[PF] Magus and hand-and-a-half weapons

[The Boz]

How does the Magus work with weapons which can be used as one-handed AND two-handed? Does he just alter his grip for the purposes of casting, or for the entire round while casting? Can he deliver a spellstrike while holding such a weapon in two hands?

[Deathkeeper]

In general, a magus can only two-hand grip a weapon when not casting, since he effectively dual wields the blade and spell. I usually make changing grip/stance a swift action, like changing Combat Styles.

[Xerxus]

How about a free action? Because, you know, martials have swift actions (feelings) too, at least in pathfinder. You wouldn't be able to use arcane strike in this case. I think there's even a rule for twohanding onehanded weapons.

[Slipperychicken]

FAQ says its a free action to switch handednesss. I can't link now (stupid phone), but it's in the weapons section of the SRD, next to "one handed weapons".

[JusticeZero]

This looks like it was made specifically for the Magus, given that one variant (Staff Magus) gets it bonus at level 1.
Quarterstaff Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/quarterstaff-master-combat)

By employing a number of different stances and techniques, you can wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon. At the start of your turn, you decide whether or not you are going to wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed or two-handed weapon. When you wield it as a one-handed weapon, your other hand is free, and you cannot use the staff as a double weapon.

[Deathkeeper]

FAQ says its a free action to switch handednesss. I can't link now (stupid phone), but it's in the weapons section of the SRD, next to "one handed weapons".

Aaand I need to go punch an old GM of mine.
Still I'd say you have to one-hand for Spell Combat just because of how the flavor works, although there's nothing wrong with using two hands to spell strike a spell you've been holding.

[The Boz]

Thanks for the answers, everyone.
So, reading the RAW, it appears that a Magus with a hand-and-a-half weapon can basically always cast spells AND attack while holding one weapon in both hands, thanks to the free action switch.


Still I'd say you have to one-hand for Spell Combat just because of how the flavor works, although there's nothing wrong with using two hands to spell strike a spell you've been holding.

I like this answer the most, personally, because it both works with the limitations and provides that powerful spellstrike ability, especially since it needs some help at later levels.

[Dekion]

I don't think that a Magus should be able to two-hand attacks with a weapon and then cast a spell, even if switching hands is a free action. By that right, a normal two-weapon fighter could use a hand and a half sword two-handed for their primary attacks, gaining the 1.5x Str bonus, and then drop the hand as a free action, quick draw their other one-handed or light weapon with their off-hand as a free action, and take the iterative attacks with that weapon, as long as they take the appropriate two-weapon fighting penalties on all of the attacks. Perhaps, by RAW, they can, but would any DM allow it? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't allow a Magus to do essentially the same thing.

[Roog]

By that right, a normal two-weapon fighter could use a hand and a half sword two-handed for their primary attacks, gaining the 1.5x Str bonus, and then drop the hand as a free action, quick draw their other one-handed or light weapon with their off-hand as a free action, and take the iterative attacks with that weapon, as long as they take the appropriate two-weapon fighting penalties on all of the attacks.

Until the character is wielding two weapons that they can attack with, they would have no ability to take two-weapon fighting penalties.

[Marnath]

I don't think that a Magus should be able to two-hand attacks with a weapon and then cast a spell, even if switching hands is a free action. By that right, a normal two-weapon fighter could use a hand and a half sword two-handed for their primary attacks, gaining the 1.5x Str bonus, and then drop the hand as a free action, quick draw their other one-handed or light weapon with their off-hand as a free action, and take the iterative attacks with that weapon, as long as they take the appropriate two-weapon fighting penalties on all of the attacks. Perhaps, by RAW, they can, but would any DM allow it? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't allow a Magus to do essentially the same thing.

You can make iteratives with different weapons at no penalty. The two weapon penalty is for getting extra attacks.

As far as using a two-hander and switching one hand to another weapon as a free action, it's the basis for the reach weapon and armor spikes/spiked gauntlet strategy. You can take your hand off the weapon to strike a person who got inside your reach and then make more attacks with the reach weapon if you have more to make and the enemy is no longer next to you.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't think that a Magus should be able to two-hand attacks with a weapon and then cast a spell, even if switching hands is a free action. By that right, a normal two-weapon fighter could use a hand and a half sword two-handed for their primary attacks, gaining the 1.5x Str bonus, and then drop the hand as a free action, quick draw their other one-handed or light weapon with their off-hand as a free action, and take the iterative attacks with that weapon, as long as they take the appropriate two-weapon fighting penalties on all of the attacks. Perhaps, by RAW, they can, but would any DM allow it? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't allow a Magus to do essentially the same thing.

That's actually pretty cool, and not exactly game-breaking. The guy spent feats on TWF chain and a nerfed version of Quick Draw, isn't getting much extra damage out of it (maybe 2 extra for that attack if he had an 18 in Str), and can only do it once per combat without dropping his weapons.

[DagothGares]

The pathfinder forums have comments by designers saying that spellstrikes are effectively duel-wielding a spell and a sword, so meta-gaming it by taking your hand on and off a two-handed weapon as a free action to cast the spell and then strike isn't the intended use.

I'd leave it to DM discretion too, since the description of spellstrike didn't make this very apparent at all. It actually leads me to believe that they hadn't thought of this when making the magus. Anyway, the unofficial ruling is that it's a no-no.

Here you go, brother! (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n4cx?Twohanded-weapons-and-spellstrike#12)

[magwaaf]

somatic weaponry feat lets a magus cast while holding a 2h weapon

[Coidzor]

Until the character is wielding two weapons that they can attack with, they would have no ability to take two-weapon fighting penalties.

Armor spikes account for that nicely. Or spiked gauntlets.


The pathfinder forums have comments by designers saying that spellstrikes are effectively duel-wielding a spell and a sword, so meta-gaming it by taking your hand on and off a two-handed weapon as a free action to cast the spell and then strike isn't the intended use.

I'm reasonably certain that such is not what meta-gaming means.

[DagothGares]

All right, what do you call it when you take the game mechanics at its most literal and apply it to the game, rather than go with intended design or follow fluff? Meta-gaming sounds right to me, because you're thinking outside of the game, say.

[Slipperychicken]

All right, what do you call it when you take the game mechanics at its most literal and apply it to the game, rather than go with intended design or follow fluff?

For the most part, internet rpg communities like giantitp, ENworld, minmax boards will use the following terminology. There are exceptions, since some use the terms "power-gamer", "munchkin", and "optimizer" interchangeably.

RAW- Stands for "rules as written", and refers to the most literal (and arguably the most accurate) interpretation of any rules document.

RAI- "Rules as Interpreted" or "Rules as Intended", the way the rules 'should' work, or which one believes the designer tried to make them work.

Metagaming- Using out-of-character information (which your character in the world does not know) for making in-game decisions. For example, peeking at your GM's notes and using that information to gain your character more loot is an egregious and disgusting example of metagaming.

Power-Gamer: This player will vigorously try to make his character more powerful in the game world, but does not break rules to do so. The player will usually either research strong-but-legal tactics, haggle prices for absurd lengths of time to gain the best deal, or have his character gain influence with NPCs to be socially powerful and call in favors. This player isn't always a problem, and can sometimes actually contribute good roleplaying through his interactions with NPCs

Munchkin- A player who cheats, intentionally ignoring or misrepresenting game-mechanic rules to his advantage. Often, this player is not above fudging die rolls and modifying his character sheet ("I totally rolled straight 18's and max hit points on every level!") to make his character more effective.

The TVtropes articles on the subject are useful, so looking those up is usually a good idea..

[TuggyNE]

All right, what do you call it when you take the game mechanics at its most literal and apply it to the game, rather than go with intended design or follow fluff? Meta-gaming sounds right to me, because you're thinking outside of the game, say.

Following up to Slipperychicken's post, it'd basically be RAW-heavy munchkinry. Some people might call it "RAWtarded", but that's pretty rude. (Ruder than "munchkin", even.)

Metagaming has little or nothing to do with rules interpretations in most cases; rather, it's about picking between legal choices in a way that is not obvious in character and that is chosen primarily or solely for out-of-character reasons.

[Ravens_cry]

somatic weaponry feat lets a magus cast while holding a 2h weapon
Some DM's won't allow third party Pathfinder material.

[DagothGares]

All right, thanks for clarifications.

I do think quarterstaff magus works with the core books (if we consider UC and UM core), due to a certain feat, which is in the link I posted before.