|
"Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. 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."
Nope, requires two hands, one free, and one wielding a light or one-handed weapon. If you are holding a bow, that hand is not free.
"Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. 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."
Nope, requires two hands, one free, and one wielding a light or one-handed weapon. If you are holding a bow, that hand is not free.
Also, since it specifies a melee weapon, you can't count the bow hand as the hand with a weapon.
I think the FAQ disagrees with you Ssalarn.
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
Emphasis mine.
Is a kick an unarmed strike? Yes.
Does the magus have one hand free? Yes.
He can therefore spell combat with that combo.
Although its possible they meant only unarmed strikes that actually use an arm/hand for the unarmed strike. Horrible oversight on their part if that is what they meant though given the iconic unarmed strike class in the game (monk) can use any body part for unarmed strikes. So to not call out that difference specifically for non-monks....
The RAI (I believe) of the whole part about "A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat." is to prevent the free spellstrike attack for the non-humanoid creature to use a massive bite attack (or tail slap, or insert most dangerous natural attack possible here) to deliver the spell.
|
|
I think the FAQ disagrees with you Ssalarn.
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
Emphasis mine.
Is a kick an unarmed strike? Yes.
Does the magus have one hand free? Yes.He can therefore spell combat with that combo.
Although its possible they meant only unarmed strikes that actually use an arm/hand for the unarmed strike. Horrible oversight on their part if that is what they meant though given the iconic unarmed strike class in the game (monk) can use any body part for unarmed strikes. So to not call out that difference specifically for non-monks....
Umm, check the FAQ right below that-
"Magus: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?
You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 04/05/13 Back to Top "
So, there's nothing that disagrees with me, and in fact, it supports what I said. You have to have two hands, one free and one wileding a light oor one-handed weapon, and while kicks are unarmed strikes, they aren't unarmed strikes associated specifically with one of your hands like the FAQ you posted specifies.
A Magus cannot use Spell Combat while one hand is holding a bow.
|
|
I guess I was wondering if it would work since a monk's kick is a 'primary hand' attack.
In some circumstances (armour spikes for instance) a the pathfinder combat terminology 'hand' is not necessarily a 'hand' (with fingers etc).
In this instance, they make it clear that when talking about hands, they are really talking about hands. See the FAQs above.
