2
\$\begingroup\$

I'm building a half-orc Kensai and I'm wondering about something.

Spell Combat states the following: 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. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)

And Two Weapon Fighting states: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

So, does this mean I can take TWF and negate that -2 penalty while using Spell Combat? Or am I misapplying this penalty reduction? I think its a wording issue and I'm just seeking clarification.

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
\$\begingroup\$

No.

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.

"functions much like two-weapon fighting", not "is two-weapon fighting". Spell combat is its own thing, two-weapon fighting is something completely different.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ But the text "the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" could imply that the magus effectively has an off-hand weapon. And in that case, TWF would apply, and offset the penalty... is that incorrect? \$\endgroup\$
    – MikeQ
    Jan 16, 2018 at 20:19
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MikeQ: TWF reduces penalty "for fighting with two weapons". If you read it your way a magus without TWF would get the -6 penalty to his main hand on top of the -2 for using spell combat. The feat would remove 2 from the -6 penalty. Arguably the hand casting the spell could be considered a light weapon to remove 2 a second time. Finally the attack is made at -4. \$\endgroup\$
    – Anne Aunyme
    Jan 17, 2018 at 9:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Very true, I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks for clearing that up! \$\endgroup\$
    – MikeQ
    Jan 17, 2018 at 16:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .