No AoOs in d20 Cthulhu: Good or Bad?

[Mog Elffoe]

Personally, I've ALWAYS disliked Attacks of Opportunity. It's the one thing in 3rd Ed D&D that I truly despise. I like my D&D heroes to be more daring, more cinematic--they shouldn't have to worry about leaping into a mass of no name mook bad guys to kick some butt (aside from the fact that once the bad guys have *their turn* they might actually be able to kill him).

 

[Desdichado]

Attacks of Opportunities always reminded me too much of Blood Bowl Tackle Zones, and that's a bad thing for a role-playing game. I really wish that D&D would have taken this chance to further distance itself from it's tactical wargaming roots rather than embrace them. IMNSHO, of course.

EDIT: I actually love playing Blood Bowl -- but then again, I certainly don't consider it to be a role-playing game.

 

[Razuur]

We do not use AoO.

Can't stand them. Way too wargamy. We prefer the cinematic feel. We don't even use minaters, just good description and imagination!

I respect those who do use and like them though. It is obviously the style of combat they like!

I have noticed My wife and other females we have played with really dislike the minitature thing and prefer cinematic dramatic description. Is that how it is with you all?

Razuur

 

[Aaron L]

We have never used miniatures, but we use AoO, It gives a reason not to turn your back and walk away from someone no matter what level they are.

 

[xjp]

We do not use AoO.

Can't stand them. Way too wargamy. We prefer the cinematic feel. We don't even use minaters, just good description and imagination!

Razuur

Word! That is a great way to play. That's how I've played since 1e. We do the miniature thing now and then, but I prefer the more immersive, descriptive route.

 

[UD]

I didnt like AOO at first, but now Im used to them i like them. I wanted to use them in cyberounk the other day...

 

[Dinkeldog]

Following the hijack, using miniatures has stopped all of the stupid DM-player arguments about whether a character could do this, that, or the other. Which is more heroic: charging into a group knowing that there's no cost in doing so, or charging into a group knowing that you might not live long enough to achieve the objective? Also, the females in one of my groups rammed it down the males' throats until they agreed it was good.

I'll also be using the AoO in CoC when I run it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

No AoOs is a good thing for CoC. Helps PC survival. Besides, as already pointed out, a lot more combat is ranged as well as being quick and dirty.

The real necessity for AoOs is to simplify an IgoUgo action based system and create a reasonable disincentive for doing unreasonable things. Like weaving between multiple grunts to reach the wizard in the back.

In 1e/2e, DMs usually just flat out would not allow it. No discussion. No rolls.

In 3e, there are a lot of reckless tactics that are allowed. There is also a well defined price to be paid.

If you play a game where using miniatures is helpful, then AoOs definitely make sense. Even if you ditch the AoO rules, the DM will find a lot of situations where he would be tempted to say "I will let you do that, but that Orc will get a free swing at you."

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Depending on settings AoO can work for or against the feel of the game. Keep them out of CoC is fine with me as long as it isn't that lame you just can't shoot someone at point blank range crap from star wars.