| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If magus lost all dex to damage feats, I'm sure there would still be dex based magi. I doubt the numbers would even be that impacted.
So now, instead of Dex to Damage requiring feats, the Magi have to give up precious class features to get what they want. If "I" were a Dex-based Magus player who had to deal with that, my retort would be "Are you f!@#ing serious? First it's Slashing Grace, then Fencing Grace, and now THIS?!"
By that point, you're better off playing a Swashbuckler, because if you have to take away a Magus' Spellstrike or Spell Combat or any other sort of core class feature to feel comfortable in giving them the benefits of Dexterity to Damage (which by the way, Magi are one of maybe two or three classes that can make serious use of it), the question then becomes "Why were those options created in the first place?"
Of course, PFS could simply ban it, and it'd likewise cause a similar backlash compared to outright nerfing it, but let's face it: Paizo hates Dexterity to Damage. It doesn't matter if they made it for the UCRogue (they'd probably call it a mistake when they decide to reprint the next Unchained book, and the UCRogue will be Strength based like every other class in the game), it's going to get nerfed into absolute uselessness, where the only way you are getting Dexterity to damage is to severely inoptimize your character.
Objectively, I don't really care what happens to the feat. Considering that there are millions of Dexterity-based Magi in PFS (and other games, of which I am not one of them), it doesn't impact me, my games, or any plans that I may have for the future.
But from the standpoint of trying to design something, the reasoning behind it being some illusion of having Dexterity be your go-to stat for "everything" is ridiculous. The math already shows that Dexterity is only extremely powerful by 1st and 2nd level (assuming you even get access to it, which you probably don't), then falls off (because the reasons the Strength based guys were behind no longer exist by that point), and then towards the end of the game, it dips slightly ahead. Did I also mention it requires a lot more system mastery to get even the best of results, meaning most people trying to go a Dexterity route would probably still end up being worse than someone who isn't?
If there were options that allowed, for example, Strength to AC and Reflex Saves, Initiative, and so on (in place of Dexterity, I might add), how many people would take them and effectively dump Dexterity down into uselessness? A lot more than you think, I'll tell you that much. Considering every Strength-based character would only have one, maybe two must-have feats (Power Attack and either Raging Vitality or Improved Initiative), the idea that they're "behind feats" when they're just spending the excess feats they have left from grabbing the ones that were absolutely necessary, it's hardly considered being "behind," as would be the case for Dexterity characters, who are grabbing those options just to stay on par with something that was already strong to begin with.
So really, I don't think Paizo nerfs these options because they think it's overpowered. Because they're not. They nerf them because they hate them as options for whatever reason, just like how they nerf stuff because their idea of "balance" is by making sure that for every 1 good option, there are 4 or 5 bad options that follow with it.
Source? When is this hardcover coming out?If either or both of these are in fact contrary to what the designers intended, then they need to fix this by officially changing the rules.Next hardcover book is going to include the errata'd Dervish Dance feat.
Don't worry, the Dexterity builds for Magi and other classes will be buried very soon.
[evilvillainlaugh]Mwahahahahaha![/evilvillainlaugh]
It's primarily a joke, though I have a feeling that chances are, considering how much attention Dervish Dance has gotten as of late (similar to Fencing Grace, which was errata'd to "uselessness"), it wouldn't surprise me that they give Dervish Dance the Fencing Grace treatment.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The GM should not be imposing his interpretations on the players. Other people can have interpretations that are different from the GMs that might be valid, and if they can show their interpretations are valid, too, then the players should be allowed to play the game their own way.This made me chuckle.
When there's an unclear rule, the GM has to make the decision. If you don't like that decision, you may feel free to play the game your own way.
At another table.
Of course the GM has to make decisions. But a Pathfinder Society GM is supposed to allow for a diversity of interpretations. The goal should be for a good time to be had by all.
You are supposed to be creative with a character, personality, and build,Yes, your build. You are supposed to be creative with your character build. That's what I'm advocating.
Players who are creative with their character builds should be celebrated, not kicked out of the table just for being creative.
i'm now imagining Scott GMing:
PC: Ok I'm at -con HP so I'm no longer dying, I'm dead. As a swift I kick on arcane strike, as a move I stand, and as a standard I hit the bad guy.
PC 2: Wait, what? You're dead!
PC 1: No where does it say I can't take actions when I'm dead, just when I'm dying. So it's part of my character build to die and then keep fighting. That's why I carry scrolls of raise dead. Go on and run I'll hold them off.
PC 2: What?
Scott: it's his character build, the rules are unclear. roll to hit.
yeah, If scott is concerned about not using material he's paid for he probably should stop paying for material, as many of his ideas seem to meet large disapproval from the community. Would be safer for him to not spend the money as to not be upset when GMs don't allow his ideas to work.
It also never says that a dead creature loses the dying condition, so the dead character still can't move. And the grace feats are still good for the class they are intended for, the swashbuckler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If those feats are meant only for swashbucklers then they should be class features of the swashbuckler and not feats that anyone can take.
|
If those feats are meant only for swashbucklers then they should be class features of the swashbuckler and not feats that anyone can take.
There have been class specific feats since the CRB (or, if we look at D&D, since there have been feats). I don't see why they should change that JUST for the Swashbuckler.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It also never says that a dead creature loses the dying condition, so the dead character still can't move. And the grace feats are still good for the class they are intended for, the swashbuckler.
Well yeah, those grey areas like buckler vs dervish dance.
see you're just oppressing the guy's character build! :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If those feats are meant only for swashbucklers then they should be class features of the swashbuckler and not feats that anyone can take.There have been class specific feats since the CRB (or, if we look at D&D, since there have been feats). I don't see why they should change that JUST for the Swashbuckler.
They are also good for those who are swashbuckler-like though. Basically for any class that wants to do a one handed fencing style.
They are also good for those who are swashbuckler-like though. Basically for any class that wants to do a one handed fencing style.If those feats are meant only for swashbucklers then they should be class features of the swashbuckler and not feats that anyone can take.There have been class specific feats since the CRB (or, if we look at D&D, since there have been feats). I don't see why they should change that JUST for the Swashbuckler.
so a magus?
If those feats are meant only for swashbucklers then they should be class features of the swashbuckler and not feats that anyone can take.There have been class specific feats since the CRB (or, if we look at D&D, since there have been feats). I don't see why they should change that JUST for the Swashbuckler.
Most class specific feats have a class feature as the perquisite.
If the intention if to make the feats class specific, put a class feature, i.e. Swashbuckler Finesse, as a requirement for the feat.
It would be far clearer than the current trend of FAQ's and errata dancing around the issue of making the feats viable for a single class while rendering them useless for everyone else.
It also never says that a dead creature loses the dying condition, so the dead character still can't move. And the grace feats are still good for the class they are intended for, the swashbuckler.
So ... you would be ok with a swashbuckler using Dervish Dance + Buckler?
Under current wording it is a legal option.
As a DM, I'd be ok with dervish/buckler, but don't think it's the actual intent. I would not automatically expect a DM to allow it as a player though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm certainly not going to pay money for any book with the intent of using Dervish Dance if I can't trust it. No one should.
If Pathfinder Society is not a safe place to play, I shouldn't play in Pathfinder Society. No one should.
And yet they do. And a parallel campaign of any raw the player interprets has yet to spring forth.
yeah, If scott is concerned about not using material he's paid for he probably should stop paying for material, as many of his ideas seem to meet large disapproval from the community. Would be safer for him to not spend the money as to not be upset when GMs don't allow his ideas to work.Good point.
I'm certainly not going to pay money for any book with the intent of using Dervish Dance if I can't trust it. No one should.
If Pathfinder Society is not a safe place to play, I shouldn't play in Pathfinder Society. No one should.
It's a pretty safe place if you post your ideas on the forums and get like 80% acceptance or higher. If you can get 50% to 80% acceptance than it's table variance but a good chance of working. If you feel it's less than 50% acceptance it's probably something to stay away from in PFS unless you game with a pretty set group that you can vet the issue beforehand and they all approve.
But it is a place where the GM has been empowered from PFS leadership to make a ruling and that it "is right" for that game until the rule can be reviewed after the game. Thus the GM's view is in control of the rules and not any of the players'.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Pathfinder Society is not a safe place to play, I shouldn't play in Pathfinder Society. No one should.
It is very safe, in fact I consider it safer to play (by the rules) than most home games and other games where the GM makes all sort of house rules that can often be counter productive to fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If those feats are meant only for swashbucklers then they should be class features of the swashbuckler and not feats that anyone can take.There have been class specific feats since the CRB (or, if we look at D&D, since there have been feats). I don't see why they should change that JUST for the Swashbuckler.
To be fair, a lot of Fighter-only feats shouldn't have been Fighter-only feats (Weapon/Shield Specialization, Greater Weapon/Shield Focus/Specialization, etc.), and the ones that should be (such as Critical Mastery, Penetrating Strike, Disruptive, and so on), should've been class features, not feats that requires the Fighter to forcefully invest their primary class feature onto in order to acquire (since they're already low on the totem pole as it is).
So really, it's not a matter of "It's designed only for one class." The thing that people are upset with (myself somewhat included) is why something that's essential for their class design, is implemented as a general feat, and not a feature of that class. I mean come on, at least the UCRogue gains Weapon Finesse at 1st level, and then proceeds to gain Dexterity to Damage with Finessable Weapons by 3rd level, as part of their class, no questions asked. Swashbucklers not getting similar treatment (such as by adding a "Swashbucklers receive either Slashing Grace or Fencing Grace [swashbuckler's choice] as a bonus feat, even if they do not meet the pre-requisites." feature), is just bad class design.
A very good example of something that accomplishes something similar to this is the option to be able to draw a weapon as part of a movement action. The only requirement? BAB +1 or more. And it's not a feat that everyone has to take, all that matters is that the creature in question has a BAB of +1 or higher. Think about this for a minute; do you know how stupid and clunky combat with manufactured weapons would be if you had to spend feats to do any of that? Spending your first level feat, just to be able to draw a weapon as part of a movement action, and have to spend another feat to then be able to draw weapons as a free action? Madness. Absolute madness, I say!
I'm not sure if Pathfinder changed that rule, or if it was copy-pasted over from 3.X, but in my opinion, if the rules were written to allow those "staple" feats as generic combat options anyone could perform if they met the "typical" pre-requisites (as would've been the case with being able to draw a weapon while moving), Pathfinder (and by its predecessor, 3.X,) would've resulted in a much more fluid and interesting combat system, and by freeing up feats for not having "staple" options (as I've exampled), it allows for more intriguing character customization, since players don't have to spend feats to be able to do this thing that most every single creature in the game either always does, or can do (but never does because it sucks, and is only taken because pre-requisites are stupid).
**EDIT**
Added a spoiler for what many would probably call a tangent. For me, I call it a band-aid for a potential Wall of Text syndrome.
If Pathfinder Society is not a safe place to play, I shouldn't play in Pathfinder Society. No one should.It is very safe, in fact I consider it safer to play (by the rules) than most home games and other games where the GM makes all sort of house rules that can often be counter productive to fun.
Unlike a home game, where you can discuss things with the GM ahead of time, PFS can have a wide range of table variance.
That character you've played without issue at dozens of tables can suddenly be castrated by that one GM with a grudge against your particular build.
I believe that most people who do PFS have the same few GMs every time. So, asking the GM is still an option for most, except for maybe at a convention.
Then can call it the Declaration of Independence if they so wish. It doesn't make them right, nor does it counter the point being made.That character you've played without issue at dozens of tables can suddenly be castrated by that one GM with a grudge against your particular build.You might call it a grudge, they might call it "ruling as written".
Depends on what you mean by "right". But they are certainly within their rights to do that.
That character you've played without issue at dozens of tables can suddenly be castrated by that one GM with a grudge against your particular build.You might call it a grudge, they might call it "ruling as written".
That would imply all prior GMs were also wrong.
Because the single GM ruling against is more likely to be correct than all the other GMs that ruled in favor of a given mechanic.
/s
Your average gm doesn't know the rules nearly as well as we do, so it's very possible to get a lot of "wrong" rulings from a lot of GMs.
Your average gm doesn't know the rules nearly as well as we do, so it's very possible to get a lot of "wrong" rulings from a lot of GMs.
I'm relatively certain the VCs are familiar with the rules.
But we know the guy saying "NO" is always correct, and all other rulings must have been wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find this useful to remember when "everyone else ruled this way..."
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
To relate this to RL example. There was some confusion about if you could UMD a page of spell knowledge to cast a spell not on your list. It was clarified you couldn't (and thanks to the folks who pointed it out to me.) EVERY local GM who I asked about it said 'sure, why not?'
Sometimes, the consensus is wrong.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Your average gm doesn't know the rules nearly as well as we do, so it's very possible to get a lot of "wrong" rulings from a lot of GMs.Indeed, and some of those GMs will insist that they are playing 'Rules as Written', and you will defend their right to do so.
And yet, they will still be wrong.
There are a lot of cases of text having table variance, and FAQ/Errata making it clear which way you should have been running the text. In every one of those cases when the GM was running it like the future FAQ/Errata make clear is the right way, I'd wager a lot of players would have said they are running it the wrong way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's primarily a joke, though I have a feeling that chances are, considering how much attention Dervish Dance has gotten as of late (similar to Fencing Grace, which was errata'd to "uselessness"), it wouldn't surprise me that they give Dervish Dance the Fencing Grace treatment.Source? When is this hardcover coming out?If either or both of these are in fact contrary to what the designers intended, then they need to fix this by officially changing the rules.Next hardcover book is going to include the errata'd Dervish Dance feat.
Don't worry, the Dexterity builds for Magi and other classes will be buried very soon.
[evilvillainlaugh]Mwahahahahaha![/evilvillainlaugh]
Dervish Dance is still useful for the folks IT WAS INTENDED FOR. It's even still useful for magi who don't insist on having spell combat at the same time. I mean really Shocking Grasp crit fishers who belt out 20d6 of carrier electrical damage on a first level spell slot, are really going to miss a measly extra 8-10 points of damage?
In every one of those cases when the GM was running it like the future FAQ/Errata make clear is the right way, I'd wager a lot of players would have said they are running it the wrong way.
In the case of Errata, the players were most likely running things according to RAW.
It was the rules that changed.
I mean really Shocking Grasp crit fishers who belt out 20d6 of carrier electrical damage on a first level spell slot, are really going to miss a measly extra 8-10 points of damage?
You may find this hard to believe, but not every magus is using magical lineage + intensified spell.
You are using your dislike of that combination to justify taking away options not only from the magus, but a half dozen other classes/archetypes that use a fencing style.
In every one of those cases when the GM was running it like the future FAQ/Errata make clear is the right way, I'd wager a lot of players would have said they are running it the wrong way.In the case of Errata, the players were most likely running things according to RAW.
It was the rules that changed.
I mean really Shocking Grasp crit fishers who belt out 20d6 of carrier electrical damage on a first level spell slot, are really going to miss a measly extra 8-10 points of damage?You may find this hard to believe, but not every magus is using magical lineage + intensified spell.
** spoiler omitted **
You can still have dex to damage, you can augment it with arcane strike, the frostbite spell, and other extras, you just don't get spell combat at the same time.
Yes rules have changed... and frequently they changed in your favor such as when Paizo declared that they'd never support a dexterity to damage feat because of the invalidation it brings to strength based melee.
And just about every magus guide out there throws in a dex to damage feat ALONG with the magical lineage/intensified shocking grasp spells as the start of their go to builds.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the case of Errata, the players were most likely running things according to RAW.
It was the rules that changed.
That simply isn't true the vast majority of times with Errata. Most of the time they say something similar to "well it was being interpreted differently so we modified the language."
So in a lot of errata, it is changed to make it be incorrectly interpreted less often.
In every one of those cases when the GM was running it like the future FAQ/Errata make clear is the right way, I'd wager a lot of players would have said they are running it the wrong way.In the case of Errata, the players were most likely running things according to RAW.
It was the rules that changed.
I mean really Shocking Grasp crit fishers who belt out 20d6 of carrier electrical damage on a first level spell slot, are really going to miss a measly extra 8-10 points of damage?You may find this hard to believe, but not every magus is using magical lineage + intensified spell.
** spoiler omitted **
You can still have dex to damage, you can augment it with arcane strike, the frostbite spell, and other extras, you just don't get spell combat at the same time.
Yes rules have changed... and frequently they changed in your favor such as when Paizo declared that they'd never support a dexterity to damage feat because of the invalidation it brings to strength based melee.
There remain two paths for a magus to combine dex-to-damage with spell combat without multi-classing.
1. Dervish Dance
2. Agile
Unlike Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace, neither of those options have been seen an errata changing how they work.
And just about every magus guide out there throws in a dex to damage feat ALONG with the magical lineage/intensified shocking grasp spells as the start of their go to builds.
Not quite every magus - Akashira.
I play magi, a lot of magi. Not a single one of which uses that combination. I value durability and stamina over nova builds and a 15 minute adventuring day.
Your arguments seem to be less about RAW than about shutting down one particular build you happen to dislike.
The particular combination that you dislike is above dispute, so you are attacking other mechanics the build uses. Mechanics that have long been accepting as working.
I know of a few issues where probably like 80% of people rule it option A, but they acknowledge that option B is technically possible with the rule as written. So 20% of people feel option B is correct and that option A is wrong. Thus making the prior 80% of GMs wrong. But both are correct for their table.
Take the improved familiar for non arcane classes debate*. The majority of people said they'd rule it that a cleric with a familiar can take improved familiar feat and benefit from it. But many people recognized that the rules don't say that and you can easily reason that they don't qualify to benefit from the feat. So a GM that feels that not allowing it was correct was was by the rules, perhaps moreso than the people who allowed it. And since it was unclear the GM has the right to rule how they see fit.
*Yes this has a FAQ now to resolve this issue. but it's an example of the situation.
I know of a few issues where probably like 80% of people rule it option A, but they acknowledge that option B is technically possible with the rule as written. So 20% of people feel option B is correct and that option A is wrong. Thus making the prior 80% of GMs wrong. But both are correct for their table.
Take the improved familiar for non arcane classes debate*. The majority of people said they'd rule it that a cleric with a familiar can take improved familiar feat and benefit from it. But many people recognized that the rules don't say that and you can easily reason that they don't qualify to benefit from the feat. So a GM that feels that not allowing it was correct was was by the rules, perhaps moreso than the people who allowed it. And since it was unclear the GM has the right to rule how they see fit.
*Yes this has a FAQ now to resolve this issue. but it's an example of the situation.
which just shows that the rules are usually what the text means rather than the exact persnickity thing they say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well there are plenty of things that go the other way.
Sohei monk technically removed armor restrictions on flurry when it replaced armor. That could have been said to not mean replace the flurry restriction. But the FAQ was that it did replace the flurry restriction.
Mithral is light armor for things except proficiency, and now also armor categories. Easily could have been that they meant it's now light for everything except proficiency.
mithral chainshirt for large creatures might be 1200 or 2200. The devs met and quickly thought it was one value, but then were persuaded by arguments brought up in the debate threads to need to reconsider their answer.
Bardic masterpieces working or not with other bard songs.
Dragonscion fighter and it's arcane strike. Who knows if it's supposed to scale or not.
double dipping stats.
JJ saying something means or works like X but FAQs say Z.
Are spiked shields a weapon in their own right or are they considered a modified shield.
mounted combat, since they keep changing their minds of what they mean and how it works, and it still never works.
There are lots of issues where it easily could be either option. If the rules team just met and flipped a coin for all these issues and just went with the result we wouldn't know the difference. Many times both sides have valid support and explanations for it meaning their view. Both sides would say, "ha see they meant my way" if theirs was chosen.
Like had they ruled that only arcane casters qualify for improved familiars. I could easily have said, "See this just shows that the rules are what the text means rather than 'some extrapolated and twisted meaning of the words'."
Dervish Dance is still useful for the folks IT WAS INTENDED FOR. It's even still useful for magi who don't insist on having spell combat at the same time. I mean really Shocking Grasp crit fishers who belt out 20d6 of carrier electrical damage on a first level spell slot, are really going to miss a measly extra 8-10 points of damage?It's primarily a joke, though I have a feeling that chances are, considering how much attention Dervish Dance has gotten as of late (similar to Fencing Grace, which was errata'd to "uselessness"), it wouldn't surprise me that they give Dervish Dance the Fencing Grace treatment.Source? When is this hardcover coming out?If either or both of these are in fact contrary to what the designers intended, then they need to fix this by officially changing the rules.Next hardcover book is going to include the errata'd Dervish Dance feat.
Don't worry, the Dexterity builds for Magi and other classes will be buried very soon.
[evilvillainlaugh]Mwahahahahaha![/evilvillainlaugh]
And then you run into the Slashing Grace issue.
The first thing you need to ask yourself in relation to Dervish Dance, is "What was this feat intended for?" Think long and hard, and come up with multiple answers, because you'll be surprised how applicable the feat is.
For starters, a lot of people will call it a buff to a flavor choice, which is wielding a weapon without another weapon or shield, like most everyone else usually does (because not doing so is not taking advantage of what could be very helpful to you). Guess what? The classic Magus class does exactly that; fight without using another weapon or shield, they fight with spells, which are neither "another weapon or shield". Based on that factor alone, they're intended for it.
If you're still not convinced, there's some that may say it's intended for those who want to not be some giant brute, but still be effective for combat. For players who want to make their Magus Dexterity-based, because being stuck with Light Armor and D8 Hit Dice is shaky as hell without some other sort of supplement, they'd certainly view it as being intended for their playstyle.
Of course, others might say something completely different, such as it being a part of character flavor (i.e. The feat concept is a part of their heritage, backstory, aspirations, etc). This is even more stringent than the other two options above, but the factor still remains that some Magi players would certainly value it in this matter, especially if they roleplay their character accordingly.
Now, with three different "tiers" of intentions for the feat, the first being the most obvious (and backed by JJ's and SKR's statements), and then having two lesser grades of likely intentions, regardless of how you put it, a typical Magus can certainly fit the bill for being a class or character concept that the feat was designed for. No surprise, really, considering how well it fits their bill currently; they wield a weapon in one hand, and spells in the other (which is neither a weapon or a shield).
We clearly know that Slashing/Fencing Grace were options for the Swashbuckler to take to supplement their class features. But I already went in depth as to why that's a bad design choice, and provided an example (or two) of what would've resulted in good design choice, examples that Paizo themselves have already done.
Not gonna lie, 20D6 per Shocking Grasp, as cool as that would be, is physically impossible to accomplish without some major cheese of the current system (which still only results in 10D6 tops). At best, you're doing 30D6 per round, by utilizing your Spell Combat, Quicken Spell, and Spellstoring Weapon (which likewise holds a Shocking Grasp, and the question of whether you can even store a metamagick'd spell into a Spellstoring weapon is a whole different matter entirely; I imagine it's plausible, but still..).
Even so, lacking Spell Combat for use with Dervish Dance means you're missing out on an extra attack, at your highest BAB, no less. Considering Magi are 3/4 BAB, with no immediate means to boost their to-hit without considerable sacrifice on their part, that's a good chunk of your offensive power. You know how big of a deal people make with Martials being buffed with Haste? You're basically taking the #1 benefit of Haste away from the Magus by saying Spell Combat doesn't work with Dervish Dance, despite multiple FAQs saying that Spells, even Weapon-like Spells, are not weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell combat says, "This functions much like two-weapon fighting", so it's strange to say the magus' off hand spell isn't considered as being very similar to a weapon.
Not gonna lie, 20D6 per Shocking Grasp, as cool as that would be, is physically impossible to accomplish without some major cheese of the current system (which still only results in 10D6 tops). At best, you're doing 30D6 per round, by utilizing your Spell Combat, Quicken Spell, and Spellstoring Weapon (which likewise holds a Shocking Grasp, and the question of whether you can even store a metamagick'd spell into a Spellstoring weapon is a whole different matter entirely; I imagine it's plausible, but still..).
Not that hard at all. First as mentioned magical lineage and intensified spell put your base Shocking Grasp ceiling up to 10d6 at 10th level. Keen on your rapier or scimitar puts your crit range at 15-20. (the 8-10 points from extra dex damage also assume a confirmed critical hit for someone with a dex of 18 or 20) And shocking grasp is one of those spells you can crit with, using the weapon's enhanced crit range.
That's not a nova hit. The nova hit is when you stack your empower and maximise metamagic arcana on top of that. And if you're looking to cheese a bit more, you unleash a spell stored shocking grasp on top.
Spell combat says, "This functions much like two-weapon fighting", so it's strange to say the magus' off hand spell isn't considered as being very similar to a weapon.
It does stop the magus from combining spell combat with the twf/mwf feats, which is very reasonable.
Even so, lacking Spell Combat for use with Dervish Dance means you're missing out on an extra attack, at your highest BAB, no less. Considering Magi are 3/4 BAB, with no immediate means to boost their to-hit without considerable sacrifice on their part, that's a good chunk of your offensive power. You know how big of a deal people make with Martials being buffed with Haste? You're basically taking the #1 benefit of Haste away from the Magus by saying Spell Combat doesn't work with Dervish Dance, despite multiple FAQs saying that Spells, even Weapon-like Spells, are not weapons.
I do find it ironic that every time they restrict something in one context, it strengthens the Magus' arguments when in another context.
Nobody would have argued for bucklers + dervish dance prior to Paizo playing word games with Slashing/Fencing Grace. In tying the feats so strongly to the swashbucklers intended style, they opened doors not previously available to non-swashbucklers using similar styles.
In more narrowly defining what spells qualify for, they make it very clear that spells don't count as weapons, making the Dervish Dance argument lean ever more strongly in the Magus' favor.