Thanks for the detailed feedback Red Baron; some useful observations/comments.
FWIW--some of these have already been raised/answered on the DD G+ group (see
http://tinyurl.com/DelvingDeeperGPlusCommunity), but I'll answer here also for convenience...
The Red Baron wrote:
-
A Hero and above... is unaffected by fewer than four normal hits in a combat encounter
Does this hold true for 4+ HD monsters too? Does a superhero need8 simultaneous hit then, like in chainmail? I like the "not be targeted by normal-types while there are normal targets available" rule from v4 a lot better. Why did you decide to make that change?
* This isn't intended to apply for 4 HD monsters; only Heroes (and above).
* CM isn't explicit that Superheroes are only slain by 8 simultaneous hits, and I haven't found any example that this was in fact the case. Not sure it would have been necessary since normals would flee from a superhero anyway. Happy to be educated otherwise but--until I find more tangible support for it--my view is that the 8 hits rule probably shouldn't be stated explicitly in DD. As it stands, whether or not the 8 hits rule is
implicit is for the individual ref to decide, as per the original
* The "not targeted by normals" rule still appears in V5; it has been moved into the general combat rules in booklet two.
The Red Baron wrote:
-Wizards give a morale bonus to troops? I don't know how I feel about this. Its kind of cool, but infringes on one of the great powers of the fighting man.
I agree. However, the rule is directly from CM.
The Red Baron wrote:
-The Anti-cleric rules are more fleshed out. Good.
Their level titles are a bit underwhelming though.
I'm happy to entertain alternative level titles; in fact I have solicited for suggestions in the past, but few (none?) have been forthcoming
The Red Baron wrote:
-The dwarf description is much better, however:
However, giants and the like have difficulty catching them and willcause only half hits.
Does this mean damage as in v4? I use the terms "hits" and "hit points" interchangeably, but many people do not.
This rule is straight out of CM, which talks in terms of "kills". D&D says kills become hits, so on that basis it should be half "hits", which would be neat. Alas, M&T also includes a passage that explicitly describes this rule in terms of half the number of hit-points damage caused by a hit.
This is certainly an area where I have chosen to make DD more ambiguous that the original, so that the ref can choose to use half
hits or half
damage. For me, I prefer half
hits.
The Red Baron wrote:
-The elf description from v4 is far better than that in v5
Do you mean in terms of grammar/readability, or in terms of game rules?
For the former: yes I agree that the whole text still needs a few of the hard-edges rounded off. That will (hopefully) come from some reading aloud sessions.
For the latter: V5 is a truer representation of the 1974 elf rules; it's the sum of the CM+3LBB elf as it was in print in 1974. Some of the intricacies may be easier to digest in light of the combat rules (in booklet two), but V5 captures--as best I can make it--the printed elf rules as they were in 1974. Yes, elves were over-powered; every one of 'em a potential Fëanor.
The Red Baron wrote:
-Changing class rules seem to imply that all characters work similarly to elves where they have two classes at once.
The Changing Class para (p13) states only what appears in the 3LBBs, including the phrase that "changing class is not recommended".
The Combination Characters rule appearing in Appendix A (p37) repeats the V4 rule. Yes, it implies that all combination characters are handled in the same manner as elves. This is largely because no other guide was given in 1974; that's all there was, so it seems logical (to me) to re-purpose it.
The Red Baron wrote:
-Levels Beyond the 12th: this whole section is hard to read.
Yes, this concern has been raised a couple of times.
I have decided to move this section into booklet two, where the ref will be given some guidance around handling player progression. It isn't really player information, per se, and will be easier to digest in light of other details in booklet two.
The Red Baron wrote:
-
1 gold piece = 10 silver pieces = 50 copper pieces.
Why would you do this?
M&T p39
The Red Baron wrote:
-The explanation of Hireling Loyalty and Enlisting Monsters set the tone of the game. Consider re-inclusion.
I agree that it's useful for players to realise they can hire monsters, however that section is presently in booklet two as the mechanics of how to handle this are largely for the referee.
The Red Baron wrote:
-Its nothing new to DD, but why do magic-users get a hit die boost? Not disagreeing with it, just wondering.
I realise that M-Us appear to advance one HD per two levels in M&M. However, that pattern only persists up until 4 HD; thereafter M-Us gain their next 4 HD in just four levels.
The key information that DD gathers from the player advancement tables in M&M is that Fighters have 9 HD at "top level" (aka "name level" in AD&D), while M-Us and Clerics have only 7 HD at "top level". Yes, DD "smooths" the M-U's HD progression over the level range compared to the original, but still captures the more important (IMHO) HD comparison across the classes at their respective top levels.
The Red Baron wrote:
-Witch Lock is still a dumb name for a spell.
Wizard Lock and Wizard Eye are not SRD spell names.
The SRD invites one to employ "Arcane Lock" and "Arcane Eye" instead.
I prefer "Witch Lock" and "Witch Eye" to the SRD offerings, and also; it's a little something unique about DD. Witch, Wizard, Wizard/Witch, Witch/Wizard? They seem to go nicely together for me, besides which (ha!) the "Witch" spells are a part of the earlier DD versions, so there's precedent to consider too.
Yes Sir! It appears you're onto it
You may be interested in my explanatory notes
here.
The Red Baron wrote:
-Can feeblemind also be cured by a remove curse?
Hmm... unlike
Dispel Magic, a
Remove Curse does not require the caster to roll for his power level versus that of the other caster. Ultimately it's up to the ref, but I think I might rule: No, you'll require a
Dispel Evil instead. Up to you.
Thanks again Red Baron... great work!