Here are are a few more pieces to the puzzle of size:

If size is not the indicator of AV=0 than Improved Strength is. Creatures that are big, but not necessarily really strong, don't get the AV=0. Perhaps this means that the Knight skill Improved Strength should be combined with Armor Piercing.
Another piece we need to consider is the stacking of all these skills. It seems to me that a size 8 creature should be strong, a size 8 creature with Improved Strength should be really strong, and one with both Improved and Giant Strength should be scary! Currently, it doesn't matter how big you are, even with Imporved Strength, you dish out the same damage, and your HP are not even really effected. A hobbit is just as powerful against a size 8 creature as a Centaur. Should this be so? Furthermore, when stacking skills, many of these creatures loose out because they basically have all the knight skills. This means that a Knight Oger, a Knight Giant, or a Knight Troll is basically a colossal waste of exp. We should consider whether it is a good idea to say that when a creature has an ability innately (due to it's species type) that it stacks with class based abilities it has gained. This would make all kinds of creatures much more powerful. Dark Troll Assassins would deal 6 AV=0 with their hands because Martial Arts and Elite Martial Arts would stack etc. I think it makes sense, considering that a creature with huge razor sharp claws that cut through platemail who has also been trained as a master assassin will likely be able to tear things apart with a finger. Why should human Assassin and a Dark Troll Assassin dish out the same amount of damage just because the Dark Troll "already had" martial arts. The danger in this kind of a ruling is that the amount of damage it amps up is truly scarry. Consider Knight Giants who will be dealing double their size plus 2 for double Improved Strength and +1 for Two Handed Proficient weilding a two handed flail (base 3)! They will be swinging for 22 damage (or 11 AV=0) now that is insane! (though if people like it, I will go for it). Where it really gets crazy is with things like Dragons who already bite for 20 AV=0 which will jump up to 30! Personally, it is not the dragons bite that worries me...
I still think that size 5 and up should be able to wield 2 handed in one hand. If Improved Strength adds effective size, then you could wield two handed in one hand if you were a human/elf or larger creature. This also might solve the hobbit, no two handed dillema. If a hobbit counts as size 2 effectively for strength once they get Improved Strength, then they could use two handed weapons (but not over 3 feet) just like a dwarf! Dwarves would be able to use much bigger two handed weapons because they would count as Centaur size. Overall, this system makes a lot more sense for Strength when we put in the two handed in one hand at size 5. The AV=0 peice seems to me to fit more with the Improved Strength piece and thus could be reserved for those creature who are know for their strength, not just size (Ogers, some trolls, Giants, Ents, etc.).
Some people miss the Knights having Trample. If we combined Improved Strength with Armor Piercing, we could bring it back in a modified or a little weaker form.

Christopher

Wow... chris that was pretty much perfect. Pretty much everything you brought up i like the idea of. even if Dragons will be dealing 30... but the idea that giants and Ogre's will be swinging 20+ and 10+ damage excites me.

Wow, scary, but realistic. I can't think of a fantasy movie or book or story in which a giants swing didn't physically pick up and throw whatever it hit. And usually its a person in plate mail. (thats like a 190 pound person wearing 120+ pounds of armor and gear, so at least 300+pounds) at that point what is armor going to do anyway. but pushing it to ub is too much i think. though for the biggest creatures it would make some sense (like a dragon gives a care about your shield, if it bites close enough to hit it, it bit close enough to eat you.), it may just make the fight too futile.
Additionally this adds a bit of tactics to battle. Unless your epic, going toe to toe with a giant or cave troll is stupid, i.e. call in the mages and archers. Helps to diversify hero groups I would think.

-The stacking of skills with innates makes sense, your example being perfect for this, something may have an innate power that makes them deadly, but learning to use that ability better should make them even deadlier. (which is basically the main theme of many a story. char has great power but must train and learn to use that power correctly.) That being said, I don't think it will be an overly big deal because it is far more difficult for a monster to train. (more difficult to gain xp, to survive long enough(who resurrects the monsters?), and to find somebody (or thing) to actually teach them these skills.)

And a dragons bite doing 30 doesn't sound that unreasonable. (already doing 20 how many things can survive that anyway)

As far as where two handed weapons should go, I think its going to take a bit of playtest to determine where to set the mark. what kind of things are size 5?, can we think of any examples where such creatures use larger than normal weapons in one hand? We all just have to keep in mind that two handed weapons aren't just large, but off balance. there is a difference between holding a two handed weapon in one hand and wielding it effectively (I mean I know I can hold a spear in one hand and I know I can thrust with it, but that doesn't mean I can effectively hit anything.). That being said, size 5 sounds ok, but should probably take some time to playtest and research a little.

I think what you said is fine what ever more damage like you say all to often for things. I'm all for it.

Size Fixes:

I asked some players today about the stacking of innates and they agreed it is fine. That means we have a temporary go ahead to playtest it in-game. We also tried out the size 5 uses two handed rule, with Improved Strength giving +1 with all attacks. This worked out well too, though it was more lethal. We still haven't tested out big things getting AV=0 and that is where we still have some discussion to fit in.
Should big things (Ogre Size and up = size 5) have AV=0 or should just things that have Improved Strength have it. If things with Improved Strength have it, should we combine Improved Strength with Armor Piercing and call it one skill? That bring up a third issue of creatures who have innate Improved Strength who are also Knights. Would their Armor Piercing be better (i.e. full damage instead of half?). There are a lot of skills that seem like they should stack but do not (Weapon Mastery, Martial Arts, Hack, etc.) so how do we deal with them. Cora says that only things that actually add damage would stack (which makes sense) but that does mean that some skills will be pointless to get if you have them innately. In the afore mentioned situation with the Dark Troll, he would only be dealing 5 AV=0 because Martial Arts and Weapon Mastery don't stack with each other.
Another option is to combine Giant Strength and Armor Piercing, if we don't want it to be so common. I personally think it fits better with Improved Strength. Thus, Improved Strength would read "You deal +1 damage with all attacks, have Armor Piercing (1/2 damage for AV=0), and count as double your size for carrying and strength purposes." This means that characters with Improved Strength would be able to use two handed weapons in one hand, deal and extra damage with it, and can choose to deal 1/2 damage for an AV=0 attack. What do people think of that? Giant Strength would then read that you add 1/2 your size in damage to each hand attack. Note that unless you also had Improved Strength, you would not deal nearly as much damage with only Giant Strength, because you don't have the double effective size for strength purposes piece. This makes monsters with BOTH Improved and Giant Strength really scary, especially the big ones.
I agree that UB is too much for monsters (they have boulders anyway, and sometimes have weapons that deal UB). If we bring back a limited Trample, we could always give it to Giants and Dragons if we think they need it. Do people want to bring back Trample, and if so, what should it look like given the new rules?
As a side note, I thought of an interesting rule for extreme cases that might add a little more realism to these epic Giant and Troll battles. What if we had a standing rule that if an item takes 10 times it's size in damage in a single hit it is shattered! What this means is that if I take a hit for 20 on my large shield, I don't take any damage, but the shield is toast! I can't use if for the next time I want to block that damage. A tower shield would shatter at 30 damage in one hit (or a Dragon Bite for example!). Bucklers would shatter if they took 10 in one hit. This could be true for weapons as well. Most weapons already have size categories based on their mage lore status (if it costs 4 or less, it is size 1, over 4 and one handed, it is 2, and two handed, it is three). I don't see this rule coming into play very often, so I don't think it will matter that much except for the super epic battles and then it might spice things up. It seems to make sense that a Magic Item should be able to take double the damage in one hit (since Ranger first gets Shatter, and then Shatter Magic). Thus, most epic heros could take almost 40 damage in one hit on their magic shield with no worries. Thoughts?
Speaking of Shatter, someone pointed out that Shatter Costs a Mana, both for Shatter Magic and normal Shatter and that it doesn't even guarantee any effect. If you miss, or hit the wrong thing, you still spent the mana. Maybe that is fine, since you get Combat Discipline later, but compared to Avoid, shatter bites. So I was thinking of something like what we did with Vitals. What if Shatter was more like Hack, a modifier. A Shatter attack could be an attack that Shatters if it hits and deals damage as well. Thus a player could call "2 shatter" and if they hit an item the item is shattered (though the player takes no damage) and if they hit the player, then the player takes 2. This would make it far more versatile and useful. Giants could use it with Boulder and hurl them (if they were Rangers anyway) for 8 UB Shatter. Anything they hit would be shattered AND you would take 8 etc. which seems rather real. Obviously, some mechanics would need to be worked out, such as do you still have to call the specific item to be shatters, do you shatter their armor if you strike them in a zone that they are not armored, and how does it stack with AV=0 etc. I am curious to hear what people think is the best for this. Keep in mind, items that are Shattered are not Destroyed, just not usuable and they must be repaired, so it isn't like Unforge!
I sounds like people agreed that creature over size 5 with martial arts innately should count there hands as two handed weapons, is that right? This would mean that things like Griffins, Vroats, Large Animals and such would deal 2 with each claw instead of one, and things like Drakes that are size 5 AND have Imporved Strength would deal 3 with each claw. Thoughts?

Christopher

Thought?

First, this is Nell.
Giant lions clawing you would probably do more than a short sword, so i like the over five with martial arts does two.
Bobo and I think that things over five with giant strength should have AV=0. Not armor piercing, just full damage and AV=0. Things over size five with just improved strength should have armor piercing. (big things hitting you would tear through your armor. big things hitting you really hard probably wouldn't notice that you are wearing armor.) And, I always thought you needed to have improved strength to have giant strength.
being able to shatter things by doing a lot of would be interesting, but i dont think that the item size times ten makes much logical sense. For example, a staff (which i think you said was size three) would take 30 damage to shatter. A staff is a long think piece of wood tat a giant could easily snap. The price model is weird too. A small hammer costs four and would take 10 damage to shatter. If you made that same hammer two handed it would cost 8 and take 30 damage. What?

The Size Fixes:

Thanks for the post Lanelle (and Ryan). Yes I know that the price model doesn't work well, but it is a system we already use when we figure out how much mana things will store when they are mage lore, so I just used it because people would be familiar with it and wouldn't have to learn another whole system. Ultimately, I agree with you and I think items should all be size 1. Shields and such could be able to take more, but 10 damage to an item is probably going to break it.
Regarding Giant Strength and Improved Strength, I like the idea that you can't have Giant Strength without Improved Strength (it does seem weird to have one and not the other). We would just have to change the wording so it says "Increases your Improved Strength to Giant Strength..." and that way, if you got it, it would do nothing unless you had Improved Strength to increase (just like Advanced Damage Cap, Martial Arts Elite, etc.). I also like the idea that things that have Giant Strength AND are over size 5 have AV=0 and things that are over size 5 with Improved Strength have Armor Piercing. But how do we word that. Is it an effect of size meaning we list it in the Size section like "If you are over size 5 and have Improved Strength than..." or is it an effect of Improved Strength and Giant Strength which would then read "If you are over size 5 and have this skill than you..." I know that might seem like the same thing, but for game purposes it does make a difference. If the skill gives it to you, then it is an effect of a skill and not an innate rule. If it is an innate rule goverened by size, then it can't be negated. Also, if it is an effect of the Skill Improved Stength, then monsters that have Imporved Strength innately AND Improved Strength from being a Knight would be stacking their damage and would this mean that their Armor Piercing and Armor Piercing stack to make straight AV=0? 7th level Ogre Knights are going to have three instances of Armor Piercing. Does that count for anything?
Ultimately, I think your idea is perfect, but I am wondering how we should implement it in the rules for the best effect.
Back to other size issues. Does anyone have any ideas on the small size issues and increased AV to small critters when running away, the -1 damage on limbs and such. I have heard form some people that the they like the "Running away" solution or the "attacking solution. These abilities mimic Combat Shimmering, and so would be easy for other players to understand.
We also have the issue of large size discrepancies. How does that size 0 players battle that Hill Giant so well. Granted the size 0 player is no Yoda, how do we compensate for the disadvantage the tiny player should have. Currently a size 0 player can only walk, and uses only weapon under 2 feet long. But they get an armor bonus and if they have natural AV already then they are very hard to damage. With the new size increase giving things over size 5 AV=0 in one fashion or another, we may have solved half the problem already. Still, we haven't solved the fact that a size 0 creature can't even reach a creature that big.
Hear are a few solutions I can think of. Perhaps players can only attack the legs of targets that are 4 sizes larger than they are. Thus a size 0 critter can only attack the legs of a centaur, and a hobbit can only attack the legs of an Ogre. If those legs are armored, your SOL. This would mean no vitals either. Of course these tiny players are welcome to use missile weapons, but melee can only be on the legs. A few problems I can already think of with this system would be knowing what size things you are fighting. If you don't know they are 4 sizes bigger than you, then you might attack them normaly and the system doesn't work. Please don't get stuck on the exact numbers of this proposed solution. Debating whether or not it should be 4 sizes, 3 sizes or 5 sizes, is not a fruitful arguement because those details can always be worked out later if we decide to go with this idea. First, we should discuss if it is workable in ANY form at all.
Another solution could be that creatures over 4 sizes larger than you are consider soaring to you, and you must attack them with missiles.
A simple solution might be to break it up into size groupings so players have an easier time of things. Instead of working by 4 sizes larger or something hard to compute, we could break sizes into three basic groups (1) Tiny (size 0 or smaller) (2) Average (size 1-4) and (3) Big (size 5 and up). It might be easy then to say that Tiny creatures can only attack the legs of Big creatures, or that Average Creatures do -1 vitals against Big creatures, whereas Tiny creatures cannot deal vitals damage. Once again, the exact wording or choices of these ideas is not important. What is important is the concept of using general groups like Tiny, Average and Big to determine effects. What those effects are is totally up to us to determine, if people think it would be easiest to consider these things in broad groups. Of course a Dragon should be harder to hit than an Ogre, but do we really want to have to compute exact sizes for these sorts of effects...

Ooooh, I like the grouping of sizes
First I think adding one more for the biggest sizes (8-10, 9-10) would be good. Even if not used in the way you are describing it would be good just to be used in game. "What do we see?", "Something big." that kind of thing would give the player a general idea of the size of the thing their up against without telling him the exact size (its not like the goodies running up and measuring the enemy, not to mention we as the players don't have an exact definition of each size how do the chars?) so they can't run that against the database of monsters in their head.
Second only being able to attack legs would be realistic and work well, but as you pointed out, too hard to remember who's which size in the middle of a fight.
Third since we've been talking about size based strength modifying damage, maybe it should work in reverse? a -1 dam to size 0 creatures would kinda suck for them but would make some sense right?

As for the rest of that, I'm going to give it some more thought before I throw anything else out there.

Chris already pointed it out. It would be hard to kep track of size in combat. If you come up aginst a group with goblins, orks, ogers and giants it is hard to remember who is plaing what size baddy. Also if a party is facing a group of hobbit baddies it is hard for them to remember who the centaurs are. I like the idea, but it seems like any size attacks will fall apart in battle just because people won't easily be able to remember what size their opponent is. On some occassions I can't even remember who is on my side.
If we did the grouping system then i guess we could have different colored sashes for different groups. I think we have run out of colors though... what i don't ike about the grouping system though is that it seems like the biggest in a group shouldn't be effected the same way as the smallest. An orukaih wouldn't have nearly as hard of a time fighting an ogre as a hobbit would. I also think that the modifications that would constantly need to be made to damage would get confusing.

Size groups:

Yes I like the size groups too, but I think it would be too hard to add it to mechanics of combat. We have definitely run out of colors, and I don't want to have to mark people by colors. However, this might be simpler than we think. Consider if we have only three groups, Tiny, Average, and Big. If average creatures have no disadvantage to attack Big creature, than it is only Tiny creatures that have this disadvantage and the number of Tiny creatures is, well, tiny! Basically we would be saying that Mutants that take the size 0 stat and Gnomes are only going to be able to attack the legs of Big creatures. It should be pretty easy for those players to remember who are the Big things, since it only effects them, and it should be easy to tell the Big things, "Clay and James are Tiny, they can't hit you above the waste." I do that kind of stuff all the time, "Rory is flying, so you can't hit him." "Brandon is a Pacifist, you damage isn't going to work on him, but we don't know that." etc. Since the number of times this rule would be in play only effects a few people it seems like it might be workable. Also, since it falls to the size 0 player to enfore it they should really only strike the legs of the players they know are Big and if they don't then they are "cheating" and can't play size 0, so it is a self correcting system. If you want to be able to be size 0, you must be responsible for knowing if your opponent is Big.
If that system works, it also seems workable to do what Doug suggested and make a fourth "Huge" category that is the 9-10 size, where even Average size players must attach the legs. Since you don't run into Huge creatures very often, it is a lot like the Tiny to Big system. Currently the only creatures that are even in the Huge catagory are Dragons, Phoenix (sometimes), Slimes (sometimes), Krakens and Hydras. Greater Giants are only size 8 so they wouldn't count. With so few creatures in that class it seems like it might work.
(as a side note, I wonder if size 8 and up should be Huge, which would add Greater Giants and Cave Trolls to that status?)
Even if we don't go with this system, the Strength system we are developing seems like it has potential to solve this too. Since the smaller you are the smaller weapons you have to use, we might be able to fix it that way. Perhaps since size 0 creature have no strength rating, all weapons are two handed for them, and they can't use anything over 2 feet. Its a thought.
- 1 damage makes some sense too thought, and might be easier. Another solution could be the "Blunt" rule. We could say attacks done by size 0 or smaller creatures are Vitals (not +1 vitals, just vitals). That means that they can't even deal damage to things on the limbs, they just don't have the force.

Christopher



Christopehr

I think the only thing that needs adjustment is size zero. Dragons don't need to be harder to kill. I think the fact that they are hard to take down has already been represented. They have full plate, only take UB, can armor wound and have inate elder sorcery. Zone 4 (front) represents the small tender areas you can hit a dragon. As for hydras/krakens, would the leg rule only apply to the body or to the arms and legs also (i can't remember if they are given different sizes). Either way, I think the creatures that would be classified as huge are already designed in a way to consider that. They deal more damage, are harder to deal damage to and have more HP. I think it just needs to be represented that tiny creatures are weaker.
One thing that I realized that might be unbalancing the system is the rarity of mutants. How building mutants works is that you are rarity one and then you take on advantages and disadvantages. That means Clay's lizard is rarity one. If you acctually came across anything like that it would be much higher than rarity one. I'm not sure how to fix this whit minimal GM interaction with each mutant, but I think the rarity should be determined after the creature is made. Torgo pointed out that the mutant chart works well for making monsters, but somehow not too well for making characters.

Fixes:

I agree that big creatures already have huge advantages. I am fine with leaving them but people brought up the issue of a size 0 thing being unable to hurt a size 4 thing, and that relates to size 1 things trying to hurt size 10. I personally don't care if bigger sizes change at all, it really is only the small sizes that cause problems, but the arguement could be made that we are punishing tiny creatures when really, size should matter for everyone.
About Mutants. I agree that they tend to end up being things that seem Rarity 3 or 4 but aren't. Currently we have a restriction that characters can't have anything more that 2 Build, which limits their access to skills that the real monsters have. But I think perhaps we need something more and I think I can sum it up in four fixes below:
1. ROR must be reduced in 5 count increments (nothing below 5)
2. Size reductions only give you 1 build, not 2 (plus the size fixes above)
3. The number of modifications a Rarity 1 creatures should have a limit, like 5 total advantages simply because I don't think players can actually play the number of disadvantages they would have to give themselves.
4. AV should be listed by creature type as follows
Heavy Hide or Fur +1 AV: Cost 3 Build
Small Scales of Snake or Lizard +2 AV: Cost 6 Build
Overlapping Plates like Armadillo +3 AV: Cost 9 Build
Fused Plate Shell like Turtle +4 AV: Cost 12 Build
We already discussed that many of the modifications that players are giving themselves do not correspond with their animal type. It says in the GM's Guide to "see your GM about the type of abilities that would be available to your creature type" not give yourself whatever you want under 3 Build. These modifications are suppose to make sense based on your animal type.

These changes make good sense. Consider the Kobold. They are Rarity 2 which gives the 3 extra build to work with. They are aggressive and size 1 so with the fixes that would give them a total of 8 build to work with. They also are semi intelligent which gives them 1 more so 9. They spend 6 on AV of a Snake and then have 3 left which they spend on lowering the ROR to 10 which costs 1 more. They have two left which they didn't spend. Furthermore, they have no mana which should give them even more but have nothing. This is a rarity two critter that has an extra unspend 4 build. If it was a Mutant it would have Martial Arts and AV=0 claws! How is that fair. And without the size reduction fixes it would have another 2 to get Flying! Oh and then their is the fact that Kobold look like Lizards so they would get another 2 build for Non-Humanoid looks. So then they should also have Bestial Transformation! Monsters are SOL compared to Mutants even with the adjustments to costs unless we put a limit on how many modifications a rarity 1 critter can have.

Now some monsters have it good like Dark Trolls. At rarity 7 they get 21 build to work with. Just adding up thier AV, HP, Mana and Regenerating uses up all that build, but they somehow still have Acidic Blood, Martial Arts, Martial Arts Elite and Weapon Mastery for hands. Given that they are Non-Humanoid we can can assume that gives them the AV=0 claws but they still are over by 8 Build and should be Rarity 10 by that count.

I find it interesting to note that the creatures that didn't spend all their build are the ones we find easy to deal with and the ones that somehow have more are the ones we are terrified of. What this points out it that the Rarity to Build Conversion are off a bit. Usually though it is the sheer number of modifications that denotes a high rarity and putting a cap on how many you can have seems like a prudent solution.

Lastly, I want to note that their is a reason why I listed class type abilities as "by Tier." This does not mean that you can get Inferno for 2 Build. It means IF you were an animal that has an Inferno like ability in reality, then it would cost 2 Build for your Mutant to have it. Since no real creature HAS that ability, I wasn't worried about abuse. This is the piece to remember about the Mutant System. The animal must have that ability for your mutant to be able to get it to and that is why it is so little build for those skills.


Christopher

Wow... it's like a knoblin made it with a woodchipper!


Bobo wants to play one. (and probably mate with a were-woodchipper...
ass)

Hello all FanWar players:

I have been working on the Rulebooks and I want to post the most recent fixes for your review. Pieces from the rulebook follow. By the way, does anyone have a preference for two books or one this time. I am doing a comb binding this time so I could combine both books easily unless people think it is good to have them seperate.

Full Helm (-1 Vitals and 1 time Armor Wound): Full Helms have Armor Wound but for the Helm only. This makes Runic Helms cool again.

Scrolls: I just listed them as costing the lvl of the skill. Ressurection will thus cost not 1 gold per lvl, but 6 gold and then 1 gold more per each 3 lvls more you want it to Ressurect (just like the spell- imagine that!).
Rebirth will be only 11 gold now, but it costs you a mana to cast it, just like the spell.
Auto Acting adds about 20 gold to the cost, depending on what you want the trigger to be.

Critically Wounded: This is the term being used for being at -2 HP. You are unconscious, can't be woken except by class based healing, bleed out in 4X ROR in seconds unless Stabalized with First Aid (which does nothing but Stabalize you at this point, it won't wake you etc.). Critically Wounded counts as a seperate wound (like Hack or Impale) and must be healed separately from you HP (just a detail, but it helps for consistency).

Vitals is a Modifier: I fixed the section on Calling damage to list Vitals as a Modifier not a AZ call.

I updated the Death Bag Section with the following "The death bag has 30 clear stones in it and 3 colored stones (black, green, and blue) When you die, you must pull out a number of stones equal to the amount of deaths you have. If you pull only one colored stone, you loose an experience point. If you pull two colored stones, you loose a whole level. If you pull three colored stones, “Death Comes for You” and your character is permanently lost. However, if you have more deaths than you have levels you must pick twice as many stones (thus doubling your chances of each loss). If you have only one or two deaths, the color of the stones comes into play. The black stone equals Death Coming. The Green Stone is a level lost, and blue an experience. When pulling for two deaths, you must pull the black stone AND another color to for Death to Come. Pulling the Green AND Blue will just be a level lost."

Alignment: I added some notes on Alignment being out of game knowledge etc.

I made some tweaks to class skills. I am printing the entire text of each below so you can assess them in detail. All the changes are based on our game play and effectiveness of these skills. Many are not used due to comparative Mana cost to much better skills for the same cost. Here are my fixes.

5) Chi Strike (IC): Cost: X Mana “Chi Strike: X Mana Drain, no damage.” If you would have damaged your opponent they loose 2 times X mana instead (this effect stacks with armor zone attacks such as AV=0).

5) Improved Strength: Your Strength is now double your size (see Effects of Size). + 1 damage with melee.

10) Giant Strength: Adds to your Improved Strength. You now deal + 1 damage per Strength your have over 4 when wielding an item two handed, and ½ that with an item in one hand. May use boulders which are UB.

6) Thrown (Elite): Throwing Weapons deal + 1 damage for you, even when used as a melee weapon.

2) Hide (BC): Cost: Be Stationary. Call “Hide,” and count down from your size in a place out of direct sunlight. If you reach 0 you are considered invisible and may put your hand over your face to indicate you cannot be seen, as long as you do not move.

7) Stealth: Allows you to move while hidden (but not fight) You can take one step every X seconds where X is your size.

4) Shatter (IC): Cost: 1 mana. Call "Shatter" as a Modifier to your attack. Your next melee strike, renders any item struck Shattered. (Note: you cannot shatter magic items).

2) Melting Grasp (Touch- AV=0): Cost: 1 Mana. “With Melting Grasp I shatter your item.” Tag an item to render that item shattered. (note: this works on Armor and Shields as well).

1) Staff Touch: The end of your mage lore is considered your hand for all spell/skills. You may attack with Mage Lore.

I also added a few section to the Explanations Section as follows

"Effect of Size and Strength on Game Play: Size is an often overlooked aspect of FanWar because players don’t actually look different sizes. In most cases your Strength score equals your Size, but since some abilities effect your strength, we use two words to differentiate between the two. There are very real consequences in the game for being smaller than size 3 (human size). The first issue is speed and mobility, and the second is Strength. Players always move at a speed equal to their Size. Big creatures are going to cover a lot more ground on the map than smaller ones. Flying creatures are also going to move much faster (usually by double the listed size). Beyond the simple speed rating, there are other disadvantages.
Size 0: cannot run.
Size -1: cannot move more than 1 foot per step.
If you are larger than human size the benefit is mostly in your Strength which effects carrying capacity which is equal to your size. Effects like Giant Strength add damage to your attacks based on your size which can mean quite a bit. Remember that you can only carry a total of items whose size is equal to your Strength. Thus a Centaur can carry two Dwarves (one in each hand) or four Hobbits, but a human cannot carry a Centaur.
Some effects in the game modify your Strength but not your Size. Thus, it is prudent to consider the effects of Strength on the game and what creatures of different Strength values are able to do. See below.
Strength -1: Can only used items custom made for them.
Strength 0: Can only use items 1 foot in length, or two foot two handed.
Strength 1: Can not use any two handed weapons.
Strength 2: Cannot use any two handed weapons over 3 feet long.
Strength 3: No change.
Strength 4: No change.
Strength of 5-9: May use a Two Handed Weapon as though it were one handed.
Strength of 10 and up: all attacks are Armor Piercing.
Strength of 10 and up with Giant Strength as well: all attacks are AV=0."

As you can see I have added a Strength Score. It is usually just your Size, but it can be modified and thus I wanted to use a different word so players do not get confused when describing how much damage they do and why.

I added a section on Mounts, see below:
"Mounts: Very rare in FanWar, mounts are occasionally used in battle and to make travel faster. We denote mounts by a animal print sash and while wearing one you are considered mounted. What you can do will be determined by what type of mount you are on. On the whole, any traverse type abilities that your mount has you are considered to be able to do as long as you are mounted. Thus, if your mount has Flying, so do you and you will travel at a rate based on the size of your mount as well as gaining increase carrying capacity while mounted. A list of the more common mounts and their in game effects follow.
Horse size 4: Endurance
War Horse size 4: Endurance, Fortified Area
Race Horse size 4: Speed.
Camel size 5: Slow, Endurance, Desert Native.
It is worth noting that some mounts have combat abilities that outclass their riders. In this case, the system is reversed, and the player plays the mount but gains some of the attacks and sense of it’s rider. Thus, an Armored Beast being ridden by a Urukai Archer, would be played just like an Armored beast but with the intelligence and arrogance of an Urukai as well as the ability to shoot arrows with all the usual Archer skills. In extreme situations two players can work together, one playing the mount and another the rider for the full effect, but as players are limited this is usually to involved to do consistently."

In the GM's Guide I have been working on things too. I fixed Toiror:

TOIROAR
ROR 60 HP 6 Mana 0 SIZE 5 AV 0 RARITY 1
Notes: These huge creatures look like wolves standing on their hind legs which are cloven. They have Endurance and are rather Dense. They can never learn above 5th lvl in a Class.

it was way too cool before with the new Strength modifications.

I have been working quite a bit on the Species Building Chart and here are some of the most critical updates.

"The maximum number of abilities available to a creature is 3 times their Rarity and the cost of a skill to be purchased can never exceed double your Rarity (thus you must be Rarity 2 to purchase a skill that costs 4 Build)."

Other Fixes to the Species Section
+ 1/2 to AV: cost 2 build (this just makes it easier for players to see that they can get AV bonuses as a Rarity one creature. It also increases the cost, so now it costs a total of 4 Build to be AV 1).

I added the descriptions of the types of AV (Fur-Fused Shell)

- 1 Size: -1 build. (you get less of dripping size).

Humanoid Armor 1 per (if you want to be able to stack armor on top of your innate armor, you have to pay extra for your armor, 1 Build per AV bonus).
Evasive Shimmer... 1 per (if you want to be able to get a +2 AV when running away or evading things, you have to pay 1 Build per size you are- so yes, Size Zero things can get it for free. If we don't like it being Shimmering that they get, I can always change it to Evade Missiles or something comparative).

That is all so far but I am working on several other things.

One fix that I have been considering is that perhaps all of the Specialty Species from Ork to Gnome should be Rarity 2. This would seem to make sense, since they aren't as common as the usual 5 species. Before you all freak out about that, I will qualify this statement with the following. If they do become Rarity 2 than I will change the above ruling that the cost of a skill is equal to 2 times your Rarity (because otherwise Mutants are going to suddenly have access to 3 and 4 Build cost things, and I am NOT going to allow that). Please do not worry about the extra build that would give Mutants or the access to other abilities because I can control that by adding the 2 Build Restriction to anything Rarity 2 or less and I can change the amount of Build you get for going from Rarity 1 to Rarity 2. I am more interested in what people think about the effect on level advancement of being Rarity 2 etc. If this were to be adopted I would go through each of those species and make sure they meet the Rarity 2 Build Point Spec etc (even Orks and Urukai etc.)

In any case, I plan to go through the species and adjust them based on the Build they should have, once we are clear on the new rules for building species. I don't know that I have time for fixing all of them, but some are due for revision. Goblins need Tunneling, Miner, etc. you get the picture.

I relly like how stelth and hide look, and it makes sense to me, less size less body mass you have to hide. and i do have to admit that Toiroar's would have been a bit overpowered for a playable race as they were with the sive rulings