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.



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.

  • \$\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 '18 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 '18 at 9:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Very true, I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks for clearing that up! \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ Jan 17 '18 at 16:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.