No AoO?

[mmadsen]

I've played in a game without AoOs. The consequences were farther-reaching than the DM or players had anticipated.

Were AoO-inducing actions allowed, with no consequences, or were those actions disallowed?

 

[Klaus]

d20 Call of Cthulhu simply forbids characters from performing actions that would, in D&D, generate AoO. There's a sidebar explaining how to implement AoO if the GM wants to.

 

[MerricB]

I'll point out that everyone who played D&D prior to 3E was doing that. I do think that combat ran faster, and was less confusing to new players. Things that now cause AOO were basically prohibited (i.e., must stop when you contact a foe, cannot fire a bow in melee, etc.)

AoOs definitely existed for movement in previous editions.

As you say, you *couldn't* do some things at all (fire bow).

And other things - like spoiling casting - were based on initiative rules. (And the AD&D 1e rules were so arcane on the matter as to be incomprehensible to most).

Cheers!

 

[WhatGravitas]

I beg to differ. AoOs should be treated as in-game just as threatening an area. It should be fairly obvious when someone overextends themselves strinking at a foe, using up thier AoO.

Yup. If a character provokes AoO to "use up" a foe's AoO's, it's what you call "distraction" in novels and films - something used very often.

And not every foe will fall for it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like AoO, as I really enjoy the tactical options that they give the game in combination with feats.

I think the game can be fine without it, but you need to do much mroe surgery than you'd expect, as so much of the feat, combat, and skill system interacts with AoO. I'd recommend taking a look at the D&D Basic Game for a way to accomplish it. Essentially, delete feats related to AoO, and prohibit actions that would otherwise cause AoO.

Previous editions had similar mechanics ... for example, 1E's free attack against a retreating foe. They just weren't systematic or called AoO.

 

[dcas]

AoOs definitely existed for movement in previous editions.

Yeah, I don't think there was a term for it, but if you tried to run past a foe, or run away without having the initiative, then you would definitely provoke what is now called an Attack of Opportunity.

As you say, you *couldn't* do some things at all (fire bow).

Which makes perfect sense: "But sir, will we not hit our own men?"

 

[MerricB]

Which makes perfect sense: "But sir, will we not hit our own men?"

In AD&D, firing *into* melee was a lot of fun. You randomly hit one of the combatants (with the probability being weighted in favour of hitting the larger opponents), although the DM could override the rules - esp. halflings against a giant will always hit the giant.

Cheers!

 

[blargney the second]

Were AoO-inducing actions allowed, with no consequences, or were those actions disallowed?

It was gookier than that. If you wanted to sunder/disarm/trip something, the DM and other players would just look at you funny. I still don't know if the actions were allowed or not.

-blarg

 

[ruleslawyer]

DM's let players run through armed and armored people? No wonder people had problems with older editions. In older editons if you wanted to run by you had to maneuver outside their reach so they couldn't engage you. If they were able to engage you due to pole arms or their sword, you were stopped.

Worked fine for my groups anyhow.

Firing into melee has always been allowed, just you had a very good chance of hitting your allies.

Oh well.

This is just as complicated as the 3.x AoO rules; the difference is that it's much more DM judgment call than written rule. YMMV, I guess.

I've never had a complexity issue with AoOs, and I have two players with Combat Reflexes and one crazy tumbler! I think the rule's pretty obvious: Don't do something stupid (run past a foe, turn your back on a foe, or take a melee-inappropriate action) unless you have the special ability that allows you to do it (Combat Casting, Tumble, what have you). Works fine for me.

 

[hopeless]

Reg AOO

1.) Has anyone ever tried this?

2.) If so, how did it work out?

3.) How do you think the game would benefit/suffer from no AoO?

I did twice as far as I can remember the first time and enemy jumped into my character's area and when I declared an AOO the dm only allowed it because he then had the enemy get an AOO, don't ask me why he has a problem accepting when he's wrong.

The second time he had a pair of adult black dragons fighting two adventuring parties and said he was going to whittle down both so whilst one was keeping us busy he had the second swoop down and my character (Cleric of Helm/Sorceror) spotted him in time (natural 20 on a spot check) so I asked if I could pull an AOO on it and then used a Control Water spell to block its flight path moving everyone in its path 10' from where it was heading.
The next week he then declared it WASN'T surprised and after taking 40pts of damage from the wall of water then breathed on two characters beyond the wall AND then flew away without the fact I had argued noobody was in its threat range and that to use its breathw eapon it would have crashed as it should have been too busy trying to stop itself.
Needless to say this was the same dm as above.