Everything you don't know about combat!

A recent thread about not seeing a beholder while in combat got me thinking.

I get the sense from a number of threads about combat, that the people talking about what's realistic, and such, don't have any fighting experience. Mainly because they suppose what may or may not be possible, and it doesn't jive with my actual experience.

I'm a martial artist. I earned a black belt in IshenRyu about 5 years ago. I've taken fencing classes, and I've even done the sword fighting with wooden swords thing (dangerous actually). I've got $15,000 worth of metal plates in my head from a sparring injury. I've not seen everything, I'm not the best in my class. But I've been around, and done enough to have a sense of what fighting's like. It's kind of like a forensic scientist watching CSI and seeing just how wrong they are.

Now a side note, it's been my observation that there's a lot of military people who are gamers. There's also a lot of COmputer Science majors who take some karate as well. CompSci folks have a high % chance of being a gamer. So the hobby is filled with people who've got fighting experience of some sort. Note, fighting in a war zone is not the same as fighting in a ring, but there are valuable ideas for gaming that can come both experiences.


I'd also like to point out, that what's realistic may not make for good game play. It may bog things down, or simply not be much fun. Rules that make things take longer to resolve, or less likely to suceed, or screw the players over tend not to be good rules.

So while we get babbling about actual fighting, keep an eye out for what would be good encounter ideas, fight descriptions, and rules for combat actions and feats.

I'm going to start by just throwing down a pile of observations. Rather than calling them facts, it's simply what I've observered, based on my qualified experience. I might throw in a parenthetical note about what game rule might fit in.

Fighting Observations:
karate sparring takes place in a 20' square ring (kind of like your typical dungeon room)

combatants tend to circle each other, to keep the opponent moving and shifting (5' steps occur a lot)

It is common to reverse the circling, to throw off the enemy's movement (imagine everyone deciding their 5' step, then revealing it and resolving by initiative order)

In a typical sparring match, you score a point for hitting the front torso. Some styles may score a point for a head-shot. Some styles reward for doing a near-hit, where the attacker demonstrated the ability to hit the head, but the restraint to stop it an inch away.

Generally in sparring, you wear pads, and your attack is supposed to be controlled, and light, not hard enough to do damage.

when the enemy attacks, he might miss, you might block it with an arm or leg, or he may hit in a scoring zone, or he may hit so hard, it hurts, regardless of legal strike-zone.

Your attacker might use a side-kick or thrust kick to shove you back. The goal isn't to score a point, but the control your positioning

In a sparring match, the harder you hit, the more likely your opponent will hit harder back. It is like a nuclear war escalation.

Getting hit hard may pause you from fighting, or you may take it and fight harder. When I took a spinning heel kick to the orbital tripod (cheek bone). I saw stars, and went down to my knees. I didn't black out, but the fight stopped. I could have resumed the match after a break, but I knew something was wrong. I had 3 fractures, and could have had my eye sink into the cavity below the eye socket (going out of alignment). The white of my eye turned red over the next day. I had $15,000 in metal plates to fix the fractures, a concussion (#4 I think). I also had a headache. I took 2 excedrin a day for a week, until I had the surgery.

While fighting multiple opponents, I often try to maneuver them such that I only face 1 at a time. I've done it such that 1 guy is stuck behind the other guy (in an open ring). Having a partner helps.

In a melee fight, you will probably be moving around a lot, thus seeing a lot of the area around you (justifying the non-facing of D&D). You won't simply be looking in one direction the whole time.

Assuming similar sized opponents and allies on the level field, you won't know exact numbers of a large enemy force, because you can't truly see them all. But you will know there's a lot.

Unless it blind-sides you, you will sense a new attacker coming in at you. Might not block it, but that's what AC is for.

You will likely notice large obvious threats. So much so, that you might not notice smaller ones, because the big one draws your attention. We call that a diversion.

Using a shield makes you MUCH harder to hit. I used an aluminum sledding disc, when we used to stick fight. I barely ever got hit, compared to those I was fighting.

Hitting somebody is a matter of distraction, opportunity, and speed. Black belts get hits scored by white belts, though seldom. White belts can hit a black belt easily enough, but not necessarily a scoring blow (that difference matters in a real fight, where the entire body is legal).

If you do the same move 3 times, you establish a pattern. You can then start that same move and your opponent is likely to block it the same way, which allows you to change it to something else.

Karate is usually divided into two types, hard and soft. Hard usually means kicks and strikes. Soft usually means trips and throws.

Aikido, is a soft style, where the practitioner doesn't attack, they only react to an attack. Basically, they avoid getting hit, and can transform the movement of your attack into a throw. (in game terms, the aikidio guy never makes an attack roll, on any attack by an enemy, they would roll to do an aikido move instead of using just their AC)

A low level aikido student is beatable in a fight. They don't know that much, and it can be a speed issue (who does their move faster). A high level aikido guy is frustratingly hard to deal with. I know this from personal experience.

Arguing about who can beat who in karate is stupid. For any given attack you throw at me, I will/will not block it in time, move out of reach or counter it with my own attack or turn your attack against you, or you will pull back fast enough. If you do hit me, if you don't hit hard enough, I will of course retaliate. This also goes vice versa. It all comes down to speed plus luck (kinda like initiative).

Always assume anybody you meet is a black belt and can beat you. Much like treating a texan like he's always got a gun. It's polite. And you will never under estimate their ability to beat you. Additionally, you never know when they'll get a lucky shot in, even if they do suck at fighting.

Most unarmed fights end up on the ground. Watch a few bar fights and you'll see. After a few punches, they start grappling, they go down, and then it's wrestling. I actually took a ground fighting seminar, as part of my training.

Hitting a guy in the head is dangerous. There are legal issues (might be construed as intent to kill, rather than self defense). There are countless instances of where a serious blow to the head did not incapacitate and made him even more dangerous. Even more so, there appears to be a gender difference. Many boys have been in a fight or two. Most girls have not. By adulthood, a man isn't as shocked to be hit in the face as a girl might (or anyone who hasn't been in some fights). Additionally, a blow to the face will probably enrage the man (if it isn't strong enough to hurt him, like my injury). This is why it IS REALLY DUMB for a woman to slap their boyfriend when she's mad at him. It's like angering a bull in his pen. I have no idea how it is for the other gender (I don't plan on slapping women to find out). This is why the stereotypical ritual of challenging for a duel involves slapping the challenged with a glove.

Go for the joints. I know women all think the first target is the groin. Boys have had many attempts on their jewels. They're not stupid, and their first reflex will be to block with a thigh or hand. Knees however, are easy to kick, and easy to injure, especially if you can attack from the side (the way they don't bend). Point of fact, I don't think I've ever been groined in a sparring match. I did have one student who twice forgot his cup, and both times, got groined. He wasn't very bright.

My experience on ranged combat is limited to video games. It ain't the same, though I apply my training to it (yes it works, I kill well).

Friendly fire (in my experience FPS games) happens because I tend to shoot moving objects that I see entering my area. It especially happens when someone on my team leaves my area, and comes back through a different vector. Meaning, if you were always on my right, I'm not likely to shoot you when I spin to the right to take out a new attacker. I am likely to shoot you, because you wandered off, and when I come across you again, at a distance, you're just a moving target.

I'm less likely to FF in melee, because of the proximity. It's at a distance, with a ranged weapon, especially on first viewing. If for some reason I don't fire, and you don't fire at me, it gives me time to determine you are a friend.

So FF is a matter of how much time I've got to determine if you are a threat (we're talking miliseconds here). It's also a matter of vector. If I come across from the side, 2 parties shooting back and forth, it's obvious one side may be may allies, and I will pause to verify.

If I'm running down a corridor and turn a corner and there's movement down at the end, I'm likely to shoot first, identify body later.

I would hope that military folks get better training on this, but I imagine that left to their own devices, it happens the same way. (any military folks wanna comment on FF, and ranged combat...please do).



That's a whole slew of thoughts. I'd like to open up the floor, in the following fashion. If you have a question about real fighting, post it here. I'd like to limit answers about fighting to people with real training of any kind (martial arts, police, military). Please briefly state your background, and feel free to answer based on your observations (meaning there may be multiple viewpoints, neither wrong). I'd like to avoid answers from arm-chair warriors with no training or experience, because that's exactly what I'm trying to resolve here.