valeros). So for the Magus, as part of using Spell Combat, TWF is inclusive in the action, whether or not they actually have TWF. So, what if they do have TWF? Does it further reduce the penalties so that there are no penalties at all? For me, as I'm reading it, I think that's how it should work. Otherwise you're removing the benefit of taking TWF as a a feat.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances | Primary Hand | Off Hand
Normal penalties | –6 | –10
Off-hand weapon is light | –4 | –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat | –4 | –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat | –2 | –2
As a Fighter 1, if I wield a longsword in the primary hand, and short sword in the off hand, I only take a -2/-2 penalty. If a class feature grants me the same benefit, shouldn't my existing feat choice affect that somehow? I'm not sure if removing the penalties altogether is really balancing or fair, but I feel like there should be some benefit to a Fighter 1/Magus 1 with TWF.
Let me know if I'm just crazy, it's happened before.
Just crazy. Magus and Monk get nothing from TWF*, just like Fighters get nothing from Combat Casting.
*(weeeell....they do get something if they choose not to use their iconic class abilities and just dual-kukri away, but that's hardly relevant).
So, what if they do have TWF? Does it further reduce the penalties so that there are no penalties at all?
No, it doesn't.
The benefit of Spell Combat is being able to full attack with your weapon and also cast a standard action spell.
The benefit of TWF is reduced penalties when Two-Weapon Fighting.
If you're using Spell Combat you're not Two-Weapon Fighting. If you're Two-Weapon Fighting you're not using Spell Combat.
As a Fighter 1, if I wield a longsword in the primary hand, and short sword in the off hand, I only take a -2/-2 penalty. If a class feature grants me the same benefit, shouldn't my existing feat choice affect that somehow?
Spell Combat does not grant you the same benefit.
If you choose to not use Spell Combat but instead use Two-Weapon Fighting, then the TWF feat will reduce those penalties. Without that feat, you will take much higher penalties for fighting that way. That's the benefit.
These two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
Yeah, I'm getting that idea.
However, I don't think they aren't at all related. The penalty numbers weren't just arbitrarily picked out of the sky. In fact Spell Combat actually references TWF in its language. So TWF and Spell Combat are similar in that the developers think using what should be two standard actions in the same round has a penalty. I guess my whole take on it was that if a fighter has become adept at fighting with both hands at the same time (read: took TWF as a feat) he might also be a bit more adept at fighting with a weapon and casting a spell "at the same time" (in the same combat round).
I get that TWF and Spell-Combat are two separate distinct entities, but I still see a correlation between the mechanics.
There is a correlation between the two, but the magus is already trained in its specialized form of twf. If the twf feat improves that, every magus will have to have it, and it will probably be over powered.
Totally on board with that. I guess, as I continue to look at it, I almost think that Spell Combat should not provide as strong a benefit as it now does. Especially since it is happening at first level. Perhaps Spell Combat should be -4/-4 (which, yes I know does actually provide a sort of TWF inherent in itself still) and then if the character takes TWF it will drop the penalties to -2/-2. At this point its just pointless quasi-intellectual banter though, because they've already FAQ'd it, and I'm sure they decided on the penalties they did for good reason. I mean the Magus does have to suffer being only a 3/4 BAB class.
As a curious question I am guessing I know that answer, but would Spell Combat count as TWF for per-requisites like TWD?
No. Why would it?