Wicht's page

Wicht wrote:

LazarX wrote:

About Teachers, yes they get a bad rep, but I suspect that it's more of an American attitude.

And yet every politician of every party makes statements about how "We need to honor teachers" to great applause.

It's generally when they're Democrats or the occasional moderate Republican edging to get endorsements from the teacher's union. In office though, they generally look at education as the first place to balance the budget. State lotteries were touted as means to fund state education. But once they were in place, the money that came in for education was more than matched by what was slashed out of New Jersey's education budget.

What is disagreed upon perhaps is the best way in which to promote a better education. It is entirely possible to hold the simultaneous thoughts that good teachers should be honored and well paid, teachers unions should be abolished and that the NEA is unnecessary and unconstitutional. I'm not really wanting to debate these points - just point out that they are not self contradictory.

Thanks everyone!

That Glanjoram Hawklord Mage Knight figure is perfect! It's pretty much exactly what I envisioned my hawk looking like. I just found one one EBAY and snagged it.

Any reccomendations on the modifications? I can just grab one of the D&D minis which I have duplicates of and pull the figure off so I have a good base. Then, once I have the hawk sugically removed from the rest of the Mage Knight figure, I just need some sort of post so the hawk sits an inch or so above the base. Any ideas for a good post?

Also, is any type of glue best for this? Some sort of Crazy Glue?

Thanks!!!

For a post, your easiest and best bet is to use a toothpick (cocktail stick) painted black. Drill a suitable hole in the base and a little hole in the bird and stick it on. You may need to use a little putty or clay around the bottom depending on the nature of your base. Copper wire can also be used if you have some of a suitable thickness lying around.

EDIT: If you use wire you do need to be aware that the plastic modeling glue does not hold well to metal and some of the glues meant for metal will burn or even melt some plastics over time. When gluing metal to plastic, I tend to use a mixture of white glue and super glue or a cement glue.

A thought from the show I've been semi-pondering all day - dreamers are deemed dangerous and yet it is a dreamer that is necessary for the continuation and survival of all.

You might check out the toy aisle at a craft shop - they often have those tubes of plastic animals. There might be something in one of those, though the sizes tend to be a bit wonky.

Though painting a hawk should be pretty easy: base it in black and dry brush it with a couple of browns. It won't look professional but it will be serviceable.

The paizo link for pack #2

Also the animal companions pack has a bird

These two have birds:

Reaper familiar pack 2

Familiar Pack 8

I believe the reaper familiar pack has a bird of some sort in it.

Thoughts after the series is over:
Judging by comments at amctv.com - it seems that one either liked the series or hated it. I find myself in the liking camp. It was decent science fiction with an ending that continued to make you think after it was over. It did not resolve the issues of the village but instead explained the purpose and rationale for the village, leaving the ultimate answers as to the morality of it all for the viewer to decide for themselves.

I found that the explanation for the existence of the village to be more or less what I had anticipated from the beginning based on comments by 2 ("There is no out there is only in") but the purpose of the village was much different from what I had guessed it to be (I was anticipating a social experiment for the purpose of military control).

In the end, the main question I am left with was the reason for the death of Lucy. Her death seems at odds with the stated goals of Summakor.

Edit: Also it was an interesting surprise to find out that the flashbacks were not in fact flashbacks.

But then it goes to pay -- there are people out there who would make GREAT teachers. But what is the incentive if they are making three times what they would as teachers?

Personally, the older I get, the more I think an apprenticeship system has a lot going for it. Most people enjoy teaching what they are good at. And most people don't want to quit what they are good at or love doing in order to teach. Why drag productive people away from their profession so that they can make less money while teaching others to follow that profession. Its much more sensible to continue working while teaching and as the groups would tend to be smaller, the education would be better.

If you want good teachers, you need to pay them.

My mother is a teacher and a good one. I am, myself, a good teacher and I like teaching people. I appreciate being in the classes of good teachers and always have.

My mother has a hard time finding work as a teacher because most school systems are geared towards employing people for reasons other than teaching excellence. In the middle school/high-school (rural PA) I went to, most of the teachers were graduates of the high-school or were (or were married to) coaches of some sport or another. The chemistry teacher, who had been there for years, was rumored to keep a still in his closet and was habitually drunk. The art teacher was a known cocaine user and dealer*. There were some good teachers but the majority of them were best described as mediocre. The problem was not an issue of being paid or even of being paid well. It was a problem conflated by the teaching union on the one side and the school board on the other. The teachers union was more concerned with protecting its membership and the school board was apparently more concerned with sports and maintaining a certain community spirit.

* I've been slightly out of touch with the community but I think the art teacher was finally let go after a run in or two with the law.

Life is not necessarily only about academics. If my son, being in the school system, starts striving for mediocrity, then I blame myself. The other thought is -- if you take all the good out of a system, what are you left with? I want my son there as an example to others. I want him to influence others. I want him to push others for much more than mediocrity. He'll get academics regardless. How much good can he do for the system if he isn't in it?

But I disagree that one should send one's children into the system in order to promote the system even if it ends up damaging the children in the end. Not to mention that for some reason the "reforms" are always promised as being a generation away. That's all well and good (if its true) for the generations after us but in the meantime you can excuse me if I think that if something should be done its better done sooner rather than later. Besides which, I don't have any faith in it. Reforms to the system were being promised when I was in school twenty years ago.

The school system is a means, not an end and I think this is something that is lost on many. What needs to be asked is what is the end result we desire from education. For myself, I want children who love to learn, can read and conprehend anything they desire to read, are well grounded with a classical liberal arts education, and who have been encouraged in creative thinking skills. Anything else, in education, is secondary.

About Teachers, yes they get a bad rep, but I suspect that it's more of an American attitude.

It has been my experience that most Americans honor teaching as a concept, appreciate good teachers and wish that there was some way to get rid of bad teachers protected by tenure. This has been my experience in every section of the country in which I have lived.

Moff, out of interest, assuming that you are correct, that the majority of children don't want to learn because of the examples at home, and thus resist learning - is the cost benefit of pumping them through the college-prep system worthwhile or should the system be re-examined to determine whether or not there might be better ways of training a workforce?

Also, assuming the majority of homeschooling families are inherently more interested in academics than the norm, why should we be criticized for wanting to pull our children out of a system geared towards mediocrity and those who hate to learn?

Haven't seen the originals but am enjoying these. It will be interesting to see how they wrap it up by episode 6.

I'm a bit surprised that this was a WotC book. I thought most of the Dragonlance stuff was from Margaret Weis' company.

I have thought about moving my son to the charter school here but I don't like the extreme to which they take Montesori. They literally take the approach that a student doesn't study anything they don't first express an interest in.

That's more or less the approach I want to take with my sons next year when they start a 'high school' curriculum.

Homeschooling appeals to me but my wife worries about the lack of broader social interaction.

Come to the dark side Fake Healer - search your feelings. You know you want to homeschool.

Seriously, my wive and I have been very happy homeschooling our children. We have got to know them very well and can take real, direct pride in all of their achievements. They are better rounded, better read, and more mature than most children their own age. My wife, who for years doubted her own reading abilities, is quite proud of the fact that she taught all four of our children to read. If we fall down in one area here or there, we know that they have the ability to learn whatever they want on their own, and they have a desire to learn as well. In my opinion, the desire to learn is the single most important aspect of education a child can recieve.

The main downside to homeschooling, and it needs to be faced up front, is that it is a real investment of time, limiting the freedom of the parents. But as far as I am concerned, if you can't sacrifice time for your children, why have them. I have trouble relating to parents who view time spent with their own children as a burden.

I think a lot of the success of homeschooling comes down to how much support it gets from the state. I know in New Jersey home-schoolers are pretty much on their own as the state offers no assistance, information, or guidelines on education.

I admit it might be nice to get some vouchers for school books but we've never recieved any help in any form from the three states we have homeschooled in (Oh, WV, and Pa) and we're fine with that. On the other hand, homeschooling groups in general are good to belong to (it has been our experience). It creates a pool of children with similar experiences and academic abilities. (The main problem my children have in relating to other children is that the public school children tend to think of education as something that is to be endured or avoided) It also allows the parents to have other parents to talk to who understand the specific difficulties one is going through at any one time.

I hope you're only considering this if you're qualified. Most home-schooled kids I've worked with (5 of 7) are considerably behind academically.

My own kids, who have never set foot in public schools, all scored above average last year when we finally had them tested.

Among other reasons why this is a really bad idea is this ... The practice is ripe for discrimination lawsuits.

If the valedictorian for instance pays the 20 dollars and thats the reason for their win, the school system is open to a lawsuit from the ones right behind who can demonstrate financial lost in the form of scholarships. If one student passes a class and another with identical test scores fails... theres a lawsuit for discrimination. So yeah it may make no difference in the majority of cases but if it makes a grade difference for even one student, other students who did not contribute have a legitimate grievance.

While it is true that there are areas of life where money creates opportunity (and I'm actually fine with that), the school system should be a meritocracy - the place where hard work and native intelligence allows you to open up doors that might not otherwise exist.

Wow. I read that in stunned shock. What an incredibly bad idea.

To kind of add on.

Your average party, meeting an average encounter will, more often than not finish it off quite easily. This will lead you to think that the encounter was too easy. But the truth is, the deck is stacked in your parties favor and the dice happened to fall their way. A few bad rolls on the same encounter and the party will take some noticeable damage but still survive.

When you raise the threat, so that the average party has a tough time of it, even when the dice are falling well, what you have also done is insure that a few bad rolls spell serious trouble and potential death.

Raise the threat just a little higher and all of a sudden the deck is stacked against your party and they will only win if the dice fall entirely their way.

Thats not saying that the second and third option always make for a bad encounter. Your final encounter should almost always be 2-3 CRs above party level to make it memorable. But if you do this for every encounter you've gone from memorable to frustrating.

For your average encounter, aim for a CR within 1 of the Party level (either over, above or on). For an easy encounter go for 2-3 CRs below the party level (or more). For a tough encounter, go 2 CRs above the party level. For a deadly encounter go for 3 CRs above party level. Going more than that and you're just being sadistic. :)

Part of the explanation is resource management. Parties are supposed to be able to deal with a number of encounters of the particular level before growing tired. If each encounter is life and death then they will finish 1 or 2 encounters and be spent. That's not as much fun as doing 7-8 encounters and then starting to look ragged.

The other thing to consider is number of actions (and the chance for a critical). A party of 4 will at 1st level have 4 total actions. A group of 2 orcs will have 2. By increasing the number of actions/attacks that the opponents have, the chance of something bad happening to the party increases as well. With 2 orcs you have a 1 in 10 chance each round of scoring a critical on the party. With 4 orcs it is 1 in 5. 8 kobolds might not seem like much of a threat but with 8 attacks there is a close to 50/50 chance that one of those kobolds is going to hit with a critical and severly hurt the pc. # of actions has other ramifications, the critical thing is just the most obvious. You can throw larger groups at your PCs and they will survive but it will wear them out a lot faster and increase the chance of PC death.

Wicht wrote:

The Kingdom of Kalamar Player's Guide was the one that got used for almost every game.

Other favorites include the Book of the Righteous, KoK Villain Design Handbook, the Kalamar Atlas (a beautiful atlas), Plots and Poison, Friend and Foe: Elves and Bugbears, Friend and Foe: Gnomes and Kobolds, and the Heroes of High Favor Series from Bad Axe Games.

I almost gave Jason the same list of Kenzer products but I don't believe they are open content. Shame because certain parts; scalable spells, advancement for clerics within their church are brilliant.

Missed the OGC caveat.

Yeah the church information was what got the most use.

The Kingdom of Kalamar Player's Guide was the one that got used for almost every game.

Other favorites include the Book of the Righteous, KoK Villain Design Handbook, the Kalamar Atlas (a beautiful atlas), Plots and Poison, Friend and Foe: Elves and Bugbears, Friend and Foe: Gnomes and Kobolds, and the Heroes of High Favor Series from Bad Axe Games.

I am in this thing. Just let me know when and where.

So, can I get back in the game? Am I still welcome? It's been a crazy month or so, but I'd like to rejoin the group, if I'm still welcome.

Nobody got you killed while you were gone so just catch up with the events and post away.

Glad my thief is fine-sized, has perfect flight, greater invisibility, the Darkstalker feat, and Silence as a supernatural ability so he doesn't have to worry about any of that.

Sounds very cool.

*Grumbles and curses his own writer's block*

Come on people, we need more OGL content in there!

I was under the impression that most chicken thieves actually come at night (whether animals or people). There might be a reason for that. Any rogue in my games wants to try to steal chickens at high noon had better be really good at what he does. And if he's that good, what is he doing stealing chickens?

So the main complaint is that sneaking around in brightly lit areas is too hard? Or is that an oversimplification?

I gotta admit. There are alot of good names in this thread so far. Please keep them coming; make my job hard.

from nosferatu we get Nos-fire-atu.

and from there
Fyratu or Pyratu

In days of yore, as I understand them, wealthy people maintained estates for the purpose of a change of scenery. Country rich kept town houses and city rich kept country estates. The poor would visit their relatives I suppose if they wanted to get away from their normal routines.

Seeing the world was always frought with the perils of traveling and bandits. Though men might engage in traveling for the purposes of broadening themselves (visiting the seven wonders, speaking with learned scholars, visiting a temple/oracle etc.) it was not done for mere pleasure. There were likely some exceptions where cities tried to make themselves centers of entertainment but I tend to think that these were done mainly for the local region, as, again, travel was not safe or quick.

IMO, PCs who want to 'vacation' should be encouraged to invest their wealth in estates in some desireable location.

Monte's article is good.

I also like the Whack Jacks and Harpy Nets. And the spell-less ranger will get a pretty thorough looking over.

Wicht wrote:

yoda8myhead wrote:

The specifics of America are such that upper class white men hold and have always held the power. That's just the way it is.

Except for, you know, in the White House and the House of Representatives. :P

Two prominent members of a group of hundreds of top-level law-makers does not an upheaval of power make.

For that matter he is not strictly a law maker either but a member of the executive branch. But thats just being nitpicky.

Malachi Tarchannen wrote:

yoda8myhead wrote:

Malachi Tarchannen wrote:

Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.

Really? "Get off the porch?" You're not strengthening your position very well though your use of the phrase certainly illuminates your perspective.

I'm sorry. What does that phrase mean to you? Where I'm from it means "get busy rather than watching the world go by." Or something like that. With that meaning in mind, I thought it worked nicely. How does that "illumante my perspective" to you?

To be fair, I would have mentioned something on this as well, but racial/racist innuendo is something that varies widely by one's location. I had no idea how offensive something involving the term porch could be until I watched Clerks 2. I turned to my wife, who's family is from North Carolina for explanation, and she gave me a blank stare and a shrug, explaining that one had to go farther south for such terminology to be used regularly.

The specifics of America are such that upper class white men hold and have always held the power. That's just the way it is.

Wicht wrote:

yoda8myhead wrote:

The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and...

Charles Payne would disagree with you.

Well, if it's on Glenn Beck, then it must be valid.

In any case, that's one man's experience. That doesn't invalidate the common experiences of millions of people which are influences quite heavily by race and class stratification.

Anyway Payne is not the only one to say the same thing. I seem to remember Bill Cosby saying very similar things.

Lots of people in this world are given a hard row to hoe, very often through no fault of their own. Hard work does not always lead to success but it works more often than the alternative.

The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and...

Is the present just? If not, then the scholarship fund is not a present injustice. It is an attempt to help justice to grow.

I just googled "african american men enrolment american universities" and found the words collocated with words like "plummet," "decline," and "plight". (Not a scientific study so all that I will suggest is that some people might question whether injustice is in the past.)

Wicht wrote:

As to the second question, thats another whole can of worms. Is it right to discriminate against one group in retaliation for discrimination done in the past against another group? My personal views are that while those that initiate such programs might do so with pure motives it leads to further discrimination and 'racism' as you are perpetuating the division of the culture into unnecessary groups.

I struggle with that one too and think that any kind of segregation should be carefully justified.

I take that back. Segregating for reasons of gender is sometimes desireable for reasons of modesty. I'm all in favor of men's and women's restrooms. :)

EDIT: Unless by group you meant doctors or D&D players. Given the context of this discussion, I assume by group as in 'white people' or 'black people.

Well, what if I thought that biological notions of race were a total crock (which I do) but I acknowledged that, in society, there are many people who discriminate on the basis of race (which I do)? What if, then, I refused to allow my daughter to marry a man who I felt was going to be discriminated against by society. Would that be prejudism without racism?

What if I believed that race was a crock but believed that programs could be set up to help specifically those who are discriminated against (affirmative action). Could that be 'prejudism' without racism?

As to the second question, thats another whole can of worms. Is it right to discriminate against one group in retaliation for discrimination done in the past against another group? My personal views are that while those that initiate such programs might do so with pure motives it leads to further discrimination and 'racism' as you are perpetuating the division of the culture into unnecessary groups.

I would guess that it varies. Nationalism is all about a sense of community and belonging. Demihumans who feel like they belong to a given community will support it. Those who view themselves as outsiders won't.

Elves raised by other elves are going to view themselves as members of the elvish community who are merely spending time amongst the other races. Their longer life might mean they transcend any solid nationalistic tendencies for any of the everchanging human nations. Elves raised among humans might identify themselves strongly with or against the community they know best.

Gnomes and Halflings, I would guess would be more likely to be nationalistic than not.

Dwarves I could see going either way as regards the nations, again depending on how they were raised and how they might relate or not relate to the broader community.

However, I wish to remain clear that I was making a purposed (and dictionary allowable) distinction between the two terms, precisely so that I could illustrate that it is also possible for a man to be prejudiced against a certain race without being racist.

I also agree that some prejudices are beneficial (though which those are is going to be a matter of hot debate). I would disagree that any prejudices based entirely on skin are helpful. If your prejudice was against individuals who dressed a certain way and spoke a certain way, I would argue that it is not the color you are prejudiced against, it is the behavior. It is unfortunate when behavior and skin gets conflated on the part of either party.

There's a lot of talking past one another that happens when two people use the same word to mean different things.

I could go with Tarren's definition that racism is the belief in races. For a variety of reasons I simply refuse to acknowledge that there are different races and I notice that most people conflate the word race with the word ethnicity in their usage of it. Whenever possible I try to answer surveys about race with the answer that I am human (and when the question asks concerning ethnicity I answer that I am American.) Its probably a futile gesture to refuse to answer questions regarding race but its my small stand against a term I personally find ridiculous.

Sadly the people who are quickest to cry racism are often the quickest to try and segregate people according to the color of their skin.

Thank you for the insight into some of the rules and their affects. Interesting reading. But... ;)

Back when I was still buying Warhammer armies, I would read White Dwarf mainly for the battle reports. I loved those, with their diagrams of which units moved where, their snapshots of the field of battle and their turn by turn account of how the dice fell and what the commanders where thinking and how the rules interacted with the actual battlefield. That's what I think of when I think of a battle report for a wargame.

Edit: That sounds a bit whiny. I did enjoy the read. Just was interested in how a game session actually plays.

On the August 23, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Limbaugh commented on a season of CBS' reality TV program Survivor in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity. Limbaugh stated that the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim." Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic tribe" -- which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican or two" -- provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves." Limbaugh added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." When the Survivor producers decided to dissolve the show's racially segregated "tribes" after only two episodes, Limbaugh declared that "[t]here can only be one reason for this ... that is the white tribe had to be winning."

The comment about blacks not swimming was in relationship to some studies and comments on the fact that black children were more likelier to drown. IIRC there was some suggestion by a liberal prior to this that sending government money to inner city swimming pools was discriminatory. The comment about the hispanic team was in relationship to the immigration issue but was also based on the oft stated quote that certain immigrants "would do jobs Americans weren't willing to do." The comment about the white tribe winning was directed at the producers of the show, whom Rush was basically accusing of racism. He was not suggesting that it was natural for the white team to win but was suggesting that the producers would have felt it to be an undesireable outcome.

The whole commentary, rather than being evidence of Rush's racism, was actually an attack against the subtle (and not so subtle) racism of others using parody, sarcasm and absurdity. Rush was no more being an advocate of racism than Jonathan Swift was advocating cannibalism and the mistreatment of the poor with his modest proposal.

Half the quotes, at least, when I read them on the list, are satire of a similar sort (or else a purposeful tweaking of people Rush doesn't like.