In previous instalments of Fixing the Fifth Age, I pondered which form the Oracle would take, and conjured a very different Action Resolution system. In this one, I will be disgruntled regarding combat, because for me, combat shouldn’t be special in a story about dramatic fantasy heroes. It’s not tactical, it’s a reflection of the heroes conflicts and psychological states as much as anything. 

I don’t like combat being unique. Does Oracle need to make combat special? I don’t think Fifth Age does, it just makes it feel like 2nd Edition. So I have to make a choice: 

1. Don’t develop combat rules, utilise the action resolution system, and simply add in an armour and a damage rule to leverage combat through that system.
2. Develop combat rules that make the combat feel weighty and heroic, like a superhero movie.

The first is easy, although it could use a polish:

• A PC has wounds equal to the cards in their hand, a foe has wounds listed in their stat block.
• PCs or foes have armour. Armour is expendable (“1 Armour”), but also has special conditions (“Negates all damage from arrows”, or “Absorbs all magic attacks to increase armour by 1”) in addition to any expense.
• When a PC suffers a wound, they ‘tap’ a card face-up on the table. It can still be played, and any card replacing it is tapped as well.
• When a PC’s hand is entirely tapped, they are defeated. Defeat can mean disabled, taken hostage, killed, or retreated. This is a negotiation between the players based on context, but death can never be forced on a PC.
• A PC can heroically sacrifice their life in combat during any action, in exchange for a significant success. While the goal is agreed upon by all players prior to the sacrifice, the nature of the success will be interpreted by the GM through an interpretative draw (of a nature to be determined later, when I write more interpretive Oracle rules).

The second…doesn’t feel like it suits the original game’s goals or the rules of Oracle developed thus far. Reading through Fifth Age, you can see what the authors think is important: Surprise, moving between Ranges, heroes Attack, enemies Counterattack, Wounds (in damage points), Armour (directly decrease damage points), Death Spiral (wounds decrease hand size), and Death (if you’re attacked after you’ve lost your last cards, you die). 

The major issues I can identify:

• Range is boring. Heroes who wield bows or guns still fight at close range.
• Armour is boring. Heroes dodge, parry and brace shields.
• Death Spirals are not fun for Heroes. Hand size corresponding to experience level corresponding to resistance to attack is neat, but it’s not fun that a hero becomes less effective as they are wounded.
• Heroes only die in a blaze of glory.

Honestly, I can see a fun little tactical system in the corrections to these major issues, but I’ve been sitting on these for days and I can’t see a solution that wouldn’t stick out like a sore thumb in the context of the design so far.

Next, I think we’ll dive into the GM section, and think about position, effect, consequences, and how to interpret the cards to assist decision making. I’ll take a break next week to read something a little denser then come back to this in a fortnight.

What do you think about this very simplified combat system? Sufficient, or insufficient for combat to feel heroic? If it’s lacking, what is it lacking? What do you think should reside in the Heroic Sacrifice Oracle draw? Are you interested in me developing out this Oracle Tactical System that is floating around in response to this analysis, but doesn’t fit the Oracle that is forming? Comment and let me know!

9th February 2022,

Idle Cartulary