text:
MASSCANN's recent board elections injected the organization's leadership with some youth — and six women, the most ever.
Even their first board meeting (March 30) in the back room of Uno Chicago Grill in Newton was standing room only: plenty of young blood, and now, more estrogen.
New secretary Niki Snow says this board meeting looked nothing like the first MassCann meeting she attended just last summer. "There were five or 10 people at a time in meetings, it was just the board." The men in charge spent their time in heated legal debates, Snow says. "I wasn't learning or understanding."
Snow describes the contrast between the old and new MassCann in terms of two main ideas: new members stress a commitment to community while the old school focuses on challenging the law.
Take Steve Epstein, for example: he's treasurer of MassCann and has been on the board for 20 years. He's a lawyer by day, smokes a lot of cigarettes, and often stresses how difficult it is to pass new legislation. "The only way for the federal government to change the law is to pass the 21st Amendment for marijuana," barks Epstein during the board meeting at Uno, explaining to the crowd why he thinks MassCann can't campaign for legalization in 2011-2012.
Epstein's lawyerly approach is typical of MassCann's past strategies. The organization pushed nonbinding ballot questions in Massachusetts districts throughout the 2000s. Yet the 2008 decriminalization of marijuana came from an initiative by the rival ad-hoc group Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, not MassCann.
When elected board president last year, Mike Crawford (a/k/a MikeCann) decided the group needed serious revamping. "Bringing in women was a goal of mine," says Crawford, recently re-elected for a second term. "Time for them to step up . . . and younger people, too." There had been women on the board before, Crawford says, but never more than one at a time. He says he also wants to reach young professionals willing to moonlight as activists.
Snow credits Crawford with bringing her back into the group last summer, along with new members, by hosting the "Battle for the Rally," a battle of the bands to elect acts for the annual Freedom Rally on Boston Common. The Freedom Rally pot festival is organized by MassCann each September, and Crawford says another "Battle for the Rally" is being planned this summer.
At the recent meeting, the new members focused on community-oriented event planning. Even after two hours, when the elders were ready to pack it in, the young turks weren't ready to stop talking pot — even if it meant waiting a little longer to smoke it.
The OGs of MassCann even tried wrapping things up by telling everyone in attendance to call their local representatives (and, you know, lecture them on the glory of ganja). New board member Cara Crabb-Burnham had other ideas.
Richard Meehan
Christie Morgan
Glenn Prescott
Mike Cann
Ariel Shearer
See all articles by: ARIEL SHEARER
All Slideshows


text:
Swiftless GLSL Shader Developer
Last modified on 2011-06-02 03:24:26 GMT. 8 comments. Top.
Swiftless GLSL Shader Developer
Version 0.1a
Currently Swiftless GLSL Shader Developer is in it's first public release, and is currently in alpha status, meaning it is not complete and may contain errors. By downloading this software, you are taking full responsibility for any harm it may cause to your computer.
I have included an example project with the application, which shows how to use the geometry shaders, post processing and performs a simple blur effect. I will have more projects to put up as I progress with the application, you can also email me any projects you would like to share and I will put them up on this page, and may even put them in with a release of the application.
If you find any errors or have any suggestions for this software, please email me at email@example.com
Download (Includes example project) |
File size: 106kb |
Platforms: Windows (All), Linux, OSX |
Requirements: JOGL |
* Support for OpenGL 2.1 (As supported by JOGL)
* Fragment Shader, Vertex Shader and Geometry Shader abilities
* Post processing capabilities Access to first render as either texture or depth texture
* Uses framebuffers for speed
* Syntax highlighting
* Project support
* Real-time shader compilation
* Real-time error reporting and shader validation
* Support for all 8 lights in the basic OpenGL pipeline
* Multiple texture support
Future Features:
* Multiple rendering passes
* Backcolor settings
Known Bugs:
* Appears to run slow after several minutes
* Custom uniform variables are not yet accessible
* Cube shape doesn't appear
* Sphere doesn't render correctly

subset: commoncrawl


text:
On this website you can find and download all sorts of Turkish Christian books in e-book format. You can then read these on your phone, tablet or computer. We aim to produce a new e-book each week so please check back to see what's new!
We have a new poster, you can download it and distribute it as a poster or flyer in your churches. Please download by clicking on this link.


text:
Surat (Gujarat) [India], June 17: A session was organized by PinkPreneur Surat and Ahir Mahila Group, under the leadership of Sunita Nandwani – Director PinkPreneur and Manisha Ahir – Corporator, at Archna Vidhya Sankul, to bring empowerment to women and inspire them to be self-independent by starting up their own business with minimal investment.
In this session keynote speaker Ms.Trushna Yagnik, who is a Startup consultant discussed 25 ideas that females can start with immediately right from their homes with minimal investment of INR 5000. Also during this session, she discussed special schemes and provisions provided by the Government of Gujarat to become self-reliant for women.
Over 70 women had enthusiastically participated in this event and have decided to start their own business and create their own identity. Leading women of the society Vanitaa Rawat, Ritu Rathi, Sunita Nandwani, Ranjana Desai, Ankita Valand, Vibha Katariya, Heena Katariya, Priyal Huria, Jetal Desai, and Advocate Sonal Hadiya were also present during the session to encourage these women to come out of their comfort zone and to grow more in life.


text:
A Print Solution as Easy to Install as it is to Use.
Explore Our SolutionPay-for-Print,
Cloud Solution
Print management solution developed specifically for student printing in higher education and university settings.
- Also ideal for public and guest printing
- No servers on campus
- Cloud technology provides secure document retrieval
- Multiple data centers provide high availability and redundancy
Print From
BYOD – Bring Your Own Device! Students upload their documents to the Wēpa print cloud and retrieve their documents from any Wēpa print station.
- Any mobile device, smart phone or tablet with an Internet connection
- Lab & Library Computers
- Personal Computers
- iOS & Android® Devices
- Access cloud storage providers and USB files at any Wēpa print station
With Wēpa's low pay-for-print cost and no additional charges for software, reporting or toner – you will truly know your student printing costs! We never charge for:
- Integration with campus cards
- Software or license fees
- User fees - no matter how many students you have!


text:
This month's issue of The Atlantic includes an article by Anne-Marie Slaughter titled, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All."
I came across the article when it was shared in a LinkedIn group that I'm a part of, and it immediately sparked a lot of comments and conversation. I've been stewing over the article ever since I read it, and I wanted to take time to really think — and write — about what gave me such a visceral reaction.
I've narrowed it down to the following:
All For One Is Not All For All
In the context of "having it all" the word "all"should be a self-defined metric. Here, the author has interpreted her son's difficulties and her decision to leave her position in Washington, D.C. as a failure to achieve it all. She then takes her evaluation of herself, and extends it out to all women to say that because she has, in her own estimation, not achieved it "all" it is therefore impossible for women, in general, to have it "all" and that feminism has misled us in thinking that we can.
For me, "having it all" is about having choices. By my definition, Slaughter did "have it all" — she had the opportunity to choose, and to decline, jobs. She left one high-powered position to return to her previous one. Not all working women have that abundance of choices. Not all women who work do so because they choose to, but because they have to. Not all women have an engaged co-parent to lean on for family obligations when work gets demanding. Not all women have the flexiblity in their jobs to care for a child, or an aging parent, or a sick spouse. Being able to choose to dial one's career up or down, being able to take a break to give birth, and have a paid maternity leave…these are luxuries that not all parents have.
To be fair, though, if I take issue with Slaughter extending her definition of all to me, I should not do the same to her. My "all" is not her "all," and she is entitled whatever feelings she has about her own experience and achievements. But, I would like to publicly say: Ms. Slaughter, I think you have a remarkable career and are quite clearly a caring and engaged parent. I admire your accomplishments, both professional and personal.
"All" Doesn't Mean "Perfect"
"Having it all" doesn't translate to "a flawless life." Slaughter seems to have interpreted her son's rough period as an indictment of her choice to work, despite the fact that her husband was able to scale back at his job to spend more time parenting. Let's reverse the situation and say that she had instead scaled back to spend more time as a parent, while her husband pursued his career more aggressively. If her son was still having issues, would his father take on that psychological burden and say, "This must be because I'm working too much."? Why do we do this to ourselves, mothers? Why do we assume that an issue in our family life is somehow caused by our pursuit of a career? And why do we assume that scaling back would fix it? I'm not saying that the presence of a mother (or father) isn't valuable to a child — it certainly is. But, it's also not a guarantee that one's child will progress through life without rough patches.
Women is not synonymous with mothers. The title of Slaughter's piece is "Why Women Still Can't Have It All" which, as written, presumes that until a woman has children, she hasn't achieved it "all." The subtext being, "Working women, you haven't achieved it all unless you also have a child. Mothers, you haven't achieved it all if you don't also have a career.
Women, Humans, or Parents?
I dislike that this argument is presented as a "woman" thing. "Why Women Still Can't Have It All" would be better titled, "Why Any Human Being Could Never Have It All, And Still Can't." That this is directed specifically at women is telling; it's because this concept of working AND being a good parent is still seen as primarily a "woman's issue." It assumes that a woman's default role must be as primary caregiver, and that in order to pursue a demanding and/or time-consuming career is an "extra." And that's because this is still a prevailing cultural norm that women and men have internalized despite decades spent fighting against it. If a kid gets sick, everyone assumes that it's mom that will go home from work to care for him. We don't need to think that way anymore.
More importantly, this article is not about women not being able to have it all — it is about mothers not being able to have it all. That's a subtle, but important, difference. The title, as written, presumes that until a woman has children, she hasn't achieved it "all." The subtext being, "Women, you haven't achieved it all until you've had a child. Mothers, you haven't achieved it all if you don't have a career." That sentiment chills me. And it's why I return to my first point: "having it all" is about choosing what "all" means to YOU. Everyone else, and their opinions about it, can sod off.
I do agree that society needs to change. We need to redefine what it means to "have it all." We need to start expecting more out of fathers. We need, as women, to stop taking on such a disproportionate amount of the physical and psychological burdens of parenting. And employers need to think in radical new ways about how to create environments that support people — not just parents, but people. We have the technology! There's no reason why we can't think more creatively about how and when we work. We don't all have to be in a cubicle from 8am-6pm. We can work remotely, we can video conference, we can do a million things that help people pursue their careers on a more irregular, personalized schedule that doesn't sacrifice the quantity or quality of their work, and integrates with whatever other life goals they have, whether it's traveling around the world, having kids, or training for a marathon.
That being said, as James Joyner pointed out in his blog post, "Why Men Can't Have It All, Either":
"All things being equal, those willing to put 90 hours a week into their careers are going to get ahead of those willing to put in 60, much less 40. While there is any number of studies showing that working too many hours is actually counterproductive from an efficiency standpoint, there nonetheless is a rare breed of cat who can keep up a frenetic work schedule for years on end. And those workaholics are simply more valuable to the company, agency, or organization than those who clock out at 5. That means that those of us who choose to prioritize our children are going to get out-hustled by those without children, or those willing to let their children spend longer hours with a partner or childcare provider."
That's never going to change. Sorry. So, yeah — if you want to excel a job that requires (or encourages) 90-hour workweeks, and you also want to have kids, you're going to have problems — probably personal, familial, and professional. That's not a flaw in feminism or in you — it's just a basic limitation of the 24-hour day.


text: A Man came into a forest and asked the Trees to provide him a handle for his axe. The Trees consented to his request and gave him a young ash-tree. No sooner had the man fitted a new handle to his axe from it, than he began to use it and quickly felled with his strokes the noblest giants of the forest. An old oak, lamenting when too late the destruction of his companions, said to a neighboring cedar, "The first step has lost us all. If we had not given up the rights of the ash, we might yet have retained our own privileges and have stood for ages."


text:
Page Navigation
- Office of Environmental Health
- About the Office of Environmental Health
- Burn Wise
- Clean Communities
- Food Inspections Online
- Food Vendors & Safety Information
- HAZMAT Program
- Mold Resources
- Outdoor Wood Boilers: What do I need to know?
- Rabies
- Radon
- Retail Food Establishment Resources
- Septic Systems
- Water
- Youth Camp Inspections
Office of Environmental Health
201 Wheatsworth Road
Hamburg, NJ 07419
973-579-0370 Fax: 973-579-0399
Hours: Monday-Friday 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. except holidays
201 Wheatsworth Road
Hamburg, NJ 07419
973-579-0370 Fax: 973-579-0399
Hours: Monday-Friday 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. except holidays
Welcome to Environmental Health
On August 4, 2017, Sussex County Registered Environmental Health Specialists Inspected 92 Food Establishments at the Opening of the New Jersey State Fair/Sussex County Farm and Horse Show
What we do
Facility Inspections and Complaint Investigations Pertaining To:
- Recreational Bathing
6/18/2020 Public pools, private swim clubs, and similar facilities in New Jersey may operate beginning June 22. - Campgrounds
- Youth Camps
- Food surveillance including restaurants and food sale and storage facilities
- Body Art (Tattoo)
- Septic Systems
- Water Systems and Wells
- Municipal Ordinances
- Public health nuisances
- Rabies and zoonosis control
- Mold Resources
- Ground Water Rules for Public Community and Public Non-Community Water Systems (pdf)
- Food Safety During and After a Power Outage
- 2008 Food Safety Public Service Announcement
- 2008 Retail Food Establishment Resources
- NJDEP Compliance and Enforcement Contact Information - for Division of County and Environmental Waste Enforcement, Air Compliance & Enforcement, Water Compliance & Enforcement, Pesticide Control & Coastal & Land Use Compliance & Enforcement
- 2008 Recycling Public Service Announcement
- Guidelines for Proper Disposal of Household Medication
This short film stars real Public Health Inspectors from the Sussex County Health Department taking a humorous look at basic food safety in the home.
Food Safety (May, 2008)
Don't let your picnic become a statistic!
Windows Media
Who we serve
The Sussex County Division of Health serves all 24 county municipalities.


text: Ah, bonjour! Macaron à la Pêche is a delightful anytime tisane inspired by a sweet peach French macaron! C'est tout simplement magnifique! Macarons are a French meringue-based confection made of egg white, icing sugar, granulated sugar, almond flour and food coloring. Macarons are light, airy, and simply beautiful to behold. Now you can enjoy a taste of the French-style patisseries right at home! Once steeped, the lovely peachy-orange colored infusion lets off a sugared peach aroma. At first sip, Macaron à la Pêche starts with a burst of pear and pineapple sweetness, and quickly follows with a fragrant peach syrup that lovingly lingers. Enjoy Peach macaron perfection anytime with our delightful Macaron à la Pêche tisane! Whether prepared hot or iced for our Macaron à la Pêche is truly inspiring. |


text:
PART THREE : Chapter 13
Leo Tolstoy2016年08月23日'Command+D' Bookmark this page
None but those who were most intimate
with Alexey Alexandrovitch knew that, while on the
surface the coldest and most reasonable of men, he
had one weakness quite opposed to the general trend
of his character. Alexey Alexandrovitch could
not hear or see a child or woman crying without being
moved. The sight of tears threw him into a state
of nervous agitation, and he utterly lost all power
of reflection. The chief secretary of his department
and his private secretary were aware of this, and used
to warn women who came with petitions on no account
to give way to tears, if they did not want to ruin
their chances. "He will get angry, and
will not listen to you," they used to say.
And as a fact, in such cases the emotional disturbance
set up in Alexey Alexandrovitch by the sight of tears
found expression in hasty anger. "I can
do nothing. Kindly leave the room!" he
would commonly cry in such cases.
When returning from the races Anna
had informed him of her relations with Vronsky, and
immediately afterwards had burst into tears, hiding
her face in her hands, Alexey Alexandrovitch, for
all the fury aroused in him against her, was aware
at the same time of a rush of that emotional disturbance
always produced in him by tears. Conscious of
it, and conscious that any expression of his feelings
at that minute would be out of keeping with the position,
he tried to suppress every manifestation of life in
himself, and so neither stirred nor looked at her.
This was what had caused that strange expression
of deathlike rigidity in his face which had so impressed
When they reached the house he helped
her to get out of the carriage, and making an effort
to master himself, took leave of her with his usual
urbanity, and uttered that phrase that bound him to
nothing; he said that tomorrow he would let her know
his decision.
His wife's words, confirming
his worst suspicions, had sent a cruel pang to the
heart of Alexey Alexandrovitch. That pang was
intensified by the strange feeling of physical pity
for her set up by her tears. But when he was
all alone in the carriage Alexey Alexandrovitch, to
his surprise and delight, felt complete relief both
from this pity and from the doubts and agonies of
He experienced the sensations of a
man who has had a tooth out after suffering long from
toothache. After a fearful agony and a sense
of something huge, bigger than the head itself, being
torn out of his jaw, the sufferer, hardly able to
believe in his own good luck, feels all at once that
what has so long poisoned his existence and enchained
his attention, exists no longer, and that he can live
and think again, and take interest in other things
besides his tooth. This feeling Alexey Alexandrovitch
was experiencing. The agony had been strange
and terrible, but now it was over; he felt that he
could live again and think of something other than
his wife.
"No honor, no heart, no religion;
a corrupt woman. I always knew it and always
saw it, though I tried to deceive myself to spare
her," he said to himself. And it actually
seemed to him that he always had seen it: he
recalled incidents of their past life, in which he
had never seen anything wrong before now
these incidents proved clearly that she had always
been a corrupt woman. "I made a mistake
in linking my life to hers; but there was nothing
wrong in my mistake, and so I cannot be unhappy.
It's not I that am to blame," he told himself,
"but she. But I have nothing to do with
her. She does not exist for me…"
Everything relating to her and her
son, towards whom his sentiments were as much changed
as towards her, ceased to interest him. The
only thing that interested him now was the question
of in what way he could best, with most propriety and
comfort for himself, and thus with most justice, extricate
himself from the mud with which she had spattered him
in her fall, and then proceed along his path of active,
honorable, and useful existence.
"I cannot be made unhappy by
the fact that a contemptible woman has committed a
crime. I have only to find the best way out of
the difficult position in which she has placed me.
And I shall find it," he said to himself, frowning
more and more. "I'm not the first
nor the last." And to say nothing of historical
instances dating from the "Fair Helen"
of Menelaus, recently revived in the memory of all,
a whole list of contemporary examples of husbands
with unfaithful wives in the highest society rose
before Alexey Alexandrovitch's imagination.
"Daryalov, Poltavsky, Prince Karibanov, Count
Paskudin, Dram…. Yes, even Dram, such an honest,
capable fellow…Semyonov, Tchagin, Sigonin,"
Alexey Alexandrovitch remembered. "Admitting
that a certain quite irrational ridicule falls
to the lot of these men, yet I never saw anything
but a misfortune in it, and always felt sympathy for
it," Alexey Alexandrovitch said to himself, though
indeed this was not the fact, and he had never felt
sympathy for misfortunes of that kind, but the more
frequently he had heard of instances of unfaithful
wives betraying their husbands, the more highly he
had thought of himself. "It is a misfortune
which may befall anyone. And this misfortune
has befallen me. The only thing to be done is
to make the best of the position."
And he began passing in review the
methods of proceeding of men who had been in the same
position that he was in.
"Daryalov fought a duel…."
The duel had particularly fascinated
the thoughts of Alexey Alexandrovitch in his youth,
just because he was physically a coward, and was himself
well aware of the fact. Alexey Alexandrovitch
could not without horror contemplate the idea of a
pistol aimed at himself, and had never made use of
any weapon in his life. This horror had in his
youth set him pondering on dueling, and picturing
himself in a position in which he would have to expose
his life to danger. Having attained success and
an established position in the world, he had long
ago forgotten this feeling; but the habitual bent
of feeling reasserted itself, and dread of his own
cowardice proved even now so strong that Alexey Alexandrovitch
spent a long while thinking over the question of dueling
in all its aspects, and hugging the idea of a duel,
though he was fully aware beforehand that he would
never under any circumstances fight one.
"There's no doubt our
society is still so barbarous (it's not the
same in England) that very many" and
among these were those whose opinion Alexey Alexandrovitch
particularly valued "look favorably
on the duel; but what result is attained by it?
Suppose I call him out," Alexey Alexandrovitch
went on to himself, and vividly picturing the night
he would spend after the challenge, and the pistol
aimed at him, he shuddered, and knew that he never
would do it "suppose I call him out.
Suppose I am taught," he went on musing, "to
shoot; I press the trigger," he said to himself,
closing his eyes, "and it turns out I have killed
him," Alexey Alexandrovitch said to himself,
and he shook his head as though to dispel such silly
ideas. "What sense is there in murdering
a man in order to define one's relation to a
guilty wife and son? I should still just as
much have to decide what I ought to do with her.
But what is more probable and what would doubtless
occur I should be killed or wounded.
I, the innocent person, should be the victim killed
or wounded. It's even more senseless.
But apart from that, a challenge to fight would be
an act hardly honest on my side. Don't
I know perfectly well that my friends would never
allow me to fight a duel would never allow
the life of a statesman, needed by Russia, to be exposed
to danger? Knowing perfectly well beforehand
that the matter would never come to real danger, it
would amount to my simply trying to gain a certain
sham reputation by such a challenge. That would
be dishonest, that would be false, that would be deceiving
myself and others. A duel is quite irrational,
and no one expects it of me. My aim is simply
to safeguard my reputation, which is essential for
the uninterrupted pursuit of my public duties."
Official duties, which had always been of great consequence
in Alexey Alexandrovitch's eyes, seemed of special
importance to his mind at this moment. Considering
and rejecting the duel, Alexey Alexandrovitch turned
to divorce another solution selected by
several of the husbands he remembered. Passing
in mental review all the instances he knew of divorces
(there were plenty of them in the very highest society
with which he was very familiar), Alexey Alexandrovitch
could not find a single example in which the object
of divorce was that which he had in view. In
all these instances the husband had practically ceded
or sold his unfaithful wife, and the very party which,
being in fault, had not the right to contract a fresh
marriage, had formed counterfeit, pseudo-matrimonial
ties with a self-styled husband. In his own
case, Alexey Alexandrovitch saw that a legal divorce,
that is to say, one in which only the guilty wife
would be repudiated, was impossible of attainment.
He saw that the complex conditions of the life they
led made the coarse proofs of his wife's guilt,
required by the law, out of the question; he saw that
a certain refinement in that life would not admit
of such proofs being brought forward, even if he had
them, and that to bring forward such proofs would
damage him in the public estimation more than it would
An attempt at divorce could lead to
nothing but a public scandal, which would be a perfect
godsend to his enemies for calumny and attacks on
his high position in society. His chief object,
to define the position with the least amount of disturbance
possible, would not be attained by divorce either.
Moreover, in the event of divorce, or even of an
attempt to obtain a divorce, it was obvious that the
wife broke off all relations with the husband and
threw in her lot with the lover. And in spite
of the complete, as he supposed, contempt and indifference
he now felt for his wife, at the bottom of his heart
Alexey Alexandrovitch still had one feeling left in
regard to her a disinclination to see her
free to throw in her lot with Vronsky, so that her
crime would be to her advantage. The mere notion
of this so exasperated Alexey Alexandrovitch, that
directly it rose to his mind he groaned with inward
agony, and got up and changed his place in the carriage,
and for a long while after, he sat with scowling brows,
wrapping his numbed and bony legs in the fleecy rug.
"Apart from formal divorce,
One might still do like Karibanov, Paskudin, and that
good fellow Dram that is, separate from
one's wife," he went on thinking, when
he had regained his composure. But this step
too presented the same drawback of public scandal
as a divorce, and what was more, a separation, quite
as much as a regular divorce, flung his wife into the
arms of Vronsky. "No, it's out of
the question, out of the question!" he said
again, twisting his rug about him again. "I
cannot be unhappy, but neither she nor he ought to
be happy."
The feeling of jealousy, which had
tortured him during the period of uncertainty, had
passed away at the instant when the tooth had been
with agony extracted by his wife's words.
But that feeling had been replaced by another, the
desire, not merely that she should not be triumphant,
but that she should get due punishment for her crime.
He did not acknowledge this feeling, but at the bottom
of his heart he longed for her to suffer for having
destroyed his peace of mind his honor.
And going once again over the conditions inseparable
from a duel, a divorce, a separation, and once again
rejecting them, Alexey Alexandrovitch felt convinced
that there was only one solution, to keep
her with him, concealing what had happened from the
world, and using every measure in his power to break
off the intrigue, and still more though
this he did not admit to himself to punish
her. "I must inform her of my conclusion,
that thinking over the terrible position in which
she has placed her family, all other solutions will
be worse for both sides than an external status
quo, and that such I agree to retain, on the strict
condition of obedience on her part to my wishes, that
is to say, cessation of all intercourse with her lover."
When this decision had been finally adopted, another
weighty consideration occurred to Alexey Alexandrovitch
in support of it. "By such a course only
shall I be acting in accordance with the dictates
of religion," he told himself. "In
adopting this course, I am not casting off a guilty
wife, but giving her a chance of amendment; and, indeed,
difficult as the task will be to me, I shall devote
part of my energies to her reformation and salvation."
Though Alexey Alexandrovitch was perfectly
aware that he could not exert any moral influence
over his wife, that such an attempt at reformation
could lead to nothing but falsity; though in passing
through these difficult moments he had not once thought
of seeking guidance in religion, yet now, when his
conclusion corresponded, as it seemed to him, with
the requirements of religion, this religious sanction
to his decision gave him complete satisfaction, and
to some extent restored his peace of mind. He
was pleased to think that, even in such an important
crisis in life, no one would be able to say that he
had not acted in accordance with the principles of
that religion whose banner he had always held aloft
amid the general coolness and indifference.
As he pondered over subsequent developments, Alexey
Alexandrovitch did not see, indeed, why his relations
with his wife should not remain practically the same
as before. No doubt, she could never regain
his esteem, but there was not, and there could not
be, any sort of reason that his existence should be
troubled, and that he should suffer because she was
a bad and faithless wife. "Yes, time will
pass; time, which arranges all things, and the old
relations will be reestablished," Alexey Alexandrovitch
told himself; "so far reestablished, that is,
that I shall not be sensible of a break in the continuity
of my life. She is bound to be unhappy, but I
am not to blame, and so I cannot be unhappy."


text:
The Samsung Galaxy back-door was bullshit. Really?
Written by Paul Kocialkowski 18 commentsA few days ago, I disclosed (on behalf of the Replicant projet) our research regarding a back-door found in a proprietary program running on Samsung Galaxy devices' applications processor. This back-door lets the modem perform I/O operations on the device's storage.
For the full statement, please refer to the article posted at Free Software Foundation's website. The relevant technical analysis is available at the Replicant wiki and a complementary statement was issued at the Replicant blog.
In the few hours following the publication, an outstanding number of technology-oriented websites relayed the news, including Phoronix, Slashdot, LWN and XDA-Developers. I'm very glad the press found interest in that research and I'm confident it'll help more and more individuals realize the importance of being in control of their computing: that is, to understand what's at stake with free software.
A few recent developments particularly caught my attention: Ars technica bothered to ask an actual security researcher, Dan Rosenberg his thoughts on our findings. Good thing they decided to go deeper than only duplicating the information. On the other hand, Samsung issued a statement about this issue:
Samsung takes the security of its products extremely seriously. We have investigated the claims that have been made and can confirm that there is no security risk. The Free Software Foundation's recent allegations are based on a false understanding of the software feature that enables communication between the modem and the Application Processor chipset.
Mostly, the point that is argued by Dan Rosenberg is that there is no evidence of any ability for a remote party to use the back-door, nor any known exploit to make use of it remotely. As a matter of fact, we didn't look at how this could be used over the air: this was not the point of our research. The problem we intended to highlight is not so much about how in practical terms an intruder could use this anti-feature remotely to access and modify the data stored on the device, but rather to show that a particular proprietary software implements a feature that could be used to let the modem gain data I/O access over the device. This is where we find the back-door to be: at the interface between the modem and the applications processor. We do consider the modem to be an "unknown" area that offers no guarantee at all regarding security, since it is running proprietary software. Hence, we believe it is relevant to assume the worse and consider it compromised and subject to remote control. Several indications tend to make us think this is actually what is going on: Craig Murray described how a mobile phone had been remotely converted to a spying device in Murder in Samarkand. Considering the recent revelations regarding the practices of several governments' intelligence agencies, we find it hard to believe there is no way modems cannot be remotely compromised.
The goal of our action was to make people aware of that particular issue. One might consider it to have no value, provided they don't think modems can be remotely compromised and others might see it as a crucial security flaw in the event the modem is compromised, as we do. The fact that it was implemented for another purpose or was not intended to be used in malicious ways doesn't change anything at all: an attacker with remote access to the modem will be able to issue the incriminated requests. There is no possible "false understanding", in the way Samsung seems to imply here.
For the record, we didn't at any point intend to distort the truth to bring attention to our project or our research, nor did we intend to ruin Samsung's reputation. We simply felt it was our moral responsibility to spread the word about it. I believe anyone can decide for themselves whether they have faith in Samsung's good word that this introduces no further security risk, but let it be clear that it doesn't get any more certain than what good faith can provide. We are still looking forward to working with Samsung to make things right, in case they decide to abandon their current position of denial.


text:
2021-22 Prizm Basketball Sealed Retail Box
We will always do our best to ensure you receive your purchased product/s in the fastest time possible!
However, due to our products being one of ones and in high demand, we like to give you an estimated time frame that your product should arrive at its correct destination!
Please allow for the following:
- 3-5 business days processing time.
- USA, Canada 7-10 business days.
Pickup currently unavailable at NYC Bleecker Trading
2021-22 Prizm Basketball Sealed Retail Box
NYC Bleecker Trading
Pickup currently unavailable
96 Christopher Street
New York NY 10014
United States


text:
I'm conscious that I haven't posted since before school started so I thought I'd share something I've made this week.
At WCPS, Foundation and Key Stage 1 teachers follow the Little Languages scheme of work for Spanish. It's simple to use, has clear instructions and best of all, builds up from a +/- 10 minute activity/ies in FS to 10- 15 minutes in Y1 and 15-20 minutes in Y2. The activities can be repeated during the week or just done once, and there's lots of repetition. Sound files are included to support the teachers (none of whom are fluent or confident Spanish speakers) and visuals too.
I'm timetabled to teach two Y2classes this half term which is great, so I'm following the same scheme but making it a bit more in depth and adding my own bits to it! At the same time, I need to ensure that the third class have a similar experience; their teacher is doing their lessons with half a class at a time as the other half go swimming and then the other half when they swap.
The last few weeks have been based around animals.
Week one we sang an adapted version of Vengan a ver mi granja featuring a kitten (un gatito) and a duckling (un patito). We sang the song with actions then played Patito/Gatito, a game with cuddly toys.
We sent someone out of the room and hid the 'gatito'. When they returned we had to find 'gatito' by listening to the rest of the class repeating its name; the nearer the person got, the louder we said 'gatito'. One class was really good at the dynamics whilst the other needed a bit of help as they were loud from the start and didn't leave themselves enough leeway to get louder without screaming! Then we played with 'patito'. This led to horror when someone hid the cuddly in the class play oven! The next week, we added 'perrito' to the game. Very popular and the children recalled the words clearly after so much repetition.
Download wk 1 gatito patito
The next week we moved onto a story about wild animals called ¿Quién soy? in which you see small parts of a wild animal who asks ¿Quién soy? before revealing themself and saying 'Soy un elefante / un tigre / una jirafa' etc. Whilst reading the story for the first time, we assigned each animal an action and children showed they understood by doing the action on subsequent retellings. For example, un elefante was arm as a trunk; una jirafa, arm above head like a long neck; un tigre was claws in front; and un león was the same but whilst swishing your hair. They also joined in with ¿Quién soy? and some with the response too. Another game followed in which children mimed an animal and asked ¿Quién soy?, challenging their classmates to guess. Again, plenty of volunteers and lots of language. We also used masks to play a similar game with the images from the story; we looked at the clue images, chorusing ¿Quién soy?, and the child wearing the correct mask jumped up and announced 'Soy….'
Their favourite is…
… accompanied by puffing out the cheeks (which strangely helped them to say the word!)
To continue the theme I made a simple labelling sheet with 8 animals, three of which they hadn't met: un mono, una cebra, una serpiente. This led to a really good discussion about how they could work out which animal these words matched.
'Mono looks like the start of monkey.'
'Cebra looks like zebra.' 'It starts with a s sound not a z or a c though'
'Serpiente sounds like snake because it's got a sss at the start' (that followed me reading the word with a very sibilant s!)
Download jungle animals worksheet
This week, the lesson was to be based around Alarma en la jungla. But I couldn't it. I'm sure I've got it so Im not buying another copy until I've had a good look, and I couldn't find a powerpoint or PDF online (that didn't require me to sign up to something requiring my credit card details!) so I had to find an alternative.
Step forward, Animales salvajes. This is a lovely book that I bought in Spain for 2€ which has a little rhyme giving a clue to the animal hiding behind the 'plastic page'. Look at the example below!
We'd met all but one animal so I planned to read it to the class, sharing the book so that everyone could have a look, emphasising or explaining key words to help them guess. For example, the first animal is described as 'verde' and they have a chart of Spanish colours on the wall so that gave them a clue that it wasn't the elephant! However, I was aware that my colleague in the 3rd Y2 class couldn't speak Spanish and wouldn't be able to read the book to the children. So I made a powerpoint with embedded sound for her so she could just show the pictures and turn the pages whilst the text and sound came from the IWB. And I added a question to each slide too ¿Qué es? as it's a common question that they'll hear repeatedly.
Download animales salvajes
Except we had two special assemblies so we didn't use it! However, we're all ready for next week. And hopefully the sound on the IWB in one of the classes will be fixed as the children are eager for a repeat of Veo a un animal on the BBC Primary Spanish website.
Firstly, it's a guessing song about wild animals.
Secondly, they like the funny pictures and the catchy tune.
And thirdly, they are particularly impressed because I wrote it (and all the other Spanish/French songs, games and vocabulary /information pages on the site) and this has elevated me to superstardom in their eyes!
We did however have a great game of 'Secret leader' in which we all sat in a circle and chanted a word whilst doing an action. We sent a child out and nominated a leader who would change the action whenever they wanted (I changed the word in response to their action as it was the first time we'd played but one child did it themselves so we'll see what happens next time!). The child returned and had to work out the Secret leader. "Oh, it's like 'Wink-faint' isn't it?" said one child which made me think of the days when we used to 'murder' each other and die violently and gorily! This class are only 6 years old though 😉 Again, a game with lots of repetition with the action reinforcing the spoken word.
I'll report back on how we're progressing at a later date. Hope you enjoy the resources I've shared.


text:
[FIFARASOL] Casual Pant TRU CUT (New Colour)
- Regular price
- Sale price
- Regular price
Shipping within Malaysia
Secure payments
Authentic products
This classy pants is designed for women who know the real perspective of fashion but in simple and elegant way.
- Made from heavy premium stretchable spandex fabrics.
- Material specialty: Easy-to-care, ironless, smooth, breathable, cool material & wrinkle resistant.
- Ideal for busy women.
- Works with clean-cut office outfits, or paired with casual tops. It also great for shopping.
- Available in more than 20 choices of colours.
- Designed with 3 different cuttings that suits everyone:
- Tru Cut
- Wiid Cut
- Hi-Tru Cut
- Other features: Both sided pockets, adjustable waist, wrinkle-free, easy-to-iron material & woven brand label.
- Size available : XS, S, M, L, XL & XXL
Note: Model wears XS size and is 163cm tall.
Since fabric manufacturing is from supplier, we are unable to provide guarantee that the product's material (in terms of color, softness or thickness) would be exactly the same for every batch as it is beyond our control. We always try our best to source the best material as possible for our customer satisfaction. However, variation could happen. Therefore, your kind understanding is very much appreciated.
Buyers are advised to:
- Hand wash the product using mild detergent and cool water.
- Hang to dry the product.
- Do not hang the product under direct sunlight in order to maintain its color.
- Do not apply bleach on the product.
- Iron the product at low to medium heat only.
- Steam iron is highly recommended.
- Products sold are not refundable.
- To change size after purchase is permitted. Please read our Return & Exchange Policy to understand the return process.
- Please be aware that actual colour may slightly differ. This is due to the fact that every phone screen or computer monitor has a different capability to display colour and also everyone sees these colours differently. We try our best to edit the photos to show the product's colour as accurate as possible. However, please understand that actual colour may be slightly different from what you see on you phone screen or computer monitor and we cannot guarantee that the colour you see accurately portrays the true colour of the product.
- For certain products, we provide measurement in inches and also in weight & height to ease customers to purchase.
- Our measurement in weight & height is merely our recommendation which is based on our experience with our previous customers. Therefore, it might not be 100% accurate on you.
- Please be informed that our operation hours is 9am - 6pm on weekdays only and our delivery process is within 5-7 working days from your payment date.
Customer Reviews
0 / 5
Total 0 Ratings
Leave a review


text:
When wading into the ever muddied waters of the West's never ending war against the people and states of the Middle East, it is useful to have some kind of mechanism if one is trying to find a bit of clarity. The mechanism I prefer is that of history. While not infallible, the fact of its existence tends to create a template of events that ultimately provides a sequence of events that, while often different, provide a context that makes sense out of what might otherwise seem to be random occurrences without connection. When examining the history of imperial relations, the context is most often the ongoing attempts of the powerful nations to subjugate others.
Therefore, the US invasions of Iraq were clearly attempts by the world's primary imperialist power to subjugate the people of that nation. The reasons for these invasions were numerous and have been discussed for more than two decades. Some of the most accepted reasons include Washington's desire to control Iraq's resources, opposition to Saddam Hussein's regional designs, Washington and Tel Aviv's regional designs (including the desire to control Iran), and a long-range hope that a client Iraqi state would provide a base of operations for further US adventures. As of this writing, not only is it impossible to measure the success of the invasion and occupation of Iraq; it might even be honest to state that the operation was more of a failure than a success. One could also argue that the destruction of the pro-Saddam forces in the country and the ongoing signing of oil contracts under a law that clearly favors outside corporations means that the war and occupation was more of a success for Washington and its friends than it was a failure. Still, it is too early to tell.
The real subject of this piece is not Iraq, however, but Syria. Like Libya last year, there is little clarity in the coverage from the western press regarding this conflict. It is clear that the Assad government brooks little patience for those who oppose its rule. It is also clear that several actors with little interest in democracy have maneuvered themselves into roles as players in that opposition. Some of those actors include Wahabbist fighters, mercenaries and others paid by the Saudi regime, arms merchants and gunrunners in the pay of Saudi and other Arab kingdoms, and various covert ops personnel (including CIA) working at the behest of various NATO governments including the US, and Israel. Other possible actors include Al-Qaeda warriors and other religiously motivated types. Those actually interested in a more democratic Syria have faded into the background as armed factions have come to the front. Yet, it is these very same democracy protesters that provide a cover for NATO governments to increase their involvement.
Like virtually every other so-called pro-democracy movement in the past few decades, the movement in Syria was composed of people genuinely interested in social justice and democracy. Also, like every other similar movement in the past few decades, some of those individuals and the groups they formed were infiltrated and manipulated by US government sponsored NGOS intent on confusing democracy with the creation of markets and cheap labor for US capitalism. In countries where the national government was either too late in responding, too weak to respond, or pressured to accept a compromise encouraged by Washington, the protesters saw the authoritarian regime replaced with a US/NATO client regime that might or might not create the democratic conditions they hoped for. Kosovo, Iraq, various eastern European nations and Libya provide several examples of this dynamic. For some, the fact of the previous regime's removal is enough. For everyone else, the authoritarianism of the old regime has often been replaced with a new authoritarianism in the name of democracy. Almost across the board, the cost of the old regime's removal has been increased poverty for workers and farmers.
So, if we choose the prism of history to consider the situation in Syria, we find something familiar. Simply put, we see western imperial powers and Turkey (and Israel) attempting to remove an Arab government unwilling to go along with their designs. This is not the first such attempt. In fact, Syria has been on the list of governments Washington wants to see gone for quite a while. During the US military's occupation of Iraq there were several moments when it looked like the US might launch attacks on Syria under the guise of fighting Iraqi insurgents supposedly based there. As it turned out, this did not occur, most likely because the consensus was not there among those who were running the war. Now, threats by Ankara against Syrian troops operating near the Turkish border could well be the pretext that leads to a shooting war between Syria and NATO member Turkey. If such a scenario unfolds, the NATO treaty demands assistance from Turkey's fellow alliance members. As I wrote in November 2005:
Let's take a look at just a couple of recent statements by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. On Oct. 19, 2005, Rice told a Senate committee that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of a plan to "redesign" the Middle East. She also added that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 10 or more years. The reactions to these statements from the senators present varied, although none seemed to oppose the overall strategy presented by Ms. Rice. One GOP senator, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, noted: "We have to level with the American people," he said. "This is another world war." Voinovich, who opposed the appointment of John Bolton to the United Nations because Bolton alienated potential U.S. allies in its war for millennial world hegemony, was not so much asking for a change in policy as he was asking for the White House to stop misrepresenting its intentions.
The senator's concern was seconded from the other side of the aisle by Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Now, to some folks opposed to the war, Obama is a potential ally. However, like Voinovich, it appears that he is not opposed to the project to remake the world (especially those parts where there is oil) in Washington's image; he is opposed to the current administration's unilateralism. "This broadening of the mission is disturbing and difficult for us in the Senate to deal with as it requires a leap of faith on our part that a mission of that breadth can be accomplished in a reasonable time frame," Mr. Obama said. Notice that his concern is with the time frame involved in dominating the world, not with the underlying philosophy that says such a project is the right thing to do. In summation, Washington does intend to change the governments in the Middle East that it opposes. Syria and Iran are the next two countries on the list, and any excuse to change their governments will be utilized, no matter how contrived or flimsy.
When considered in light of the statements by the two Senators (one who is now the president of the US), the historical view becomes quite clear. The Pentagon and its cohorts in Washington, Brussels (where NATO headquarters are located), Tel Aviv, Ankara and other NATO capitals are not deviating from their thrust. Despite the democratic possibilities unleashed by the Arab Spring, anyone hoping for genuine change must recognize that the supposed champions of democracy in the West are more intent on stifling democracy than guaranteeing it. Those who believe otherwise are ignoring history. Those who clamor for NATO intervention against Damascus and/or Tehran are denying it.


text:
The Right Choice for Your Success
WIU Home > Foundation > Giving
Outright Gifts of Cash
Simplicity and ease of delivery are the major factors in making cash the most popular type of charitable gift. A gift of cash is considered made on the date it is hand-delivered or postmarked, if mailed. So a year-end contribution made by a check that is mailed in late December is deductible for that year even though it may not be received by the charity until January.
Because of the charitable deduction, the net cost to the donor who makes a cash contribution will be lower than the face value of the gift. Gifts of cash are deductible up to 50% of a donor's adjusted gross income (AGI). Any excess can be carried over for five years.
Gifts of Appreciated Property
A viable alternative to a cash gift is a gift of property. With careful planning, charitable gifts of certain types of assets will provide even greater tax benefits to the donor than a gift of equivalent value in cash.
The most favorable tax benefits are generated by contributions of appreciated, long-term capital-gain securities and real estate. Reason: In addition to receiving a charitable deduction for the full fair-market value of such a gift, the donor escapes any potential tax on the capital-gain element in the gifted property and any sales commission that would be payable upon the sale of the asset.
The full fair-market value of gifts of long-term capital-gain securities or real estate is deductible up to 30 percent of a donor's AGI. Any amount in excess of the 30 percent ceiling can be carried forward for five years.
A donor considering a gift of property that has gone down in value would be better off selling the property to realize a deductible loss and then contributing the proceeds to charity and obtaining a charitable deduction. This procedure ensures recognition and deductibility of the loss.
Tangible Personal Property
As with gifts of long-term, capital-gain securities or real estate, a donor is entitled to a charitable deduction for a gift of long-term, capital-gain, tangible personal property, such as works of art, rare books, and stamp or coin collections, etc. (Note: The capital gain on such assets continues to be taxed at the maximum percentage rate). The extent of the allowable deduction for such a gift is dependent upon the so-called standard of "related use."
How the standard is applied
If the use of the contributed property is related to the exempt purposes of the charity (e.g. a painting to a museum or rare books to a library), the donor is entitled to a charitable deduction for the full fair-market value of the property — subject to the 30 percent ceiling and carryover.
Note: When the donor is the creator of the contributed tangible asset, his or her deduction is limited to the actual cost of producing the asset.


text:
A credit card transaction can seem simple on the surface, but once you start accepting payments online, you can quickly become confused with all of the transaction specific terms. On this page, we will introduce you to the different terms and explain the lifetime of a transaction.
Developer? See our documentation here.
An authorization (also referred to as a reservation) of a transaction is the first step in the lifetime of a transaction. When authorizing a transaction we ask the cardholder's bank (issuing bank) if we can reserve the transaction amount on the card.
The issuing bank responds with either success or failure to reserve the amount.
If we receive a failure message, we also receive an error code explaining the reason. Depending on the issuing bank we receive different error codes. Here are some common errors on authorizations:
Read more about transactions errors here.
If we receive a success message from the issuing bank, we have the following possibilities for the transaction:
An authorized transaction is valid for 180 days whereafter it expires and automatically becomes void. You can void and capture payments directly in your Paylike dashboard, through most of our plugins and via the API.
You can charge your customers in any currency.
Learn more about creating transactions in our documentation or start accepting transactions with one of our plugins or our payment link.
To void a transaction means to cancel the authorization and remove the reservation of the money on the cardholder's account. A transaction can either be partial or fully voided in Paylike.
Once you have voided a transaction amount, you can not capture it again.
You should void a transaction if the transaction is not to be captured, e.g. in the case that the customer cancels the order before you have shipped it.
Once the full transaction amount has been voided, no further actions can be made on the transaction.
To capture a transaction means to move either a partial or the full amount of the authorized transaction from the cardholder's account to your Paylike account. You can never capture more than the authorized transaction amount.
You should capture the transaction once you have delivered the sold goods or service to the customer.
Once a transaction has been captured, you can refund either the full or part of the captured amount.
A refund in Paylike is irreversible. Once a day refunds (and captures) are transferred through the card network (Visa, Mastercard), giving a minimum delay of 1 day. Issuing banks are, unfortunately, typically slow to place refunded amounts on the cardholders accounts, why it's normal a refund can take 5-8 days before the cardholder can see it.
If more than 8 days has passed and your customer claims the refund hasn't arrived, ask the customer to contact their bank. If the customer's bank is unable to locate the refund, contact us to receive tracking information.
Once a transaction has been captured it is subject to Visa and Mastercard's consumer protection and may be disputed, e.g. if you fail to deliver the product or service.
Depending on your settlement and reserve terms, the captured transaction will be settled (transferred) from your Paylike account to your designated bank account on a fixed schedule.
Read more about settlements here.
This is a simplified description of the lifetime of a transaction.
Further reading:
If you have questions about transactions or using Paylike, you can contact us here.


text:
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
B/X Weapons in the Hands of Monsters
"Adventure writing." It's not something I've done for awhile. Well, never really, at least not to this extent...I'm more of a quick-scenario guy with less than half-a-dozen encounters and a big fat objective-target. As a kid, I'd rip off things I'd seen in movies/TV/books, or I'd draw sprawling maps populated with monsters I thought were "cool," caring nothing for balance or ecology or rhyme or reason.
ANYway, now I'm starting to feel like I'm getting the hang of it. And the method is all math and structure, mainly based on the Moldvay school of adventure design (one-third monsters, one-sixth traps, etc.), wrapped around a central idea/concept, and populated with enough loot to make it worth the players' while. And since I'm playing B/X, I am basing the encounter level on the wandering monster tables in the Moldvay book.
Not entirely, of course; taking a page from my old D20 days I'm throwing in a mix of 20% easy, 50% average, 20% hard, and 10% really difficult encounters. For example, the current adventure (designed for 2nd level characters) has half the encounters in the 2HD/2nd level range, 20% in the 1HD/1st level range, 20% in the 3HD/3rd level range, and 10% in the 4-5HD+ range. Of course, not all of the monsters come straight from Moldvay (some are found in my own B/X book), but I'm adhering to the same general guidelines. In an edition without "challenge ratings," level/HD is about the only way to gauge challenges for your players.
So, yeah, so far so good. Players are still getting killed (though not nearly in the droves they were before) and the treasure (and XP) has been accumulating at a brisk pace. Which is as I like it. So I was preparing to write up a NEW adventure for 3rd level characters (as that should be the average party level after completing the current adventure; a three-session excursion). And here's what I'm seeing on the Level 3 monster table in Moldvay:
Bugbears (2-8)
Carrion Crawlers (1-3)
Dopplegangers (1-6)
Driver Ants (2-8)
Gargoyles (2-8)
Harpies (1-6)
Mediums (1-4)
Medusa (1-3)
Ochre Jelly (1)
Ogres (1-6)
Shadows (1-8)
Thouls (1-6)
Tiger Beetles (1-6)
Wights (1-6)
Any single one of these encounters would easily destroy half of the adventuring party.
I mean D6 dopplegangers? They have 4 hit dice, and do 1D12 damage (more than an ogre), not to mention being able to mimic the appearance of PCs (try shooting arrows into that melee). Thouls? Regenerating ghouls (with a better chance to hit). Ochre jellies are 5HD and can't be harmed by weapons. Tiger beetles (D6) are HD 3+1, AC 3 and do 2D6 damage...driver ants are the same except they're HD 4 and fearless (no morale checks once engaged in combat).
It's almost as if Moldvay wants to kill players before they get to 4th level. "You will never need more than my Basic book, because levels 4-14 shall never be open to you...hahahahaaa!"
Long time B/X players know 4th level is where things start picking up for players. Fighters attack better, clerics and magic-users have 3 and 4 spells, and even those D4 hit dice characters (like thieves) average 10 hit points...enough to survive at least one lucky damage roll. Those who make it to 4th level ("Hero" is the level title for most classes), are ready to leave the dungeon in search of bigger challenges in the wilderness. It's a real bench mark.
Should it be that rough to get to it?
But what's the alternative? Have PCs scour dungeons aimed at 1st and 2nd level characters, over-and-over again until they reach level 4 (or higher?)? So that those 3rd level challenges don't feel as tough? Heck, for me I think I'd want to be at least 5th level before taking on anything in the dungeon's 3rd level.
D6 wights?
Crazy. But...waiting till characters are 6th and 7th level to throw these kinds of monsters at 'em takes away the real feelings of "toughness" for the creatures. I had a single gargoyle on the 1st level of my Necropolis dungeon (an encounter that is completely avoidable if desired), and the PCs went for it and took it down, but it was a pretty near thing (and one of the PCs was killed). And they were amply rewarded for it. Whereas, when gargoyles showed up in my B/X conversion of White Plume Mountain (for levels 5-10) they were pretty "ho-hum" and put to the sword rather quickly.
Still, do I really dare to make a dungeon populated with medusae?
Ah, will...I suppose they might all get killed before they finish the last third of the current adventure, anyway (I know some players are waiting for the other shoe to drop). So far, casualties have been light...only two party members killed, one by "friendly fire"...so I'm thinking the chance of majority party survival is pretty good.
Better get something prepared for 3rd level.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Yesterday's Post...
Sunday, June 26, 2011
B/X Weapons & Shields
"JB...if all weapons do D6 damage in B/X then what the hell's the point of purchasing different weapons at all? For a 1st level character, why aren't we just buying the cheapest weapon available (like clubs or daggers; the latter of which can be thrown). For that matter, didn't our primitive ancestors invent different weapons for different reasons?"
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Good Fantasy: Tron Legacy
"You're Fired!"
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Shield Love
I'm tired of people whining over aspects of the game that aren't broke. There are plenty of things in the D&D game that are in need of fixing, but for me SHIELDS aren't one of these things. That there's even a debate on the issue (or rather, a consensus of complaint) irritates me…like a tick under the old cuirass, so it does.
For me, I find shields in the B/X game to be modeled just about perfectly.
God, where to begin, where to begin…the stupid splintered shields rule? The discussion on the limitations of the shield? Shields through the ages? Or the total bad-assedness of the shield rules as written? We'll probably have to get into the abstract combat of B/X at some point, too, though I dread re-treading the same ground already covered.
Ah, well.
Historically speaking, back when shields were a regular part of the field of battle (i.e. before gunpowder and plate armor, the latter of which forced warriors to switch-up to heavy two-handed weapons), they were generally made of wood and hide/leather. LIGHT wood…tricky enough to fight with one's off-hand, but there was also the point about speed and arm endurance…you didn't want to get tired out blocking blows all day.
And blocking shots is NOT what the shield was all about anyway. While crossbowmen might hide behind a tower shield for cover while re-loading, the average knight in the field (or foot-slogging infantryman) used the shield mostly for DEFLECTION…something to knock aside an opponent's blow and (hopefully) create an opening for a killing strike. Shields are not a passive defense, but an active tool WIELDED by the fighter. Like an oven mitt used to get a hot item out of the stove, the shield was designed to maneuver something that would injure you if you used your bare hand.
Now I've put in a little shield-work, myself, in the past…15+ years ago, sure, but I remember the experience. Shields work great to deflect an incoming attack…until someone stronger and/or more skilled than you knocks it aside and clubs you. In individual combat (as opposed to a phalanx formation), shields are a happy little device, easily overcome by someone who knows what they're doing.
Of course, I'M no fighting man. If anything, I'm the equivalent of the Normal Human (maybe with 3 hit points, as I've been bicycling a lot lately). A +1 bonus to AC is about all I could hope and expect out of a shield…I would be MUCH better off wearing leather armor and helm (or hopefully, something heavier!).
Using a shield as an active defense is a grueling work, made easier and more effective by skilled use, by someone with COMBAT SMARTS. And how exactly are those things modeled in D&D?
Class and level, baby.
Hit Points, in other words. Who's the most effective dude using a shield? A fighter. Who has the most hit points? A fighter. What do those hit points represent? Aside from actual physical health: endurance, conditioning, skill, and luck.
Take a look at my All Time Favorite medieval combat scene in film: the final judicial "trial by combat" in the 1952 film Ivanhoe, starring Robert Taylor. Ignore the clang of weapon on aluminum shields (the main historical inaccuracy of the scene) and go with the wanton brawl of an axe/flail fight that lasts three minutes (the equivalent of 18 combat rounds in B/X!). See those guys take a pounding on their shields? That's not the equivalent of a "missed" attack roll…those are HITS that are subtracting hit points from each combatant's profile.
Every shot that is not "actively deflected" is a blow that is absorbed, an impact felt through the wrist and arm and shoulder, a little more damage wearing the character down to where that final telling blow causes mortal injury. Because these guys are high level fighters they have scores of HPs to soak punishment…if it was me out there, I'd probably be clubbed senseless by the first blow struck, even if I got my shield up in front of my face!
Shields give you a +1 bonus to AC…it helps the exact same as having a Dexterity of 13-15. Interestingly, up until the AD&D PHB was published, there was never any mention of Dexterity being "agility"…in the LBBs and Supplement I and Holmes it is pretty clear that Dexterity is speed of hand and hand-eye-coordination. This is why it provides a bonus to missile combat (and determines "first strike" in Holmes). When Gygax gave fighting men (only) the bonus to AC based on DEX, it was due to the ability to dodge and parry attacks…hand-eye-coordination giving a bonus to defense for swordsmen.
Which, by the way, explains why the AC bonus provided by DEX was never affected by armor worn (well...until later editions, that is). Wearing chainmail or plate doesn't hamper your ability to use your weapon for deflection and maneuver, it only hampers your movement when trying to run (which is accounted for with encumbrance). Shields, then, AID in the deflection/parry of incoming fire, just like having a higher dexterity.
"But what about arrows? Look at those films where a wall of shields holds off a huge flight of arrows." Okay, first off, have you ever tried to deflect/block an incoming arrow/crossbow bolt with a shield? Have you ever tried to catch a bullet with a baseball glove? There are two reasons why a wall of shields is SOMEwhat effective against missile fire (as opposed to being incidentally effective for carrying a heater), neither of which has to do with Hollywood's dramatic license:
- A bunch of people in formation means massed ammunition being divided amongst multiple targets…there's less chance that YOU are the one being hit.
- Large enough shields in a stable formation can provide some amount of COVER (and such cover rules may be found in the B/X rules on page B26). While a single shield is NOT considered cover, a phalanx of steel shields or a two-handed tower shield might be considered such, depending on the DM's judgment.
So having put all THAT out there, maybe you're starting to come around to my way of thinking…that a +1 AC bonus for carrying a shield is just fine and dandy. Perhaps your next question is, why the heck would anyone want to carry a shield for a measly +1 bonus when I could be hitting folks in the mouth with my two-handed war sledge?
Because they are hella' effective, that's why.
I'm going to tell you a story first, and then I'll give you some math. Back in the Way WAY Back History of my youth, I had a long-running AD&D campaign that featured characters of nearly every class and stripe: elves and half-elves, dwarves, thieves, barbarians, acrobats, assassins, bards, clerics, illusionists, drow…even classes/races out of Dragon magazine like half-ogres and archers and healers. The ONE combo that was almost completely missing was the lowly, drab, totally boring human fighter.
We had ONE in our group…a character that had been grandfathered into our AD&D campaign from our B/X days. She still had D8 hit dice, and while we probably converted her for "weapon specialization" sometime after the Unearthed Arcana was published, I don't remember ever using it. Fact of the matter is, she didn't need it. With plate mail, shield, and a broad sword she outlasted and out-fought every other power player in the game. She was a frigging juggernaut, eventually relegated to the role of an NPC that would occasionally make cameo appearances. As a kid, I never understood why she was so much more durable than the 18 CON barbarian or the 20th level bard…or the demons and devils and beholders she might encounter.
When fighting against weapon-using opponents (like humanoid monsters), the addition of a shield can add ROUNDS of survival to your character. Assuming average hit points and average DEX, the difference between plate and plate & shield breaks down like this:
Against goblins/orcs/1st level fighters:
1st level – 1 extra round of survival (on average) when using a shield
2nd level – 3 extra rounds
3rd level – 4 extra rounds
4th level – 6 extra rounds
5th level – 7 extra rounds
6th level – 8 extra rounds
7th level – 9 extra rounds
8th level – 10 extra rounds
9th level – 12 extra rounds
What good is an extra round of survival in combat? Just he difference between life and death! Using my dopplehander weapon rules, the damage output over time is equivalent (the two-handed weapon does roughly the same damage in a shorter survival period as the one-handed weapon in a longer survival period), but what do those extra rounds really mean?
- Time to run away (if necessary).
- Time to be healed by a party cleric.
- Time for a buddy to jump in and spell you/save your bacon.
- Time for you to spell a buddy about to get killed.
- Time for the monsters to break morale and surrender/run.
- Time for you to get in that lucky blow that ends the fight.
Against gnolls/2nd level fighters:
1st level – 1 extra round of survival (on average) when using a shield
2nd level – 2 extra rounds
3rd level – 2 extra rounds
4th level – 3 extra rounds
5th level – 3 extra rounds
6th level – 4 extra rounds
7th level – 5 extra rounds
8th level – 5 extra rounds
9th level – 6 extra rounds
And these extra rounds of survival are gained simply by using a NORMAL shield. When a character sports a magical shield, survivability rises considerably, quickly out-pacing the over-all damage output of a character with a similarly enchanted two-handed weapon.
Now before you shield-wielders run out there feeling all Captain America and invulnerable, it's important to realize and understand the limitations of the shield. First off, you've only got ONE. That means its most effective against one defender. Secondly, it was designed for ARMED COMBAT…i.e. combat against sentient, weapon-users.
What does this mean? That your character's survivability decreases when faced with multiple attackers or creatures with multiple attacks (like owl bears and ghouls). If you think a shield is going to give you "extra rounds of survival" against the mauling of a grizzly, you may be in for a rude awakening (not that the guy without a shield is going to do much better…). But check this out:
Against THREE (3) goblins/orcs/1st level fighters:
1st level – NO extra rounds of survivability
2nd level – 1 extra round
3rd level – 1 extra round
4th level – 2 extra rounds
5th level – 3 extra rounds
6th level – 3 extra rounds
7th level – 3 extra rounds
8th level – 3 extra rounds
9th level – 4 extra rounds
So if your character is a 1st level fighter that gets surrounded by three goblins, it doesn't matter if you have a shield or not…it takes the same length of time to kill you with one as without (and by the way, that IS counting the +1 shield bonus against all attackers…you're assumed to be whirling and twirling in the chaos of melee). Three adversaries are just a lot tougher to face down as a lone warrior: one guy beats your blade, one guy tries to pin your shield, and the third stabs at your eyeballs…a nasty business. Back at the Caves of Chaos a few weeks ago, our barbarian was sporting chainmail and a +1 shield; but he got isolated and surrounded by a bunch of spear-wielding kobolds and went down hard because of it.
The point here is, you still have to be SMART…pick your point of attack, find a choke-hold, buddy-up with your shield-wielding companion(s) and form a mini-phalanx, etc. There ARE tactics in D&D, even the B/X edition.
All right, that's enough for now. I'm sure there will be dissenting opinions, and this may need a follow-up post for things I've forgotten. However, I want to say one last thing regarding the "shields will be splintered" rule. If you want to keep this "get out of jail free card" for your players, fine. If you want everyone to start with a couple potions of healing, you can do that, too. Personally, I figure shields are "splintered" when a character gets killed (as is armor, for that matter…ragged, tattered, and useless). You know what broke nearly as often as shields back in the "old days?" SWORDS. An individual using a weapon as often as the average D&D adventurer would probably need to purchase a replacement every 1-2 game sessions (at least one per 6 or so combat encounters). Why don't y'all model that?
While shields ARE breakable (wood and cloth, remember?) if you're breaking 'em too often, you're probably using them wrong. Again, they're designed to deflect and turn blows, NOT absorb every swing.
; )
On the Nature of Humanoids
Intelligence in B/X play is a little less spelled out than other editions. For my games, I categorize monsters (that is, any non-PC species creature) into four categories of intelligence:
Sentient beings are the equivalent of humans: they have language and reasoning ability and the potential for writing and inter-species communication…they may be dumb or clever, but they can put together plans.
Beagle intelligence is the equivalent of my beagles: they don't really have language, though they have means of expressing themselves and they are clever enough to open doors, climb fences, hide (themselves and their possessions), and exhibit behavior other than simple instinct. Creatures like ghouls, rock baboons, and B/X troglodytes fall into the "beagle" category.
Animal intelligence is based on biology and instinct, generally categorized by terms that begin with the letter "F": food, fear, fire, fight, flight, and f**king, etc. Bears and owl bears fall into this category, as do insects and slimes, alien though their particular drives may be.
Non-intelligent creatures are those that have no capacity for self-generated thought; these are programmed automatons like statues and zombies and golems. They only act as they are commanded by their creator/master, and without command they do not act.
Sentient beings are the only monsters that are "tool users;" if a lesser brained monster wields a weapon, it is either entirely incidental (like a baboon wielding a tree branch "club") or was equipped by someone other than the creature itself (for example, a skeleton wielding a sword or a lion with metal-shod claws). Conversely, any monster described as using weapons or being "highly intelligent" (like vampires) can be considered sentient.
Sentient humanoids up to "ogre-size" (i.e. HD 4+1 or less) are assumed to have an intelligence of 9-12, according to the description of the spell Charm Person (page B16 of the Moldvay rules). They'll speak their own language and any other that the DM deems appropriate for their species (or mentioned in their description). Creatures larger than ogres (minotaur and giants, for example)…well, their intelligence will need to be determined by the DM. As Intelligence affects nothing but languages and literacy in B/X, it's really a matter of how often you want such a being to receive a saving throw versus Charm Monster.
The orc is the baseline monster in B/X.
Orcs deserve their own post for another time, but for now we're just looking at its fighting stats. An orc warrior (the standard antagonist PCs will encounter, not the non-combatant women and children) is the equivalent of a 1st level fighter/man-at-arms:
AC 6 (leather and shield), Hit Dice 1, average hit points 4.5,THAC0 19, damage 1-6 (as a weapon in other words), average damage 3.5 per hit. True their morale is better than baseline (and worse than baseline without a leader), and they have both infravision and daylight penalties, but for the most part they are the equivalent of a 1st level fighter with 9-12 in all categories (including strength and constitution).
[the normal human described in the Basic set is the equivalent of what Conan would sneeringly refer to as a "civilized man"]
With orcs as a baseline, one can put the other humanoids in their proper pecking order of humanoid tool users:
- Kobolds (average hit points 2.5, THAC0 19, average damage 2.5 due to general "shrimpiness").
- Goblins (average hit points 3.625, THAC0 19, average damage 3.5…equivalent to a 1st level fighter with a CON of 6-8).
- Orcs (as stated: equivalent of the average human 1st level fighter)
- Hobgoblins (average hit points 5.5, THAC0 18, average damage 4.5. Gygax's version of Tolkien's Uruk-Hai, these are the equivalent of fighters with STR and CON of 13-15).
- Gnolls (average hit points 9, THAC0 18, average damage 5…equivalent to a 2nd level fighter with a STR of 13-15).
- Bugbears (average hit points 14.5, THAC0 16, average damage 5…equivalent to a "goblin hero," a 4th level fighter with a CON of 6-8 with a STR of 13-15).
- Ogres (average hit points 19, THAC0 15, average damage 5.5…equivalent to a 4th level fighter with a STR of 16-17).
- Minotaur (average hit points 27, THAC0 14, average damage (with weapon) 5.5…equivalent to a 6th level fighter with a STR of 16-17 and a +1 attack bonus, perhaps due to ferocity).
Okay, great…so why do I bother writing all this up? Aside from the "fun of it," this is just the set-up for my post on SHIELDS.
***EDIT: I realize that Hit Dice originally come from Chainmail (like ogres being worth four men "+1"), a game system I still haven't managed to acquire. Please forgive my reflections from a B/X-centric perspective.***
D6 Dopplehanders
AMOUNT OF DAMAGE: All weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (1d6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable. If the Variable Weapon Damage system (hereafter) is used, check the weapon type to find how much damage each weapon will do (adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses or penalties).
Whenever a two-handed weapon is used (including pole arms), the attacker cannot use a shield (this may reduce the Armor Class of the attacker) and will always lose the initiative, whatever the roll (see page B23).
WEAPONS (Optional)Two-Handed Weapons. Heavy two-handed weapons (flail, battle axe, pole arms, etc.) may strike once per round, but strike last in the round, regardless of initiative.Crossbows. Crossbows may be fired once every two rounds, taking one round to load and one to fire.
- Two-handed weapons strike last in a melee (already standard in my games).
- Two-handed weapons do D8 instead of D6 damage (already implemented; worked great in my "B/X Shadowrun" game as well).
- Two-handed weapons enjoy a +1 bonus to attack rolls (to represent damage penetration).
Monday, June 20, 2011
Fat Frog Challenge Winners!
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Final Thoughts on "Bear Week"
Friday, June 17, 2011
New DM Mascot
Sometimes the bear goes hungry...
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Circus Freaks
While black bears can grow very large, they average only around 135kg or so (about 300 pounds), and while capable of killing or injuring humans, in general they do NOT attack humans, except perhaps over food (and unlike the brown and polar bear, human is not really considered fair game for black bears). While they have been hunted themselves for food and sport, black bears have the closest thing to a live-and-let-live relationship with humans as one finds within the bear kingdom. Exceptionally intelligent and dexterous, they can open latches and lids and unscrew the tops of jars; tests have found they learn some things faster than chimpanzees.
It is because of their intelligence and temperament that black bears end up as trained animal acts, circus performers, and mascots more than any other type of bear (Smoky, Yogi, and Winnie were all modeled after black bears). They are also relatively easy to hunt and trap (rather than hunt and kill) compared to other bears.
For a fantasy game like D&D, who doesn't want a trained attack bear?
B/X doesn't give stats and prices for trained animals, though one CAN retain the services of an animal trainer (500gp per month, Cook/Marsh Expert set page X21). Now while some wealthy adventurers might decide it's worth the cost to hire a "Bear Master" to wrangle their furry mercenaries, most adventuring parties are just looking for a single bruiser that knows the command "Kill!" Let's talk about BOTH.
Animal trainers cost 500gp per month, specialize in a particular type of animal, and can handle up to 6 animals at a time providing on-going training (as well as, I presume, feed and care). There's no mention of whether or not animals need to be purchased separately or not…I would figure that in a large enough (or strange enough) fantasy city, one could find a bear master with a string of black bears ready for adventure. While the 500gp per month covers the price of the handler's services, one has to consider the cost of the animals.
A black bear eats 30+ pounds of food per day, and one that it is in captivity is not out hunting/grazing, rations will need to be provided for it. Even considering a poorer quality of rations than the average adventurer consumes, I'd still budget 50gp per month per bear for food (standard rations are 5gp/week x52 weeks /12 months x4 times the normal weight, then reduced for quality). A bear master (if available) will already possess 1D6 black bears in his care; in addition to the bear master's fee, the employer must pay the food costs of all bears in the handler's care (the bear master will not voluntarily part from any of his bears). Fees of course are subject to market demand.
The bear master himself is a normal man, albeit one with maximum hit points (4) from his rough and tumble lifestyle. He will try to avoid combat if at also possible, but will direct his bears to fight for him (or as his employer commands).
Purchasing an additional wild bear for the bear master is a matter of finding a bounty hunter or trapper skilled in the live acquisition of large game (perhaps for the local gladiatorial games). Such an animal would 400-800gps depending on size and scarcity, and would require at least one month's work with the bear master to learn even the simplest commands. A young black bear would be worth 2 to 5 times that amount (D4+1), both because of their extra trainability, and the danger involved of confronting an angry mother bear in its den!
A young black bear can be trained for domestication from an early age. Sold in adulthood, such an animal requires no bear master but costs 2000-4000gp, again depending on size and scarcity. For the character wishing a "pet bear" without hiring an animal trainer, this is the only option other than using magic.
A black bear trained from an early age and purchased as an adult will be only moderately useful to its new owner, knowing the commands "attack," "stop," "come," and "stay." Regular feeding and care will eventually ingratiate the bear to its master (in 2D6 weeks); prior to that, the owner will need to make a Reaction roll every time a command is given (Charisma modifiers apply as usual). The DM can further modify the reaction rolled based on circumstance as normal (a half-starved bear is more likely to "attack," but less likely to "come" unless food is being offered).
PC adventurers are NOT animal trainers, and no PC can ever own/handle more than one bear at a time. Such a "pet" counts against the maximum number of retainers a PC can have (based on Charisma). However, a bear companion can become a loyal and lifelong friend. Bears never gain XP or grow in "level;" they heal at the same rate as adventurers (D3 hit points per day, though bed rest is NOT required and light activity does not interfere with healing), and can be affected by curing and blessing spells. As a domestic creature, the owner WILL need to provide it with sustenance at the standard 50gp per month rate (see above).
Black bears are excellent climbers and very fast (25-30mph at a dash…fast enough to chase down that pesky goblin running for help!). They cannot wear armor (at least, nothing that would improve their AC; they can still be "decorated"). With regular food and activity, a domesticated bear will spend much less time in hibernation (if any time at all), though they will still be lethargic during certain months.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Sometimes the Bear Eats You…
Somehow I seem to have missed the scene where the bear eats the buddy. Wow!
While a blogged about the abomination of monsters eating people before, sometimes one forgets that those cute, cuddly bears we love to protect from extinction do sometimes eat human beings (yes, I HAVE seen the film Grizzly Man; no comment on Mr. Treadwell at this time). To be fair to bears, they eat everything…including each other and their own young!...when they're hungry enough, and they require quite a bit of sustenance to keep them going. I don't consider bears to be an "abomination" as I do orcish or goblin cannibals. When all is said and done, bears are still a part of nature and are just doing that "natural thang."
What's more interesting (to me) is the idea of the "man-killer" bear…that a bear that has killed (and eaten) a human develops a "taste" for man-flesh. Or (to put it another way) that an animal normally not overly-concerned with human interaction has now redefined its relationship with people as "predator and prey." I have no idea if this is simply an urban myth or if it the reason why bears who have killed humans (like the grizzly that killed Treadwell) are in turn destroyed by wildlife rangers. After all, I don't think we're killing the bear as a form of "punishment" or "capital judgment;" bears know nothing of human laws, only obeying the law of nature. Why then destroy an animal that has done that which "comes naturally?" I can only guess that there IS something to the "man-killer myth"…or at least there is a FEAR that there is something to the man-killer story.
For the purpose of a fantasy RPG like D&D, I say "err on the side of myth." Duh. When you're dealing with dragons and harpies and ochre jellies, of course you're going to take the mythic/Hollywood angle!
According to the Moldvay Basic set (page B24), unintelligent monsters will cease pursuit for dropped ration 50% of the time (a roll of 1-3 on a D6). This is actually a pretty simple, easy-to-use rule and I'm inclined to use it as is, though I'd add +1 to any roll involving a grizzly/polar bear and – 1 to any roll with a black bear. Here's what the roll can mean for a pursuing bear:
Roll 1-3 (stops for food)
- Bear is hungrier than it is upset/aggravated and will stop to eat food
- Bear only attacking because it's hungry; food good!
- Bear only defending territory; combo of party's removal from territory and food (positive) incentive is enough to break off attack
Roll 4-6 (ignores food)
- Form of rations dropped doesn't appeal to bear
- Bear enraged beyond reason by party presence/encroachment
- Bear is a man-killer and will only stop to eat dead adventurer
And regarding that last one, if a party flees after a member has been "downed" (i.e. killed) it should count as the party dropping rations. That is, the DM should make the same roll as if the party were throwing food to the bear…in a very real way, they ARE. Something as big as an adventurer should be worth a +2 to the food roll (only a bear enraged beyond reason would pass up such a large meal).
However, even should a party evade the pursuit of a man-killing bear they've got a bigger problem: the bear may very well decide the party is prey worthy of being stalked.
Even after eating the party's dead companions, a bear may continue to hunt a party within its territory, though it probably won't get hungry again for a few hours. A male bear's range is LARGE, hundreds of square miles, though they won't travel any faster than a normal unarmored man on foot (probably a maximum of 6 to 12 miles per day through a forested, mountainous region like Alaska). Bears can smell for miles, and will track the scent of food and blood (wounds) looking for a kill to scavenge. Unless, the party can reach civilization (bears will generally avoid large groups of people) or find some horses, chances are a man-killer bear is the only "wandering monster" the party will need to worry about once it's picked up its trail (with an automatic daily or evening encounter).
Black bears, by the way, are much less aggressive than other types of bears, and will often attempt to climb trees or run from encounters with large groups of humans (unless hungry and food is present and available). In general, I would avoid including "man-killer" black bears…only brown, polar, and cave bears have the temperament to come looking for trouble (brown bears will even hunt the smaller black bears, as well as stealing/scavenging their food). If a black bear is encountered as a wandering monster in the wilderness, it probably shows us during a party's "meal break." Use common sense here.
Okay, back to the mean ones…REGARDING PURSUIT, a brown bear has an overland movement speed of 30-35miles per hour at a dash. This means it's faster than ANY adventurer not using magical speed enhancement. Polar bears are just as fast, though it's slower (in general) to run over snow…polar bears can also swim around 30km/hr. I have no stats for a cave bear, so I'd probably just use the speed listed in the Basic set.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? It means that a party that runs from an aggressive bear withOUT leaving food for it WILL be brought down from behind. Find the slowest member of the party, and make your attack rolls on that poor sucker, including the +2 attack bonus from behind and no shield penalty. If in doubt of who's the slowest, I use the character with the shortest legs (dwarves, usually). Bears generally won't split their attacks…they are a predator that focuses on bringing down one animal (for the purpose of eating, usually). Once it does manage a kill, it will most likely focus on eating/protecting its meal, unless the party continues to piss it off.
Bears are good climbers and have no problems running down hills or swimming, but a closed door will usually be enough to deter them if they can't smash it open with a single blow (heavy iron-bound oak with a cross-bar is good for this).
However, if you feed a bear (either by throwing it rations or leaving a dead buddy on the ground), it is LESS likely to leave you alone in the future. Dropping food for a bear is a short-term solution to pursuit…it will continue to come back to the gravy train whenever it gets hungry. Stay in a locked cabin or barricaded cave long enough and it will get bored and wander away (probably to look for other food), but it will continue to come back as long as the adventurers are in its territory (see above) and it thinks it can get some kind of meal out of them.
Regarding crowds: bears will be discouraged from attack by large numbers of VISIBLE people. When a wandering bear surprises a party, or a pursuing bear chases a group into a populated area, a DM should check morale before making any kind of attack if there are a bunch of humans/demihumans milling about:
Black bears: more than two to three people
Brown bears: more than four to five people
Grizzly/Kodiac*: more than six to seven
Polar bears: more than eight to ten
Cave bears: don't need to check morale to attack
*Any brown bear with 30 or more hit points can be considered to be a North American grizzly; these monsters attack and do damage as a polar bear rather than a standard brown bear; they award XP as if they had 6HD.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Bear Hug My Ass
If a bear (of any type) hits with both paws on the same victim in one round of combat, the bear has hugged its victim and will cause 2-16 (2d8) additional points of damage in the same round as the attack.Okay, let's get something straight right now: bears don't hug.
They just don't; look it up. There's no known documentation of a bear ever hugging someone as a form of attack. It is a pretty silly idea.
A "bear hug" is a move in Greco-Roman wrestling in which the arms are wrapped around an opponent, the hands are locked, and the opponent is held tightly to the chest. It is also something I give my wife when she's been out of town for a few days and I'm meeting her at the airport.
The only way in which the term "bear hug" has ANYthing at all to do with bears is that it has the word "bear" in its title. It is not something bears do when fighting…neither to humans, nor each other.
And yet it's been such a part of D&D lore that every edition (with the exception of Holmes) features some form of bear "hugging attack." The first mention of "hugs" I can find is in Supplement I in which it is noted both werebears and owl bears may "hug" for an additional 2D8 damage. By the 3rd edition Monster Manual, this has morphed into something called an "improved grab" attack. As with most things in D20, it's ridiculously complex.
[you know, I was actually thinking of taking a stab at running a D20/Pathfinder game the other day? Yeah, really. But then I remembered what a PAIN IN THE ASS it is to DM the game due to the bullshit stat blocks of monsters and quickly came to my senses!]
Now to me, a bear is a dangerous animal. While I can buy the heroic fantasy of a knight in magic armor and a flaming sword besting one in combat, bears should be capable of killing your average two to three warriors on foot, plate mail or no. The hug attack has been a great way to model the sheer destructive force of a 1700 pound beast (both brown and polar bears are capable of that size, by the way, though the polar bears ON AVERAGE are the larger of the two). In wrestling, the bear hug is a "take down" move, designed to bring a foe to the ground. While bears don't hug opponents, they are plenty strong enough to overbear opponents (from which vantage point they can readily maul the poor target). It is not, then, my goal here to remove the "extra damage" attack from the game of D&D.
I just want to clean it up a bit.
; )
Here's how I'd re-work the bear hug for B/X:
If a bear (of any type) hits with the same opponent with both paw attacks in a single combat round, the beast bears its opponent to the ground and inflicts an additional 2-16 (2d8) damage as it mauls its victim.
It would, of course, be assumed that any character surviving such an attack would scramble away and regain its feet for the following round. If the victim does NOT survive the attack, well...it might be time for the rest of the party to sneak away and leave the animal to its meal.
Werebears would have the same mauling ability (when in bear form)...owl bears have a "tear and rend attack" that works much the same way should they get their talons on an opponent.
But let's leave the hugging out of the mix, huh?
Monday, June 13, 2011
Kicking Off "Bear Week" at B/X Blackrazor
Black bears are usually not aggressive, brown bears are, and cave bears are quite aggressive.
Bears are well known to all adventurers.