greypaladin_01

Try this:
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/24002078/
 
 
In general, a "Heroic" level game will be "samey" by definition. The non-spell casting heroes will have about the same strength and dex,  and the castes will be around the same Int and dex, and speeds will be 3.  Hero ha always lacked granularity around the low end. Differentiation, then tends to be skills, knowledges and Disads.  For monsters, and High Fantasy heroes, it's the powers that lend the differentiation. in "Hig Fantasy" the differentiation is through powers bestowed upon the heroes and the monsters. Giving the Erquigdlit tracking scent, a bite, and low light gight
 

I seem to recall assertions in LOTR that Mordor-Orcs were generally bigger and stronger than Orcs from elsewhere.
 
 
 
The 6E Hero System Bestiary, as well as Monsters, Minions, And Marauders for 5E, include a Hobgoblin character sheet, and indeed, more strength and overall better stats are their primary differences. (The books also say Hobgoblins run faster than goblins due to longer legs.) Both books declare them a hybrid of Orc and Goblin which can breed true with each other, producing a new race. That follows the precedent from The Turakian Age of Gnomes being, in origin, hybrids of Dwarf and Halfling. They're supposed to be nearly as strong as but more tractable than Orcs, hence favored by evil overlords for their armies. I never used them as such in my Turakian Age-based games, because they're never mentioned there and don't seem to be a factor in the world. But I did keep them as the result of individual hybridization, like Half-Elves and Half-Trolls. Sometimes they're battle leaders for their tribes, at other times outcasts from them, depending on their particular tribe's attitude toward half-breeds.
 
OTOH I did declare Ogres to be a race spawned out of the mating of Orc and Troll. While Gnomes got some of the best qualities of both their parent races, Ogres got most of the worst from theirs.

Near as I could tell looking at the same books is that they lumped them all into types of Orc.  Basically trying to do the various differentiations that are usually ascribed to Tolkien Orcs.   Although at this moment other than orc/goblin,  half-orc (the one in bree) and then Uruk-hai I am having a hard time remembering THAT many different versions.

Have to agree that most D&D humanoids are pretty similar with a slight difference in physical ability and usually a gimmick. Tracking Normal Smell is enough to separate gnolls from the rest of the pack (I meant to do that). Description and culture will do the most to differentiate from other humanoids. 

D&D creatures usually amount to a package of stats and gimmicks handed to you to make each physically distinctive. Everything else distinctive comes from description. Hero characters, "monster" or otherwise, all start from the same basic template and are embellished as desired, so they appear to be more "samey" because you're seeing the similar frame underlying them.

The key differences in Hero are going to be abilities (gnoll's ability to track and smell foes, for example) and behavior.  There's not a lot of difference between most of the humanoid monsters in D&D either; HD+1 is not that much change from 1HD, 9 AC vs 8, etc.  You can make up for that with cultural differences, behavior, how they fight, what kind of loot they have, what their lairs are like, and so on.

They're pretty much just different shaped orcs, really

The Erquigdlit spring to mind.

I hadn't intended to go terribly long winded here, but as I read further, I realized I wanted to make more than one comment.  Apologies in advance.
 
First comment:  the only thing stopping you from doing this is the rules said no.  Remember that the rules also say things like "dramatic sense," "with GM approval," and "change anything except what I have already changed."  There are others, of course, but these are the ones to focus on.
 
First, that last one is the absolute easiest to ignore.  I mean, guve the history of this game, it borders on offensive as a rule anyway, so go ahead and highlight that with black Sharpie.
 
Now focus (I have got to figure out how to write rules onto this autocorrect; the auto-typo for that is going to get me banned if I ever fail to catch it) on the better, more traditional rules:  they boil down to "if a change works for you, then make that change."
 
Additionally, we have been able to buy Characteristics as Powers since Day One, and "extra bonuses to characteristics" since shortly after that.  In all cases, we have allowed the use of that +X characteristic at any time the Player wished.  For some reason, we _assumed_ that we couldn't do that with "plus X SPD," in spite of the fact that like _all_ Plus X Characterisitcs, we have been doing it since before there were actual rules for it.
 
 
Once you embrace the parts of the rules that say "change things if something else works better for your games", the only thing holding you back is, quite literally, the least important consideration:  the approval of a couple dozen strangers around the world who in all likelihood will never game at your table anyway.  It is reminiscent of the high school dating scene:   I really, really, liked her, but my friend said she wasnt cool enough and my other friend said I should find a thinner girl, so we broke up."
 
 
Personally, I would playtest it first.  When I say that, I do _not_ mean "do some mental exercises, roll some dice, check the math, and maybe look at some anydice probabilities.  I mean when your game settles in for a session, announce "I am going to allow this, but I need,everyone to understand that I may revoke it at any time if it proves problematic to the overall game or the flow of the plot."  Then play a session.  If it doesnt prove problematic, play another.  After five or six sessions, you should have a better feel on if you wqnt to continue allowing.  You may disallow it; you may tweak it.
 
 
 
 
 
The Speed Chart as is doesn't bring any clunkiness; rigid adherence to the rules while trying to work _outside_ the Speed Chart creates clumsiness when attempting to model a character with faster reaction times, more movements, or more actions overall than other characters.  Modeling characters who get ten actions for every two actions another character might have is only possible because of the speed chart.  The Speed Chart even opens up some interesting options beyond that; talk to Scott about facing off against a monstrous opponent with an SPD of Negative One.
 
Now here are the two ways I dealt with this problem back in the eighties, and still do.
 
 
The first was deciding to allow a power called "extra Phase."  Extra Phase cost 30 pts, being built as SPD +1 with the +2 advantage that it could be used at any point within a turn.
 
This power was built originally for a "Stranded Time Traveller" concept who was able to see just far enough into the future that he was prepared to defend or press an opening.
 
Typically, Players used the "Linked" construct (I don't think this survived into 6e; now you just write ut all on one line or something) to create things like a "preemptive counter-strike" (thank you, GWB) provided a successful Danger Sense roll, or to create an instanteous "decoy duplicate" by, in game terms, stepoing back in time a phase to "also Dodge the incoming attack against my decoy."
 
At other times, they would pick a specific use for it (only,to,speed up Haymker" was hugely popular with bricks.  In this case, we dediced it allowed a brick to make one Haymker in a single Phase per Turn.  This was for a character who was a boxer who developed super powers from experimental perfoemqnce enhancing drugs.  His trained boxing reflexes,"kept him prepare to deliver a devestating blow with the tiniest of openings.
 
We used it for super sharp-shooters in a similar fashion, allowing then to set or brace or whatever instantaneously to simulate- again- a combination of intense precision training and super-reflexes.
 
 
Despite all the nay-say, it worked _fine_ and proved totally non-problematic.  Still use it periodically for Speedsters and psychics.
 
Later, at some point around the turn of the century, we realized that we weren't playing a lot of supers (most of us are scif-fi fans), and at some point we started ignoeing the rule that doesn't let you use a held action on your actual phase and hold the action from your actual phase.
 
That is: I hold my actions for Phase 3.  I have a Phase on Phase 6, but I burn my held action then and hold Phase 6, etc.
 
I mentioned that one here once some months back as a solution for someone wanting to do something similar to that, but again- I was met with a list of the rules I was ignoring.
 
Apparently it was just one, but some folks found it important enough that it should be pointed out more run once.
 
The problem with this rule is that what I am doing still plays within the confines of the Speed Chart:  you only get a "fresh" action on your Phase, and you cant have more than one held action.  It also simulates the source material where a prepared character is ready for a surprise action, reacts to it, and is still able to respond to a follow up action _immediately_.
 
So in this case, I posit that the Speed Chart is not clunky; the rule is there specifically to restrict it from its potential in this aspect.
 
There is absolutely no argument that the Speed Chart  leads to racism, but at some point, this is a problem with _all_ simulations: you have Combat, Maneuvers, and mapped movement.   The things that you have available are all you have.  It follows that your tactics (if you are better at that than I have ever been, anyway) are composed of the things you have available.
 
No one can convince me that they have never built a DnD character to fully-utilize Attack of Opportunity selected race, class, and alignment specifically to put together a,percieved "unbreakable defense" or "unstoppable attack."  Tactics.  You use what the game is built from to implement them because the game is built to work that way.  Even in Traveller, you are hard pressed to find anyone wearing Reflec _under_ anything.  Player Characters will try to put it on over battle dress the same way they want to put ablative under something heavy.
 
 
Still, gaming rhe Speed Chart is another reason I suggest talking to Scott about SPD: -1.
 
There is potential within the speed chart that just doesn't get tapped because most folks are concerned with how to "get one over" on it.
 
 
 

What about giving grenades a 1 segment delay, something akin to Haymaker?   This would give a small window to reflect the fuse time but also to give characters a chance to move, grab/throw, dive for cover, etc?
 
Obviously it would depend on genre but it would also give a window for other characters to shoot (or ranged disarm) the grenadiers and have it fall at their feet.

Been thinking about this.  I reckon the attack needs to take a limitation of returnable attack.  Almost like Extra time. 
 
If someone fires a returnable attack, then the defender decides on their response, dive for cover, brace for impact, try to return it.
 
If you try to return it, that attacker then rolls their PRE (-1 per 10 active points), every point they make the PRE roll by is a penalty to the defender's DEX roll.
 
The idea behind the PRE roll is keeping a cool head to run down the timer, modified by how dangerous it is to hold onto it.
 
If the modified DEX roll is successful, the attack is returned.  If not, the grenade goes off at zero range.

I need to be brief, so I am going to address only one point.  Sorry, folks; I am enjoying the conversation, I am just short on both time and energy right now.
 
The point was raised that the large AoE of a grenade versus how far a person could reasonably redirect or throw it, etc--
 
I wanted to ask that we consider-- at least in non-supers games--  that a grenade is typically built with AoE: Explosion.  With this in mind, we know that every hex we can move the dead center of the explosion increases the odds of surviving the explosion, making this a much more tempting maneuver-- at least in a game-- than it would be in the real world, where the best option to survive is to dive for cover immediately.
 
 

All issues are available as downloadable PDF from the Hero Games website online store, most for $3 US (issue #1 is $2 because it's shorter; #13 is $6 because it's double-size). Just Search the store for "Adventurers Club."
 
If you want the original printed versions, I can suggest a few credible online retailers, but you'll pay considerably more, sometimes a great deal more. The most complete inventory appears to be at Noble Knight Games: https://www.nobleknight.com/Products/Adventurers-Club-Magazine

Yes;and you are welcome.  That was my own collection that was sacrificed for the initial scans.
 
Favorite article?
 
Swarms.
 
 

I am with Paladin.  We know the window HERO was designed to play within and that window is focused on hero vs villain.
 
To make both the heroes and villains supercharged, the idea should be to shrink the rest of the world.  Boost the effectiveness of heroes/villains against the real world and degrade the effectiveness of real world  things against heroes/villains.
 
I am thinking that you introduce either an everyman 75% damage reduction against non-super damage for PCs and a vulnerability to attacks from supers on everyone and everything that are not supers.
 
That way the system sits where it was designed to but interactions with the world change dramatically.
 
Doc

Going over everyone's posts it really feels this is an example of how almost all game systems break down at the extreme levels of play.  The answer to "playing more powerful" is not always just to add more points.  

A more simple method might be to set ground rules for how the world works and go from there.   Do superheroes need to have 10d6 Killing Attacks just to be able to damage a Tank?   Or should all "real" (non-super cars or such) vehicles have limits to max DEF... or perhaps only get half listed DEF against PC attacks.

It is a tangent but the vehicle rules using the same systems and mechanics as people and all gear always feels a bit janky and troublesome in HERO.. but that is different conversation.

If you are wanting to play Justice League levels but still want thugs and VIPER goons... then they are going to be a joke.  The best you can hope to do really is just have dozens of agents using teamwork and coordination to try and get combined STUN damage enough to get Stunned effect.   At those levels the 'real' world stuff just doesnt really do anything at all....

Maybe the answer is something even as simple as if you are in Paragon Tier (or however you want to call it)   You keep the CV levels still in line with the campaign but get free DR 25% or something against common weapons.   Without the math nightmare that is Damage Negation (shudder), there is no "bulletproof" in HERO anyway... so a little free boost to defense that only applies to normal/low end threats will help characters feel more powerful, but keep you from requiring everyone throwing 20-30d6 attacks just to get 15 STUN through.

Me at 63:
 
I can't go out; I'm already in my jams!
 
 

How many targets can you split your combined attack across?
 
And I do not talk,about rules complexity.  I _do_ talk about _build_ complexity, but that is not the same thing.
 
I talk about rules excess, rules redundancy, and rule conflict- most of which arise from the rules excess and the options upon options that lead to... Eh.  It escapes me right now, but I believe the vernacular is "analysis paralysis" as far as what is right for you and your game.
 
The rules are no more complicated than they have ever been; I have never claimed them to be.  The fact that there are more than ten times as many pages of them as there once where, and the gains from that are meager compared to the confusion and market disinterest that isn't diminished by that- that is something I discuss a lot.
 
I dont mind snarky comments directed at me, mostly because, havinf sworn off sarcasm years ago, I don't pick up on most of them, bur they work better when they are accurate.
 
 

4th curtailed the benefits of growth and DI - as I recall, DI was 10 points per level pre-4e.

I’ve just caught Powers themselves have changed too. I just updated Brick from (I think 1st because he’s on the pamphlet of Viper’s Nest) to 4th and things like DI and Growth have extra benefits that 4th doesn’t provide. Growth adds to running for free. Also DI adds to Con although the extra STR from DI doesn’t add to leap. 

Please accept this brief pause in the conversation as a place for me to clarify my position before anyone starts taking anything the wrong way:
 
I dont have an important opinion anything, and at no point should anyone every worry about who they do or don't agree with, becauase-   as far as I have aleays understood-  these boards are for discussion and sharing, and should never be taken as actual arguments of right and wrong.
 
If I have had that backwards for the last couple of decades, well, thqt's on me,I guess, but it still stands that opinions, ideas, solutions, and problems I have offered have never been offered as any sort of truth, gospel, or one true correct path or anything like that.
 
They are offered in equal parts fairness to others who have put forth their own opinions or ideas to create an interesting discussion (why should I not pitch something out for speculation when someone else has taken the same risk on my behalf, or has provided an enjoyable discussion by having done it?)  and the possibility  that it might stir an idea in someone else that oroves in sime way helpful to them.
 
At their very core, though, if they are not actual rules quotes, they are personal opinions, and never offered as more than that.  
 
Short version:  don't sweat what I do ir don't agree with.  If I wasn't ooen to discussing even things I dont agree with, I would be incapable of participating in any conversation except,those discussing topics from pre-Dark Champions in 4e.
 
I come here for interesting ideas and inciteful conversations, and not necessarily agreement.  I have always believed I can disagree with someone and still see validity in some points of their position.  Nothing is so binary as to be all good or all bad, after all.
 

 
 
there.  Moving on.
 
 
 
 
I do agree with that, but I find that is only one purpose of points.  Certainly there is a mini-game of self-satisfaction when a player finds a clever way to buy an ability he might otherwise not have been able to purchase; I have played that minigame myself a thousand times with characters who have never seen the light of day.  However, another way to look at that is that the advantages and limitations systems- systems which improve or reduce both the effectiveness and points cost of an ability, _provide_ a method by which clever and points-savings builds can be constructed.  The finite nature of character points makes that system more attractive, and thus actively encourages players to find those clever builds.
 
  I find there are two other equally-important purposes of points, such as controlling the progression of the character (it is a rare and ancient character who has the points to buy some of everything, and frankly, the roll-your-own Skills System makes skills effectively infinite anyway, adding in a double-layer of impossible (which can be completely removed by the inclusion of Power Pools and Skill Pools, meaning that with these two constructs alone, you _can_ start with everything.  The fact that most people don't is a testement to them).  Players must pick and choose where to spend their points, either spending them in tiny amounts here and there as they trickle in or saving and budgeting for larger more expensive purposes that won't be possible if they continue to spend points as they earn them.
 
The third critical function of character points, as I see it, is control over the character's development.  In level-based games, there is typically a list of specific boons assigned to a character as he passes from level to level.  In use-to-improve games, characters may advance in skills or abikities that they have successfully used X amount of times-- in some, they may get rusty and lose abilities that have gone unused for too long.
 
In points-buy games, though, the player is at all times in charge of the directions in which his character grows: he will buy or improve those abilities he wishes his character to possess, and not those which he doesn't find appropriate for the character as he sees him to be.
 
 
 
 
This is also something I agree with, though understand that this is a minority and largely unpopular opinion, as most of us old folks (not all) have spent forty years believing and trying to prove the exact opposite.
 
 
 
 
Yes.  I believw we all see that.  What seems to be less-popular to discuss is that other than cumulative targetting penalties, the rules as the exist don't stop a character with 38 guns from attempting to shoot his target with all thirty-eight guns (there is the fall back in "common sense," but that is easily countered with the fallback "dramatic sense," but bear with me here)--
 
There is nothing in the rules to stop a character with thirty weapons from using all thirty--   _nor should there be_.
 
A character can buy sixteen powers and attack a single target with all sixteen powers.
 
A character can buy sixteen foci (without the doubling thing) attacks and use all sixteen of them against a single target.
 
Why?  Because the guy who bought his individual powers as innate non-focused abilities can do it, so the guy who bought his  focused powers individually should be able to do it.
 
The problem is not the number of attacks that can be brought to bear.  The problem is the focus exception.  Even if both character bought identical powers- one through foci and one through innate ability- the character with the foci is enjoying a cost reduction (for the risk), but his power performs in all ways like that of the other character.
 
The innate powers character cannot get double the powers for five points.  The focus guy can.  Effectively, the focus discount gets deeper and deeper.
 
Now someone mentioned innate powers guy being able to fire his innate attack numerous times; I don't know if that applies to the sweep-one-guy maneuver or not, but if it doesn't, then why does he not have access to what the focus guy does?
 
We went through a similar thing years ago, and now we can haymaker fireball.  That argument made way less sense (why can't my energy blast behave like his punch does?) than "if I can have two 16d6 hand cannons for five extra points, why can't I have an extra 10d6 optic blast for 5 pts?"
 
 
 
 
 
That depends, to me, on what the player feels to be the purpose of that / those additional weapons.  If it is for the purpose of two-weapon fighting or handing off to someone else every now and again, or some periodic usage or anticipated even- even to scavenge parts should the original take damage-  well, I have no problem with that.
 
If the player sees it as a way to neutralize or mitigate the odds of losing access to the weapon- that is, he knows that every now and again, it will be stolen, inoperative, or something to justify the focus limitation and rebate, but his intention is pull one of the backups from thin air when he loses access to the original....
 
Well, no.  I do not find that to be an acceptable use of this adder.  Doctor Toybox wants to build a wind up tin duckie that walks around and spits thirty bullets from its mouth.  That's cool.  He wants to be able to spill thirty of them from a burlap sack--  that's a great use for this x2 adder.
 
 
 
Henchman, one thousand lucky glancing blows, one thousand "oops!  I foegot to wind it!"  Whatever.  Though for disarming, at what point does the henchman have to make a search roll to get them all?  How many are left if he fails?
 

 
 
 
 
I feel the same way-   I tend to think this was derived from double locarions and increased Noncombat speeds and such as that and would be used to stock an Amory of mundane weapons (because there are those people for whom- no matter how tthey feel about points as a balancing tool, find determining the total points cost of everyrhing in ther universe and the DEF and BODY of all physical things from starships to mildew-resistant drywall to be its own kind of minigame, (I went through a devase of this myself, early on.  I don't play rules-light, but eventually a light bulb comes on that reminds me 'i need the range and damage dor the slingshot, but  the cost of a 1d plus STR item will never be of consequence)  even in genres where points are not actually paid.  And, as suggested, it just got out of hand.
 
Just one opinion, of course, and worth every penny you paid for it.
 
 
 
 
Right, and heading toward a more correct (for certain opinionated values of correct, admittedly) solution to boot!
 
 
 
 
And that is where I believe this should be-- if the goal is a workaround for being deprived of the item under all but the most extraordinary of circumstances-- the ultimate back-up weapon-- then the build should be an inaccessible focus.  If the goal is to be almost impossible to be deprived, then the build should not be a focus at all, but an appropriate (and maybe even reasonable) special effect:  "what?  I am so groggy....  Why am I tied to a chair?  Wait!  Where is my knife?  Where is my rifle?  Gone!  They have taken them!  Well, it's a good thing they didnt know about the Kalishnikov I swallowed earlier!  Now to induce vomitting.....")
 
 
 
 
 
 
What's good for the energy-projecting goose is good for the fun-toting gander.
 
Just like what's good for the haymakering pugilist brick was determined to be good for the energy-projecting gander.
 
 
 
 
 
Agreed-- provided the player knows in no uncertain terms that this does not make him immune to being deprived of the gun.
 
 
 
 
There is more I would like to hash, but I have had this pulled up for three days to get this far.
 
Noone be offended, please, as it is not personal to anyone, but I think it is once again time for me to keave these boards for a while.  I just dont have the time of late, and have been kind of forcing it into my schedule, which really drops the enjoyment factor.
 
 
Thanks to all!
 
 

Depends on players.  Some don't care for the mechanics and just want to play something without hard set restrictions like a D&D class.  But yes, for some mechanics is a feature for sure.

I am not sure really if I would say it was to "make them feel clever"  but more that you have to have SOME baseline.  Since points are the currency of creation, they use that.
 
To truely "balance" things for HERO, the GM has to set the baseline points.  Set the guidelines for CV, AP, DEF and Skills.  Then ALSO carefully work with each player to go over concept and build to look for any potential issue.   Finally, they have to reserve the right to require players change something if it proves to be abusive.   Or at least adjust and adapt with the GM.   It is an ongoing process.

I cant say I am strict on it; as a 2e player, I don't ever encounter it.  Even if I were to go forward, I don't know that I actually care enough to have a firm opinion.   How can I say this?  I am the guy who has spent a lot of time trying to get folks to understand why points do not equal balance and why the "you get what you pay for" mantra is incorrect specifically because points don't create, measure, or enforce balance.
 
However, I am content being in a miniscule minority with that opinion.  I am, however, trying to subtly point out that this is a great example of points don't relate at all to balance, and just like the Normal Characterisitcs Maxims debates of days gone by, this five-point doubling thing is a great way to get "free" disadvantage points.  Like most rules-lawyering, it is not perfect, and is a little screwy, but let's take a look at the majority opinion on foci:
 
You are taking a cost discount with the understanding that you may (or can or should) be deprived of it now and again (or with some sort of regularity).
 
If you spend half of the discount of 5-point doublings to create fifteen back-ups, the odds that you are going to be deprived of this thing are considerably lower, and you still get that discount
 
 
Again-  I dont care either way; I just find that given the majority opinion on foci, the overall positive reception of this idea is a bit of a surprise.
 
Whatever it is called now: combined, multi, sweep, Death's Head Panoply-- whatever; the ability to unload all of your similar attacks at a single target does not have restrictions that prevent you from firing thirty-two pistols at a single target.  For an extra twenty-five points, you can have those thirty-two pistols.  There are assessed penalties, but if I was going to get this squirrelly, I could spend fifteen point for eight pistols and some more points for hyper-specific skill levels like "only with this one model of Beretta pistols" or "only with Death Blossom maneuver" and still be startlingly more effective than easily half the other people at the table.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the reasons above and more, I am not convinced it should be anything but a feature of certain powers, and not some sort of universal fits-all add-on.
 
 
 
Each additional focus is an individual and separate thing.  "Identical" does not deny that they are separate,  as the rules state that for 5 points you can have twice as many, you are still buying them and they are still individual things.
 
 
 
There is no reason non-ultra Multipowers are not valid.  If I have three similar types of attack in a Multipower and that multipower is constructed in such a way that I can to at least some degree use all three of them, then I can do so.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Agreed.
 
 
 

Thinking a little more on it, the 5 point doubling rule really feels like a Special Rule that would apply to specific types of games but should not be used universally.   This is in part because of how much 5 points means depending on the point totals of a character.
 
A superheroic character with 400 points could use the 5pt Doubling rule to get a silly number of various gear items, to the point where the Focus, Charges and other limitations stop being a limitation.   At this level 5 point investments are rather cheap.
 
A heroic level character for say, Dark Champions or the like have much less points to work with 175/250 range  (if I remember right)  and while in many campaigns their equipment would be 'free' and only require money not character points, if they did have to buy gear then 5pt for getting a second sword or gun is more fair.  Especially when you consider it is a considerably more significant investment for the character.   While they could still buy the same silly numbers of the items as superheroic characters could, they would be investing a significant percentage of their character points to do so.
 
Personally I am not sure I like the doubling rule,  mostly because it is so fixed cost for so variable of an effect.   You have a 3 real point cost Focus and want to double it?  5 points.....    you have a 150 real point cost Focus and want to double it?  5 points....   It just feels like a house rule for a specific playstyle that was made official but does not scale well to all games.