Doc Rivers' Impact on Orlando Magic's Culture and Team Chemistry

Doc Rivers is a former NBA player who became the head coach of the Orlando Magic in 1999. He led the team to five consecutive playoff appearances and even took them to the NBA Finals in 2004. Rivers quickly gained a reputation for his strong leadership and ability to motivate his players. He was known for his emphasis on defense and his innovative coaching strategies. Despite his success with the Magic, Rivers eventually left the team in 2003 to become the head coach of the Boston Celtics. However, his impact on the Magic and the city of Orlando is still felt to this day.

some people seem to assume that i am a bad player for seeking rules clarifications in order to make optimal decisions about classes and so forth, but with all due respect, you folks don't know me, the GM or my game so i would appreciate keeping the sniping and character assassination to a minimum.

I am not entirely sure whether that is the right place it is rather hard to navigate this forum when it comes to stuff like that , but it seems a good place to ask when it comes to the specific rules for the Aegis I at least saw a thread or two with Dreamscarr press in the title. The rules for arcane spell failure while wearing armor are quite clear, but they assume that you are a humanoid with no more than two arms capable of somatic gesturing.

However, his impact on the Magic and the city of Orlando is still felt to this day. **His tenure as head coach of the Orlando Magic helped establish him as one of the top coaches in the NBA and set the foundation for his successful coaching career**..

Arcane Spell Failure

So, serious question. The rules for arcane spell failure while wearing armor are quite clear, but they assume that you are a humanoid with no more than two arms capable of somatic gesturing. But what if you are a psionic character, perhaps an Aegis, or a synthesist summoner, capable of generating additional limbs at will? Can't you simply designate a set of arms for spell casting and be done with it? I've been looking for clarification for a bit, and if anyone knows if this issue has been addressed anywhere I'd be infinitely grateful!

Psionic characters don't have to worry about Arcane spell failure, since they aren't, y'know, arcane.

As the rules sit, no, having extra limbs does not let you bypass arcane spell failure. It's supposedly the weight of the armor on the body, or something, rather than just stuff on the arms.

It's basically just an old relic of previous editions.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm looking into playing a gestalt game. I would go wizard on one side, and either Aegis or Synthesist summoner on the other.

I understand that your take on the question is that the weight on the body prevents the somatic gestures from taking place hence the spell failure chance, but if I could respectfully direct your attention to this bit of text:

"Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component."

So.. I'm wearing armor, but on top of that the Aegis grows two additional arms to cast using customization points, or the summoner grows two with evolution points, and it would seem to circumvent that little bit of Raw, right?

The text doesn't mention anything about the weight or whatever, just that it interferes with "gestures." So to me, that suggests that arms unburdened with armor and free to gesture should be able to negate spell failure chances regardless of the body being covered with armor.

I understand this is definitely a GM call, and YMMV etc.. etc. I guess I'm just looking for well reasoned Raw based arguments for and against.

Thanks for responding man!

If your body is covered with armor, where do your additional arms grow from?

That particular issue aside.. Since crafting armor from a lighter material (such as mithral armor, or celestial armor) reduces the ASF, it seems that the gesture-interference is primarily weight-related and not so much arm-covering-related.

Further, some types of armor don't even cover the arms (breastplate, for instance, only covers the torso), but still have ASF.

If your body is covered with armor, where do your additional arms grow from?

That particular issue aside.. Since crafting armor from a lighter material (such as mithral armor, or celestial armor) reduces the ASF, it seems that the gesture-interference is primarily weight-related and not so much arm-covering-related.

Further, some types of armor don't even cover the arms (breastplate, for instance, only covers the torso), but still have ASF.

I think that's a two sides issue. From one side, weight surely encumber you to some degree. Any movement is a bit slowed. In addition the shoulders are covered in all the type of armors that come in my mind. Try to make some precise gesture with a straight jacket. .. It seems to be the same: some degree of disturbance from a somewhat limited mobility of at least the shoulders could really diminish your precision.

ASF can be a bit odd. For example, a wizard needs only one free hand for somatic components. Yet, as soon as he straps a buckler to an arm (presumably his other, non-spellcasting arm), he has to deal with a 5% ASF. Based on that, the extra arms probably won't negate the failure chance.

So, serious question. The rules for arcane spell failure while wearing armor are quite clear, but they assume that you are a humanoid with no more than two arms capable of somatic gesturing. But what if you are a psionic character, perhaps an Aegis, or a synthesist summoner, capable of generating additional limbs at will? Can't you simply designate a set of arms for spell casting and be done with it? I've been looking for clarification for a bit, and if anyone knows if this issue has been addressed anywhere I'd be infinitely grateful!

Thanks!
Vattic

It's not just about the arms. In the end, if you want to reduce Arcane Spell Failure, pick up Magus levels. Otherwise use armor that does not provide spell failure % or a combination of traits and special materials might offer some relief.

ASF can be a bit odd. For example, a wizard needs only one free hand for somatic components. Yet, as soon as he straps a buckler to an arm (presumably his other, non-spellcasting arm), he has to deal with a 5% ASF. Based on that, the extra arms probably won't negate the failure chance.

It could be lot worse. Try spellcasting in Saberhagen's Books of Swords world. Just the mere presence of swords being raised in the general area is enough to make spellcasting a problematic exercise.

I understand this is definitely a GM call

Not really . the rules are crystal clear. If you're wearing armor, you suffer from ASF, barring specific instances that explicitly state you do not (bard/magus class abilities, Still Spell).

crystal clear, yes, but they do not address other possibilities. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. they do say literally that armor inhibits the somatic gestures. but.. as thinking rational creatures, we can imagine situations where one can use magic to create arms unburdened by armor. you mention instances where the rules are bent and i would argue that the specific incidence i have mentioned has not been adequately addressed.

To Are's point: the arms would be psionic or just plain super natural in nature (based on whether or not i went aegis or synthesist) thus they could grow out of the base form of whatever i could imagine. they wouldn't necessarily have to be armored in and of themselves. both of those classes can increase ac by simply spending customization points (or evolution points) and using whatever fluff floats your boat.

That's not how it works in PF rules.

Unless an exception is explicitly called out, it operates by standard procedure.

Nowhere in the rules does it say multiple arms can bypass ASF, so they do not.

If your group wants to houserule, knock yourself out, of course.

I think if a Helmet can infer an Arcane Spell Failure chance, then its probably safe to assume growing new arms won't let you ignore ASF.

oh, and for those unfamiliar with the aegis, he creates the armor he wears psionically, not sure how much that bears on the discussion, but i thought i'd point it out for those not in the know.

in fact, here's some links:

That's not how it works in PF rules.

Unless an exception is explicitly called out, it operates by standard procedure.

Nowhere in the rules does it say multiple arms can bypass ASF, so they do not.

If your group wants to houserule, knock yourself out, of course.

fair enough. good to know your stance. i'm wondering though, because technically the synthesist IS NOT WEARING ARMOR but the aegis is, though it happens to be psionic. so the solution would seem to be go synthesist because the rules are silly.

Keep in mind, if the Armour you are wearing has no Arcane Spell Failure chance [see Haramaki and Silken Ceremonial], then it does not matter if you are a wizard casting a wizard spell, because if you roll the d%, you won't roll a 0, just 1-100.

That's not how it works in PF rules.

Unless an exception is explicitly called out, it operates by standard procedure.

Nowhere in the rules does it say multiple arms can bypass ASF, so they do not.

If your group wants to houserule, knock yourself out, of course.

His repeated use of the word "psionic" knocks it out of the park, into homerule territory anyway.

so it sounds like everyone is cool with a synthesist boosting their NA through the roof and not incurring spell failure (never mind size increases etc..) but is against the aegis psionically creating "armor" and being able to cast?

Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?

Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?

not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks!

so it sounds like everyone is cool with a synthesist boosting their NA through the roof and not incurring spell failure (never mind size increases etc..) but is against the aegis psionically creating "armor" and being able to cast?

Put me in the IDGAF category. I don't have to deal with synthesists in PFS play, nor do I have to allow them in my home gaimes.

And again, if you want to talk about psionics, take this to either Dreamscarred's forums or the homebrew section. Psionics is not, and most likely never will be a part of Pathfinder. (Psychic Magic however, is another story.)

crystal clear, yes, but they do not address other possibilities. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. they do say literally that armor inhibits the somatic gestures. but.. as thinking rational creatures, we can imagine situations where one can use magic to create arms unburdened by armor. you mention instances where the rules are bent and i would argue that the specific incidence i have mentioned has not been adequately addressed.

You're missing the point.

So I'll try again: It's not just about the arms.

I know, all the literature supports your claim. Somatic Components clearly says you only need one hand free. Arcane Spell Failure says that armor interferes with your gestures. The problem is, a lot of armor doesn't cover your hands at all. All of it still provides %Spell Failure. Growing arms doesn't change that because the premise is bunk to begin with.

The rule itself is not silly. Arcane Spell Failure prevents an arcane caster from being level 1 with: 24 AC(12 Dex + Full Plate + Tower Shield) and Color Spray. You should be on your knees thanking the Dev's for keeping that out of your game.

I do feel the language used to explain the rule is flawed, and does not hold up to scrutiny.

Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?

not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks!

Well, then it doesn't incur a chance of failing arcane spells. Done. No problems with it. Now, if it said "This functions as Full Plate armour", it would have full plate's ASF, check penalty, etc. But I don't think it has that at all. I am unfamiliar with Psionic rules, and can't seem to find the stuff on the Aegis about his "armour", so I am not certain.

Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?

not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks! Well, then it doesn't incur a chance of failing arcane spells. Done. No problems with it. Now, if it said "This functions as Full Plate armour", it would have full plate's ASF, check penalty, etc. But I don't think it has that at all. I am unfamiliar with Psionic rules, and can't seem to find the stuff on the Aegis about his "armour", so I am not certain.

When formed into astral armor, an astral suit resembles masterwork chainmail and is treated as such for all mechanical purposes

.
When formed into astral juggernaut, an astral suit resembles masterwork half-plate and is treated as such for all mechanical purposes.

The rule itself is not silly. Arcane Spell Failure prevents an arcane caster from being level 1 with: 24 AC(12 Dex + Full Plate + Tower Shield) and Color Spray. You should be on your knees thanking the Dev's for keeping that out of your game.

He's obviously the player who wants to put it into his DM's game.

According to the Aegis description, the armor it creates specifically says it functions mechanically just like a particular set of armor (Masterwork Chainmail or Half Plate, depending), so it is indeed armor. no need for quotations.

The Synthesist is not armor, but a form that the Summoner merges into. And as you said, it has natural armor, which doesn't cause spell failure.

They both work fine with their respective classes because they don't interfere. You seem to be looking for someone to justify circumventing the rules so that you can make use of a spell casting Gestalt combo and now are petulantly complaining that the one you seem to want to use (The Aegis, presumably for the extra powers and better BAB, saves and skills) will hinder being a Wizard according to the rules. As was explained by others the Arcane Spell Failure is enforced on all casters unless specific circumstances apply. Your desire for a work around or dislike of the rules is not one of those circumstances.

So yes, those who are not outright opposed to the Synthesist in general, are cool with it working according to the rules in regards to Arcane spell failure.

Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?

not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks! Well, then it doesn't incur a chance of failing arcane spells. Done. No problems with it. Now, if it said "This functions as Full Plate armour", it would have full plate's ASF, check penalty, etc. But I don't think it has that at all. I am unfamiliar with Psionic rules, and can't seem to find the stuff on the Aegis about his "armour", so I am not certain.

When formed into astral armor, an astral suit resembles masterwork chainmail and is treated as such for all mechanical purposes

.
When formed into astral juggernaut, an astral suit resembles masterwork half-plate and is treated as such for all mechanical purposes.

Ah, then an Astral Suit has chainmail's ASF and an Astral Juggernaut has half-plate's ASF.

fair enough. good to know your stance. i'm wondering though, because technically the synthesist IS NOT WEARING ARMOR but the aegis is, though it happens to be psionic. so the solution would seem to be go synthesist because the rules are silly.

this would not be a problem at all if you went with the synthesist idea instead of that 3rd party junk like psionics.

I bring this up because synthesists can't even really use armor. Sure there is the few times when you are not fused where it might be an issue. but otherwise you will never have to deal with this.

This is because eidolons cannot wear armor (and by extension, neither can synthesists, since "In all other cases, this ability functions as the summoner’s normal eidolon ability" and the armor they were wearing beforehand doesn't work while it is fused into the body). That is why they get all those abilities that grant natural armor and give scaling bonuses to that NA. Admittedly, all those bonuses could be split between armor and natural armor as you please, in case you just want to make the eidolon a metal encased behemoth, but that would be more of a part of their body than a separate item as far as the rules are concerned. So essentially, it would not be a problem since it would be just about the same as NA.

So unless you just have an itch to deal with all those points and such found with psionics, is there a particular reason to not go with the synthesist?

i'm not exactly sure why i'm being described as petulant for asking people for rules clarifications and opinions on such, but so be it. at this point i'm reasonably certain that RAW doesn't address these issues 100% so that's why i'm turning to the community for well thought out arguments, for and against.

some people seem to assume that i am a bad player for seeking rules clarifications in order to make optimal decisions about classes and so forth, but with all due respect, you folks don't know me, the GM or my game so i would appreciate keeping the sniping and character assassination to a minimum.

i thank all of those who took the time to post, to those copping an attitude, that's great, have fun, not sure why you are choosing to be this way but that's on you.

to ErrantPursuit, i am listening to you, thanks for your comments. i think you make an interesting argument. i think that we can both agree that there is a strange no-man's land area between armors in PF and their spell failure chance compared to their interaction with the text about somatic components. the language is unclear, and like you, i support the premise that casters shouldn't have all of the awesome spellcasting + amazing ac on top of it right out of the box. but since i'm contemplating a gestalt class, considerations must be altered somewhat, right? the point is to shore up weaknesses, build on strengths, etc.

as far as my intentions go i've been very forthright that i am planning on playing a gestalt character and that i'm comparing the benefit of rolling either a synthesist (pathfinder specific) or an aegis on one side, wizard on the other. if one class limits spell casting through arcane spell failure chance and the other does not, then that's a pretty strong argument for not taking that class, is it not?

the silliness that i was referring to stems from the fact that synthesist is, in my humble opinion, a far better mechanical choice because you are getting all sorts of things in addition to an increased armor class (extra hp, summon monster as a sla, and replaced ability scores for starters). in light of this, making the aegis weaker by invoking spell failure seems a bit silly to me.

So unless you just have an itch to deal with all those points and such found with psionics, is there a particular reason to not go with the synthesist?

i honestly just like the fluff better :)

some people seem to assume that i am a bad player for seeking rules clarifications in order to make optimal decisions about classes and so forth, but with all due respect, you folks don't know me, the GM or my game so i would appreciate keeping the sniping and character assassination to a minimum.

Well, I think you are a bad forum goer to be asking rules questions in the advice board (those are separate).

Of course, that is hardly appropriate either, since again, psionics are a 3rd party thing, so asking for rules clarification might be hard there too, since all this material was not entirely meant to be combined like all this. So damned if you do, damned if you don't, I suppose.

I mean, since this is a home gestalt game, you are more than invited to either just houserule the problems away or switch around flavoring as you please so synthesists are basically aegis. Glossing over such problems is between you, your party, and your GM.

Well, I think you are a bad forum goer to be asking rules questions in the advice board (those are separate).

i'm looking for advice on some rules questions that i had :p

seriously though, what is advice meant for? relationship issues? legal matters? maybe i should ask for the thread to be moved in that case.

Well, I think you are a bad forum goer to be asking rules questions in the advice board (those are separate).

i'm looking for advice on some rules questions that i had :p

seriously though, what is advice meant for? relationship issues? legal matters? maybe i should ask for the thread to be moved in that case.

My understanding on such matters is hardly formal, but it mostly seems to be build and GM advice for pathfinders, with a certain focus towards PFS it seems. But I might be somewhat incorrect on that. This is mostly from my experience around here for the last couple of months.

I do know for a fact that there is a section called Compatible Products from Other Publishers that is a subforum for pathfinder RPG. I am not entirely sure whether that is the right place (it is rather hard to navigate this forum when it comes to stuff like that), but it seems a good place to ask when it comes to the specific rules for the Aegis (I at least saw a thread or two with Dreamscarr press in the title).

And heck, again, I am not entire sure whether the advice isn't the right place to ask these questions in the first place. You hardly have to go with my nonexistent authority and knowledge on these matters. I would love confirmation/correction by a more experienced forum goer though.

i'm not exactly sure why i'm being described as petulant for asking people for rules clarifications and opinions on such, but so be it. at this point i'm reasonably certain that RAW doesn't address these issues 100% so that's why i'm turning to the community for well thought out arguments, for and against.

some people seem to assume that i am a bad player for seeking rules clarifications in order to make optimal decisions about classes and so forth, but with all due respect, you folks don't know me, the GM or my game so i would appreciate keeping the sniping and character assassination to a minimum.

i thank all of those who took the time to post, to those copping an attitude, that's great, have fun, not sure why you are choosing to be this way but that's on you.

to ErrantPursuit, i am listening to you, thanks for your comments. i think you make an interesting argument. i think that we can both agree that there is a strange no-man's land area between armors in PF and their spell failure chance compared to their interaction with the text about somatic components. the language is unclear, and like you, i support the premise that casters shouldn't have all of the awesome spellcasting + amazing ac on top of it right out of the box. but since i'm contemplating a gestalt class, considerations must be altered somewhat, right? the point is to shore up weaknesses, build on strengths, etc.

as far as my intentions go i've been very forthright that i am planning on playing a gestalt character and that i'm comparing the benefit of rolling either a synthesist (pathfinder specific) or an aegis on one side, wizard on the other. if one class limits spell casting through arcane spell failure chance and the other does not, then that's a pretty strong argument for not taking that class, is it not?

the silliness that i was referring to stems from the fact that synthesist is, in my humble opinion, a far better mechanical choice because you are getting all sorts of things in addition to an increased armor class.

We're being this way because this is the Internet.

I don't think that armor limitations are a good criteria for choosing: Arcane Spell Failure is not that hardtop work around. Alchemist don't have ASF at all, Magi can wear light armor with no ASF, and that includes Mithril Chainmail.

Darkleaf cloth armor is not strictly "light" where it's leather counterpart is "heavy," but it reduces the Arcane spell Failure by 10%. A single feat, Arcane Armor Training, reduces it by another 10%, and the ASF is gone to 0. With that single feat, a Wizard can wear Mithril Kikko armor, too, and get +5 armor bonus to AC and still keep a 0% ASF rate.

i think that we can both agree that there is a strange no-man's land area between armors in PF and their spell failure chance compared to their interaction with the text about somatic components.

I don't really feel there is a no-man's land, no. It's a straight-up disconnect. The descriptions are incorrect compared to the mechanic in play. This is the only real part of your argument I agree with, but I think it's important to acknowledge you have a legitimate reason to have questions.

the language is unclear, and like you, i support the premise that casters shouldn't have all of the awesome spellcasting + amazing ac on top of it right out of the box. but since i'm contemplating a gestalt class, considerations must be altered somewhat, right?

No. You synergize your gestalt with your ideas about your character and the rules that bring that idea to life. Before the Magus, the only way to be an armored caster was to be an Eldritch Knight, and even then it wasn't the same. The only true armored caster is the Magus, and that class must invest 13 levels to get the ability.

the point is to shore up weaknesses, build on strengths, etc.

Of course. Optimization is a desire for every player. Every single person wants the character they play to be good at something. You have to do this within the rules, which clearly is why you're here trying to find options.

as far as my intentions go.

Let me stop you here for a moment. Nobody in this thread is confused about why you came here. What's getting tempers agitated is that you reply to very astute feedback as if it were an opinion or point of view.

A perfect example is this post. Prior to that point, many individuals had tried to explain with greater and lesser comprehensiveness that growing extra arms wouldn't work.

Refusing to hear a message that you agree is in line with the rules as you read them as in this post is frustrating to people trying to help you. 6 people had taken time out of their life to answer your question when you wrote that. I'm sorry if this catches you a little off, but at this point I, and others I believe, are unsure what was unclear about the answer to your question regarding Spell Failure. I only bring this up because you indicated you were confused as to why the very people who stopped by to help you were getting frustrated at you.

so it sounds like everyone is cool with a synthesist boosting their NA through the roof and not incurring spell failure (never mind size increases etc..) but is against the aegis psionically creating "armor" and being able to cast?

.

Reviews for "Doc Rivers' Legacy with Orlando Magic: Remembering the Glory Days"

1. John - 1/5

I was really disappointed with Orlando Magic Coach Doc Rivers. I expected him to bring some innovative strategies and turn the team around, but he failed to do so. The team's performance was lackluster throughout the season, and I feel like Rivers didn't have a clear game plan. His decision-making during crucial moments of the game was questionable, and it often cost the team valuable points. Overall, I think Rivers is not the right choice for Orlando Magic Coach.

2. Sarah - 2/5

I wasn't impressed with Doc Rivers as the coach of the Orlando Magic. While he had a solid reputation coming into the team, I found his coaching style to be outdated and ineffective. He failed to develop the younger players on the team and didn't make the necessary adjustments during games. It seemed like the team lacked direction under his leadership. The Magic's record during his tenure was disappointing, and I believe it's time for a change in coaching to revitalize the team.

3. Mike - 1/5

Doc Rivers was a huge disappointment as the coach of the Orlando Magic. His strategies were predictable and easily countered by opposing teams. The Magic seemed to lack any sort of offensive game plan and relied heavily on individual talent rather than cohesive team play. Rivers' rotations were perplexing, and he often left key players on the bench during critical moments. His inability to adapt and make necessary adjustments during games was frustrating to watch. Overall, I believe the Magic need a new coach to bring fresh ideas and reinvigorate the team.

4. Emily - 2/5

As a fan of the Orlando Magic, I had high hopes when Doc Rivers took over as the coach. However, I was left disappointed. Rivers failed to create a winning culture within the team and seemed unable to motivate the players. His communication with the players was lacking, and there was a clear disconnect between him and the team. The Magic's performance under his coaching was inconsistent, and they often struggled to close out close games. I believe the team needs a coach who can bring stability and inspire better performances from the players.

Orlando Magic's Turnaround under Coach Doc Rivers: A Case Study