Falling from Great Heights

[El Mahdi]

Because you are insisting that the game be changed to suit your tastes. That's why it bothers me. If I repeatedly insisted that Battlemechs be added to the rules, complete with classes, equipment and in-game justifications for their existence, would that be reasonable?

I certainly don't think so. Battlemechs have never really had much of a place in D&D and I probably wouldn't want to see them built into the game. It would make too many other things difficult. It screws with the game balance too much to have 50 foot tall plasma wielding mecha firing guided missiles in the game.

Unless you're playing Rifts. But, that's a bit of a different animal.

I'm not insisting that the game be changed. I'm insisting that with the innovative design goals of D&D Next, supporting all of these things is now possible by adding them in the form of modules. To let this opportunity go by without even trying...that would just be heartbreakingly sad. If you don't like those modules, don't use them. But complaining that my modules are going to mess up your game, when modules like what I'm talking about are already being discussed and designed, seems like an exercise in futility on your part. The core is going to be designed with the use of modules in mind. There's simply no escaping that.

Also, D&D did do Mechs, Plasma Weapons, and Guided Missiles...and did them well. They were called D20 Modern, Future, and Star Wars SAGA. They do mix and match quite well with D&D, which they were based off of. It's not impossible, not even that difficult, and doesn't overly strain the core system in the least. I don't believe having realistic modular mechanics will overly strain or alter the core system, and definitely not to the point where you can't play your game.

But, you're insisting that we should build into the game a baseline that has never been part of the game before and doing so in the name of being "inclusive" of other playstyles. Well, it's true that it is inclusive of other playstyles, but, somehow building in elements into the game which have never existed before, not to fix any perceived problems with the existing mechanics, but simply to cater to a segment of gamers that have been never been catered to before doesn't really seem like a good plan to me.

Yes, I am insisting exactly that, and have been insisting exactly that for years. Apparently Monte and Company agree. That ship has already sailed.

Not when doing so will make the game that has always been supported in every edition, virtually impossible.

This is a massive assumption, one which is not supported by any fact (at least not yet). I'd suggest waiting until one actually sees the game before "flipping out".

...But, you cannot have everyday heroes and zero to hero in the same set of rules. It just doesn't work. The end goals are too different.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I know this is simply not true. You feel just as strongly that it is true. Neither of us is going to convince the other differently.

It's not a case of being biased here. It's recognizing that NO version of D&D has ever done what you're suggesting. To build that into the baseline assumptions of the game would be a radical shift for the entire system. D20 as it is, does a very poor job of doing what you want. E6 is a prime example of this. To make D20 do what you're suggesting, E6 ejects well over 2/3rds of the game.

It is a bias, but no more of a bias than I have. I believe this is possible, and no better time to do this than with the system that's been proposed. I really do think that this edition has a strong chance of being everything I've always wanted out of D&D, and also being what a very large percentage of other D&D fans have always wanted out of D&D, and still being exactly what you want out of D&D. However, only time will tell.

Hey, I get having wish lists. I do. There's all sorts of things I'd like to see in D&D. But, let's be realistic about this. I'm REALLY unlikely to get zone based combat rules as opposed to grid based or non-grid based. It's just not going to happen and I know that. I know that because zone based mechanics are FAR too far away from the simulationist veneer that people insist is part of D&D.

I would put your ideas in the same category. Great idea. Fun game. Not going to happen.

On the contrary, I see this edition as the perfect one for the inclusion of a Zone module. I'd absolutely love to see that. I thought The Dresden Files game had a good implementation of this, and [MENTION=13650]AeroDm[/MENTION] 's ideas broadened it significantly as a feasible add-on for 4E. I think 5E wold be the perfect vehicle for this. That's something you should definitely propose over on the WotC boards, or when the Open Playtesting begins.

That's a damn good idea there, Hussar.

 

[YRUSirius]

Okay, well, if it's simply down to arbitrary events that you want to do far more damage than others, how can that be handled with anything but a completely arbitrary game system?

How can that be handled? By a DM.

Fact is: you *want* to believe D&D is realistic, although it is not, by any means. So when you see something you feel it is not realistic, like falling 100' and surviving, you rule it out, which is fine if that suits your style. When you find some other thing that isn't realistic, but that you CANT rule out because it simply destroys the game playability (like dragons instantly killing any human sized character they bite), your brain take the option to selectively blind yourself instead. You rationalize it, you skip it, you simply look to other side and prettend the incoherence is not there. But that's false, it's selective blindness.

Yeah, it's called suspension of disbelief for the greater good of playability. EVERY rule in D&D can be bend like you did. NOTHING in D&D is realistic. It's a GAME. It's not a theory of everything.



Then tell me, triqui, where do YOU draw the line? When does your suspension of disbelief stop working? When do YOU think something shouldn't be survivable? A singularity? Or should heroes survive a black hole too?

-YRUSirius

(Btw, are you mainly a DM or mainly a player?)

 

[triqui]

Yeah, it's called suspension of disbelief for the greater good of playability. EVERY rule in D&D can be bend like you did. NOTHING in D&D is realistic. It's a GAME. It's not a theory of everything.

I bolded the important part for me. Just to point, I did not bent ANY rule. It's you who are trying to convolute then. "snatch" rule is clear. "crash" rule is clear. "grab" rule for T-Rex are clear. The Dragon DOES crash on you, the T-Rex DOES bite you with his giant jaw. The str 15 fighter with a falchion coupdegracing you DID try to decapitate you executing style. It's your brain the one that is not able to accept it and try to veil through some half-baked rationalizing excuses, not me bending the rules. The rules are clear.

Then tell me, triqui, where do YOU draw the line? When does your suspension of disbelief stop working? When do YOU think something shouldn't be survivable? A singularity? Or should heroes survive a black hole too?

I stoped to worry about suspension of disbelief when I managed to learn that it's a game. The heroes are bound to the game rules, and that's it. They don't die when they fall 100', because Batman does not die when he falls 100' either.

Something is not survivable, when it does more damage than your PC has hit points. 100' fall is lethal for a lvl 1 fighter, but not for a lvl 10 one. Just like a T-Rex bite is lethal for a lvl 1 fighter but not for a lvl 10 one. This is D&D. It's not realistic, never have been. Realistic humans can't survive a dragon tail slap. I no longer try to delude myself with that.

Btw, in D&D, heroes CAN survive worm-hole type singularities (retributives strikes and portable hole/bag of holding combos), although not black holes (sphere of annihilation artifact) But if the Sphere of annihilation says it does 200 damage, and your character has 201, he will survive, and I'm fine with it. Just like he survives a partial desintegration.

(Btw, are you mainly a DM or mainly a player?)

Mainly DM. Currently a player, until we finish a Pathfinder AP.

 

[YRUSirius]

Okay, the fronts have been cleared, I'm out of this conversation.

We both agree that it's a game and every group has a different style of genre they want to emulate with their rules. You can accomplish this with pretty easy rules if you want (if you fall in lava you die etc.) - heroic or gritty.

I'll move forward. Bye.

-YRUSirius

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Regarding modular design:

Okay, everyone saying "there's a module for that^TM" or "just throw it in a module and we'll be fine"? Modular design just Does Not Work That Way.

Modular design implies a solid core to which modules are added that can add to or modify this core. Modular design also implies that modules do not modify other modules or change the core such that other modules become incompatible. Video game DLC is a good example of this: You can add a module to Mass Effect 1 to give you some new missions, but (A) you can't add another module to Mass Effect 1 that modifies that other DLC, since you can't guarantee that people will have that other one, and (B) you can't turn ME1 into ME2 with some DLC, you need to rewrite the game from scratch.

That's essentially what's being asked for here, rewriting the game from scratch with a module. Even if you can make a module that technically makes all of the necessary changes in and of itself, the consequences of that change will affect other modules. To use the ME example, ME1 has all of your powers on different cooldown timers while ME2 has them all on the same timer. It's pretty trivial to change ME1 to use a universal cooldown--I could probably do it myself with 3-4 lines of code--but doing so changes tactics, enemies, difficulty curves, and the metagame almost beyond recognition. If you want a universal cooldown, you have to build that into the game, and ME2's combat system is quite different as a result.

In the same way, you can trivially write a single paragraph describing the changes you need to make to HP to make them more realistic. Drop them by 3/4, or remove Con bonuses, or whatever it is that reduces them to a satisfactory level. But then enemies change difficulty (you can't survive higher-level monster unless they're rewritten), tactics change (a bunch of 1st-level crossbowmen can take out PCs...and everything else under the sun), the metagame changes (martial types have a much smaller comparative HP advantage, so defense becomes much more important than offense and thus the favored builds and strategies change), and so forth. To be able to have both traditional and gritty mechanics available with one standard and one in a module, the core has to be built to be able to handle both of them, and that will in fact impact the quality of both systems even if the traditional people and the gritty people use zero modules in common.

And yes, I know Monte has said that they're taking D&D Next in this exciting new direction to a magical land where modular design totally works that way and the game can be everything to everyone. I've interned before for people who have said that yes, they can totally take this buggy software platform written by a different team and make it work to specifications within the 1-week deadline. PR people can say whatever they want, and aim for whatever goals they wish, but that doesn't mean it will actually work, or that if it does work it actually pleases people. I mean, look at the 4e announcements: plenty of people were clamoring for better martial abilities and simpler combat maneuvers and ritual magic and other things, and loved what they saw in the previews, and yet when the full game came out many of those people hated it despite the fact that all of those design goals were fulfilled.

-----------------------------------------------------

Regarding suspension of disbelief:

Internal consistency and realism are different things. It is not realistic that you can expect survive roughly 1 sword to the gut for every 2-3 levels you have, but it is internally consistent, because it is observable in-game, it works that way for everyone, and the implications of this are taken into account. Both PCs and players can make plans and decisions based on this information and won't be surprised at the outcome, because that's the way the game physics work. It would be realistic to suppose that lava and falls instantly kill people, but it would not be internally consistent if those same people routinely survive fires hotter than lava and blunt force trauma more lethal than those falls. If a 10-ton weight falling on you kills you but a bite that conveys more than 10 tons of force doesn't, you can't assess threats accurately or plan around various factors of the game world.

Suspension of disbelief works fine as long as the world is internally consistent. Many people easily suspended disbelief about the Force in Star Wars, because the explanation of it, its power, and its wielders was internally consistent...until Episode I, when they tried to explain that the Force comes from microorganisms, and that replacement of magic with biology broke many peoples' suspension of disbelief even though it's technically more realistic to attempt to give a scientific explanation for the Force. Action-movie or comic-book physics aren't realistic in the slightest, but are plenty consistent, to the point that you can tell how plots will play out (the Joker will survive again and escape Arkham Asylum again...) because they're fairly formulaic, and if you tell someone that a world or game operates on comic-book physics they can easily grasp what you mean and play along.

DM fiat is not the best way to achieve internal consistency and thereby achieve suspension of disbelief. In fact, it is a terrible way to do so: DM fiat in other media is better known as deus ex machina, and it is generally regarded as a terrible way to resolve things because it happens regardless of whatever other rules of the world have already been established. In Doctor Who, you get plots all the time where something happens and is "fixed in time" and can never ever ever be changed, and then later on the Doctor goes and changes it anyway because *mumble mumble wibbly wobbly timey wimey*. It's usually entertaining because of the technobabble and humor and flashy effects, but if you tried to do the same thing in a game ("The BBEG is immune to fire and lives in a volcano. Just kidding, fire is his special weakness because plot.") the players would rightly complain that it makes no sense and really screws with their perception of the world.

In some games (i.e. not D&D) a T-Rex is a threat to everyone. In some games (i.e. not D&D) a freakin' disintegration ray is instant death for everyone. In other games (i.e. D&D) this isn't the case. Games of both kinds come with certain expectations, and changing those expectations arbitrarily by DM fiat mid-game (or even stating before hand "some things will insta-kill you for realism's sake" without outlining every case) just isn't a good strategy and is certainly no way to design a complex rules-heavy game like D&D.

 

[triqui]

Okay, the fronts have been cleared, I'm out of this conversation.

We both agree that it's a game and every group has a different style of genre they want to emulate with their rules. You can accomplish this with pretty easy rules if you want (if you fall in lava you die etc.) - heroic or gritty.

I'll move forward. Bye.

-YRUSirius

Never said you can't have heroic or gritty rules. You can let people die when they fall. You can also kill people that fall, and let them survive dragons that crush on them, but at the cost of in-game coherence.

What you can't is to claim that your system make "common sense" and other's (like the regular RAW d&d) don't, because it has t-rex sized dragons chewing people that don't die. And that's not common sense, at all.

 

[fenriswolf456]

For the PCs, to be skilled enough to be a threat means you are a high level NPC, something that common town guards or country bandits are not.

And how do they know this? If they fought them before (say at a lower level in the past), then sure, they have in-game experience and can judge based off of that. Otherwise, they are meta-gaming based on the assumption that all town guards are 3rd level (for example). But if you're traipsing through the woods when you're suddenly surrounded by 12 armed bandits you've never seen before, with crossbows raised and ready, should the characters not take pause?

And, again, from where do you derive that high level PCs are unresilient otherwise normal mortal being?

Because that's a reasonable base assumption? All characters start this way. Sure, characters could end up with magic or abilities to change their nature as they level, to become resilient to damage. But it could be argued just as easily that they don't get those magic items or choose those abilities/powers/feats as they level.

The same could be said for a 4 years old kid, that could be a polymorphed red wyrm. Nonetheless you wrote that 0 level peasants wouldn't consider him to be a threat.

Why would they? It's a 4 year old kid to them. Unless they know it's a dragon in disguise. And unless it's a world of 4-year olds ripping people's throats out, they just won't be considered a threat. But in a world where arrows do kill, from 1st to 30th level, how can PCs not end up treating a dozen aimed arrows at them to not be any kind of threat? I'm not saying they should cower in fear, or run away, and the PCs will most likely risk injury and death to fight them, but this doesn't mean that such a threat isn't there or not in the character's minds.

Are you saying that being hit by a crossbow bolt in your arm couldn't kill you?

No, but I wouldn't say anyone instantly dies from such a hit (I could be wrong on this count, as I have never come face-to-face with heavy body trauma before). Plus if we're talking skilled PCs here, they should be making those dramatic hits, rather than having all their opponents bleed-out (which by RAW would have to be on-going damage anyway).

As for PCs ... well, that's what Death Saves are about.

In 3.5 you can have a guy who can lift 200 lb over his head (Str 15) armed with a dagger, and a sleeping (and even tied) PC in front of him.

Well, if this strong guy would execute a coup de grace on the helpless PC, he would roll 2d4+4 damage for the automatic critical hit.
That means a DC of the Fort save for the PC being 10 + [2.5x2 + 4 (Str modx2)] = 19.

Even newbies play 20th level barbarians who could make a succesful Fort save with that DC with a success rate of 95%.

Now, are you seriously going to say that such a coup de grace could result in a graze or near miss?

Coup de grace rules have always been one of the unbelievable aspects of the game to me. And it's akin to the original topic of this thread.

And no, of course it wouldn't be a graze. By all rights, the characters should be auto-killed, or at least on their way to dying. This is one of the extreme cases where the general rules don't work to create a believable framework, unless you somehow find 20 throat cuts to be at all believable.

In the midst of combat, I can at least sort of buy the CdG rule, since the creature delivering the blow is in a threatening situation, even if not immediately threatened by an enemy. The blow is certainly heavy, but not necessarily deadly enough as the deliverer has to concern itself with everything going on around it.

But, by your words, no arrow shot would ever hit them in their heads, or heart, or other vital point, unless the PCs are already being hit several times (i.e., the shot is the killing one).

How is that coherent or believable?

Because for me it's a lot more believable than a character taking 5 arrows to the heart and still running around and fighting as fresh as a daisy.

And it's a trope in nearly every action movie out there. The heroes are constantly missed/grazed, even by the "deadly precise stormtroopers". It may pushing the bounds of believability at times, but it doesn't prevent us from accepting it.

Well, I can in no way suspend my belief if the PCs are so outrageously lucky that every single victory they attain is due to sheer luck/divine intervention.

And by skill, and teamwork, and intelligent tactics, and powerful spells and abilities. Luck and fate play only a part in the whole. I've never said otherwise (or at least meant to imply otherwise).

1) what if my players don't like to play PCs who are blessed by this "predestination" profile this approach implies?

Tough? No-one gets to choose their fate, and the gods bless whom they please, whether they want it or not. And luck is tied into the entire base mechanics in the game, in every die roll we make.

If your players want your HPs to be simply how much meat you have on you, go ahead, it's certainly possible to play with that assumption. But don't take away the fact that the base assumption is and has always been that HPs do encompass all these other intangible qualities. Some of us have always played with HPs being this way.

2) the number of deadly menaces a standard adventurer faces in his career would make him look more like Gladstone Gander or Nedward Flanders;

It is quite amazing that this group of (likely) disparate people just happened to get together at just the right time to face these menaces, in the nick of time, and triumphed over every obstacle they ever faced.

3) if the Pc doesn't know what he can do (since everything he achieved was due to sheer luck/divine intervention), what can he plan?

How can he know if a mission is too hard to accomplish?

How can assess the risks involved, if every single deadly attack in his life missed him thanks to luck/divine intervention?

Again, luck and fate are only parts of the whole. Of course a character knows what they can do. And I never said that these attacks miss, they obviously didn't, as that's a facter of THAC0/Defenses.

But how do you say that the heroes take a dozen deadly blows? Deadly implies, well, death is soon to follow. Otherwise, well, I guess the blow wasn't that deadly after all. Perhaps they ducked that deadly blow to the head and took it in the shoulder by instint and skill, or were lucky, or fate has other plans.

And I'm not against the tough hero at all. I enjoy the combat system that allows me to emulate such things. I don't want PCs to die in one blow, as that is not my idea of the fun I want when I play D&D. But seeing as we don't have an injury system or any sort of penalty for being heavily beat up, it's hard (for me at least) to consider that the characters are taking hits like Boromir did at his death and not be adversely affected in a meaningful way, as he certainly was.

But that doesn't mean I want things to be beyond the bounds of my believability. And I realize this is a differing concept amongst gamers.

If he opts to face hundreds of deadly menaces thinking about how lucky he was before, either he's basing his decision on the "metagame rules" you despise, or he's simply outrageously silly.

No, just like any living, breathing person, a PC should base their decisions on what they believe they are capable of, and how they perceive what's in front of them. Boiling water hurts, I'm not going to stick my hand in that pot. Arrows to the face can kill, maybe I should appraise the situation carefully.

Because yes, I agree, basing things purely on luck is very silly. Case in point, my group faced a white dragon recently, and it was a total cakewalk, mainly because the DM rolled one entire hit on us in the combat. But we're not suddenly going to think that the next dragon we come across will be as easy. Simularly, we're not going to assume the next group of guards with bows aimed at us will be a stroll through the park, even though as players and gamers, we know we have the health and healing surges to survive 4 or 5 encounters.

 

[fenriswolf456]

Cover? Really? This is going to be your excuse? That they have shields? So, this entire conversation about 20 archers on the walls can be negated if I carry a shield? If you stroll back into the thread, the point was that the PC's, caught in the open at the foot of the walls of the castle, should be threatened by a handful of archers.

But, hey, they've got shields! No problem, they can laugh at 20 archers now.

In D&D terms, they don't hide behind cover. Shields don't give cover. They just have a very high AC naked and wearing a Shield, and arrows miss.

Well, as we've seen, it's not really possible to equate every single action in movies to a game that has nothing to do with it. I suppose we could discuss the D&D movies, but I shudder at the concept.

But sure, we can try. Why can't the shields be considered cover in this instance? They hide entirely behind them, not just holding it out in front of them to deflect some incoming blows (which is usually how it's represented as AC). And it's clear that multiple arrows are hitting the shields but not piering through, as cover would suggest.

Or you could say they all took Full Defensive actions to increase their AC, and that out of dozens of rolls, not a single natural 20 was rolled.

And in the case of 300, the 'blot out the sun' attack was volleys, not aimed shots. We see aimed shots and their effects at the end of the movie, where their naked + shield AC isn't enough. So the 20 archers on the walls seems to stand up. And I highly doubt that a group of PCs would be all using shields. In my last 3 groups, I think we've had 2 shield-bearers total, with 0 for 6 in the current group (well, maybe the Warlord, I honestly don't remember, as he works from range).

What I can never understand though is when people have very strong playstyle differences with D&D, why they insist on playing D&D. It's not 1985 anymore. There's a bajillion well supported and fantastic games out there that will already DO what you want. Warhammer Fantasy sounds a lot closer to what you're looking for. D20 certainly doesn't. Why do people cling so hard to D&D?

Familiarity, nostalgia, wanting to have a set of rules that at least seem familiar, rather than trying and learn new systems. Maybe just not realizing what other games are out there, or perhaps lack of availability/support. And who's to say there's a playstyle difference not found in D&D? I play D&D more zero-to-hero style, and I can see how people can play editions with a more super-heroic playstyle. Neither is strictly wrong for D&D, it's a matter of what people find fun.

I myself tried Warhammer, and it didn't suit my tastes, despite liking the general idea. MERP and Pendragon and Game of Thrones are too situated in their source material, and don't have the scope of variety that D&D offers. Palladium had interesting characters, but the system is rather broken for me. Never got into GURPS. I haven't really looked into many others, due to time. I've been wanting to give Anima a looksee, but I'm doubtful we'd get a group together for that over D&D which we all now know.

So I don't really see a problem with people who have enjoyed a system wanting to see potential in the next iteration of it so that they can continue to play it.

 

[triqui]

Well, as we've seen, it's not really possible to equate every single action in movies to a game that has nothing to do with it. I suppose we could discuss the D&D movies, but I shudder at the concept.

But sure, we can try. Why can't the shields be considered cover in this instance?

Don't know about you, but if I ask my DM, while standing still in the middle of a Plain "can I have a cover bonus?", his answer will be no.

They hide entirely behind them, not just holding it out in front of them to deflect some incoming blows (which is usually how it's represented as AC). And it's clear that multiple arrows are hitting the shields but not piering through, as cover would suggest.

Some people would argue that you *need* to use the shield to get some bonus from it. But whatever, yes, it might be represented as full defensive action. That's like +4 AC in most D&D editions, I think. They are still *impervious* to it. Not only they don't get damaged... they aren't scared about it at all either. Same goes with Braveheart similar scene. And that is about what this debate is going around for a couple of pages already. That some people find "unbelieveable" that a group of high level fighters fo against 12+ archers /crossbowmen and do not surrender, because they would be "metagaming".

Leonidas is not metagaming. He is just plain badass. He is brave, impervious. He *knows* for sure that he is heads and shoulders above those self-called inmortals. He is not going to just give up and surrender only because the DM Dario thinks it's cool, and he is for sure not going to let a few thousands arrows to intimidate him.

So he stands still there, and just laugh at the thousand arrows becouse he has very high AC, and a ton of HP

And in the case of 300, the 'blot out the sun' attack was volleys, not aimed shots. We see aimed shots and their effects at the end of the movie, where their naked + shield AC isn't enough. So the 20 archers on the walls seems to stand up. And I highly doubt that a group of PCs would be all using shields. In my last 3 groups, I think we've had 2 shield-bearers total, with 0 for 6 in the current group (well, maybe the Warlord, I honestly don't remember, as he works from range).

No, but they have armor . Of the magically enhanced kind. Some of them have shield spells, or magic vestments. Others are able to evade fireballs and have uncanny dodge abilities.

 

[fenriswolf456]

I agree about the multiple elements of HP's, but I disagree that specific situations need to have which bits of of HP applie, picked out for each situation. I also don't agree that such a thing would be impractical though. It's already been done with Fatigue.

Well, depends on how into the details you get. Sure, HP and Fatigue are easy enough to track. But do we want there to be a Morale value, and Luck, and Fate, and so on? I too am fine with the abstraction of HP for most instances. But I fail to see how say Skill and Fatigue play a part in being tied up and helpless and having someone stabbing your neck.

But I also agree that a lot of these things are more cornercase concerns, and during the bulk of play, abstracted HP are perfectly fine for getting the job done. But they do crop up and at times break the believability factor.

Also, a game with potentially auto-kill falls may not be fun for you, but it is fun for me.

Fun is a variable concept and purely subjective. No other person, nor a rule system, can define what I feel is fun.

True enough. I was speaking more from the current design directions, where 4E took virtually all the 'save-or-die' and auto-kill effects out. Though I'm in the 'falls should be deadly' camp.

I disagree. We may not be, when we includes you; but there are some who do like to play a style such as "Storm Trooper #5". "We" play D&D a lot of different ways. Also, Luke and Leia have the force, so yes, they aren't ordianary hero's (despite Luke's farmboy beginnings). But Han is absolutely an Ordinary Hero. He has no special abilities, no magical force to protect him, no massive amount of Hit Points...just the guts to dare things that others don't. Those guts are something that D&D does not, and has never, quantified. Yet there it is. The character of Han actually proves my point...

Sure, I'm not saying you couldn't play Storm Trooper #5. But if you're playing with D&D core rules, then your Strom Trooper is levelling, and getting better, and maybe becomes and Imperial Elite Guard at paragon, or multiclasses into a TIE Pilot. I suppose you could play where ST5 is always just a mook, and quickly dies, and you pull out ST6 to continue on with, and so on.

My point is that the vast majority of D&D players will be playing the heroes, and the heroes have a certain spark in them that lets them rise above the rabble. Luke is clearly a zero-to-hero type. And after a few levels he's got a magic sword, some neat-o magical abilities, a faithful companion, a high rank in an army, and so on. As for Han, he may be ordinary, but he's still a hero. He's more skilled than a regular mook trooper for a start. He's pretty much the sci-fi equivalent to how I envision most fighters and rogues and other 'mundane' martial characters.