General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Actually, it is just as in 3E. If you increase natural healing, Wizards get healed to full health faster then Fighters. Is that what you'd want? For verisimilitude? For balance? For gampeplay? "Hey, Fighters, get off your lazy ass, Mr.Wizard is already fit to blast his enemies".
If the party was waiting until everyone was at full, what difference would it make if X recovered at Y-1, and Z recovered at Y? If you wanted to, you could just as easily say "All remaining damage to all characters is healed after the passage of X days/hours/minutes." Whatever it is you want. Fast healing is laughably easy to set up in D&D 0 to 3.5. Hecek, in 3.0 and 3.5, you can even use the "Fast Healing" quality, adding it to all PCs or all creatures....whatever it is you want.
Quote:
Speaking of Wizards - what if I'd see spell levels recovering over night as stupid or bad for my game? How would you change the spell recovery rates?
In the case of wizards, spells recover after 8 hours of rest, plus study time, so you have specific numbers you can play with quite easily. For "24-hour" types, like clerics, you just need to use the wizard paradigm and say "4 hours rest," "two hours rest", etc.
This is really, really simple to do in D&D versions 0 to 3.5. I am rather surprised that you would think otherwise?
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
If the party was waiting until everyone was at full, what difference would it make if X recovered at Y-1, and Z recovered at Y? If you wanted to, you could just as easily say "All remaining damage to all characters is healed after the passage of X days/hours/minutes." Whatever it is you want. Fast healing is laughably easy to set up in D&D 0 to 3.5. Hecek, in 3.0 and 3.5, you can even use the "Fast Healing" quality, adding it to all PCs or all creatures....whatever it is you want.
If time is of the essance, sometimes you can't wait for everyone to be at 100% and have to make due with some people at like 80-90%
Plus like mustrum says... why should it take the guy who's in peak physical condition longer then the weakling mage to heal up?
I agree the better way to do it would be to tie it to the endurance skill.
The first is a bruising of the brain, the second a lack of oxygen to the brain, both of which are/or cause damage and thus what I consider to be injuries. YMMV.
Well, yes, and the muscle tears and strained ligaments that come with parrying off an ogre's club rather than letting it crush your fragile human ribcage (but still losing 24 hit points) are also "injuries".
But continuing the potentially inappropriate quantum physics analogies, these are Heisenbergian injuries - to verify that they exist you need to inflict worse damage. They are "below the resolution limit of the observer", if you will.
Quote:
Our group does not go with this interpretation... I play a warlord in our group's 4E campaign and we ruled as a group that Inspiring Word does not work if the target is unconscious.
Well, yes. If you're going to decide that parts of the rules don't apply, the parts of the model that follow from those rules don't apply either.
This is, in fact, my entire problem with the idea that the wounding paradox is integral to 4E - the people who complain that the rules mandate it have already decided that the rules don't mean what they say they do.
FWIW as a data point, none of my groups makes regular use of wands of cure light wounds. We certainly don't craft them or go out of our way to buy them. Nor do we go out of our way to buy potions of healing. (We have gone out of our way to buy a wand of lesser restoration, though.)
As I think about why this may be, the thing that jumps at me is the statement made upthread that the cost for a wand of cure light wounds or potions is trivial ... we really don't consider it to be so. Don't get me wrong, we're quite capable of doing the math; we know that a wand of cure light wounds is the cheapest healing in the game ... except for PCs with healing powers, which is what we rely on.
(In the interest of full disclosure, though: one game (14th level) has a heal-bot radiant servant of Pelor as a cohort, one game (12th level) has two characters with strong healing ability, and one game (12th level) has a spontaneous healer with Augment Healing, and an artificer with a bajillion defensive items that heavily mitigate damage as it's taken.)
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
However, there is a further and more dominant factor here that while not explicit in the rules, is implicit within the context of general gameplay. In the majority of cases in 3E, magical healing is both accessible and often used. This is to the point where I cannot specifically remember a time in a 3.x game I have played where if a character was forced into the negatives, someone did not come along with a magical potion, spell or wand to "save" the character. Because of this, a DM could describe some truly horrible injuries, safe in the knowledge that magical healing was on the way and that the plausability factor of the event would not be undermined (if anything, the horrid injury description would hasten the other PCs to assist).
In 4E though, magical healing is nowhere near as pervasive as it was in 3E. Natural healing is the most common form of healing in 4E. As such, moderation is required in description less the plausibility of the description be undermined. Describe what you want but if it is more than what a PC can recover from whilst returning to unhindered performance in a short space of time, then there will be a disconnect between your description and what is reasonable. As such, in 4E you can never validly describe a character as badly wounded, unless they then die from the injuries (but not until they die).
All told, there is a significant difference between the editions.
I think this is a good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
I don't see how it is relevant that theoretically the Fighter might never get healed in 24 (or 6) hours if on his own, when practically he is never on his own and will be healed by the party's Cleric or other magical healing in short time. What's stopping the sandbox player from using a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or the parties Cleric to get him his hit points back?
<snip>
So, similarly, yeah, theoretically healing should take days or weeks, but people would just use a Cleric or magical items to heal themselves to full hp over a short time period. So, away with that nonsense of slow natural healing. Handwave it, explain it with wounds still visible but overcome by moral or pain resistance, or performing some healing ritual, it doesn't matter, the end effect is the same - the party is up and running the next day, whether you have full hit point recovery as RAW or not.
Or you could fudge it by adding a new, gameplay-neutral ability to clerics (gameplay neutral under the assumption that every party contains a cleric, which seems to have been the norm in earlier editions):
Quote:
Originally Posted by pemerton
If the complaints are really about extended rests, just add the following class feature to Clerics: also automatically learn the 1st level ritual Heal All Wounds, cost free, no skill check required, 10 minutes to perform, after an extended rest the target recovers all healing surges. Now the game plays no differently except every party needs a cleric (or some other ritualist who has payed to learn this ritual).
We have now recreated the verisimilitude of 3E healing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
The designers could have easily fooled you. Using the disease track to make recovering healing surges difficult should be very easy, for example. And then just add a 1st level Ritual that allows people to recover all healing surges if cast before an extended rest. I could now go and defend their system against sandboxers that love mundane healing and discover that just one spell can ruin their fun: "Just don't use the ritual, and you'd be fine, just as you didn't use Clerics or Wands of CLW or Potions in some AD&D and D&D 3E campaigns!"
Plus like mustrum says... why should it take the guy who's in peak physical condition longer then the weakling mage to heal up?
This sounds like a cut & paste question from many of my posts earlier in this thread. To which I imagine we'll get a C&P answer about C&Ping previous answers.
Hit points are awesome!
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
This sounds like a cut & paste question from many of my posts earlier in this thread. To which I imagine we'll get a C&P answer about C&Ping previous answers.
Nah. What would be the point?
Me, I'm just shocked that this thread is still clinging to life. I mean, how many hit points does it have?!?!
Quote:
Hit points are awesome!
Sorry, I have to spread some XP around before I can give them to you again.
May I say that this is a refreshing.....[9th Doctor]and fantastic[/9th Doctor]......way of making the boards seem just that little bit better? Kudos.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Our group does not go with this interpretation... I play a warlord in our group's 4E campaign and we ruled as a group that Inspiring Word does not work if the target is unconscious.
...This is, in fact, my entire problem with the idea that the wounding paradox is integral to 4E - the people who complain that the rules mandate it have already decided that the rules don't mean what they say they do.
How is something that out group has house-ruled pertinent to the discussion here? It is because an unconscious person shouldn't be able to hear a warlord's shouting that we introduced the house rule. Generally if people complain about a "problem", wouldn't you then expect them to do something about it to fix the problem? I believe the discussion and points made in regards to schroedinger's wounding obviously still stand regardless of what our group has house-ruled above and beyond that.
But on that, is it some type of commonsense that I (and my group) are not seeing whereby an unconscious combatant can be stirred to both consciousness and health by having the martial (that is non-magical) warlord "calling out inspiring words of courage and determination"? To us this does not make sense. GlaziusF, I'm sure you could come up with another colourful, imaginative and wonderful explanation for this, that would have me trying to give you experience points again, or alternatively, you may point to the rules that try to muddle around what the "official" definition of unconsciousness is, but to us, a warlord calling out to an ally is just not going to cut the mustard when they're unconscious.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
Herreman, one narration I've heard suggested (can't remember by whom) for healing of an unconscious ally by the warlord is this: that as the ally lies on the ground, having given up the fight, they suddenly remember the warlord, and their duty to him/her and their other allies, and rouse themselves into action. (For a cinematic instance of this, think of Aragorn's recovery from the fall over the cliff in the Two Towers movie.)
Of course, this way of doing it opens up even more the gap between gameworld and mechanics - as the use by the warlord's player of the healing power does not correspond to something that the warlord PC is actually doing in the gameworld at that time - and so may not be attractive to you.
Herreman, one narration I've heard suggested (can't remember by whom) for healing of an unconscious ally by the warlord is this: that as the ally lies on the ground, having given up the fight, they suddenly remember the warlord, and their duty to him/her and their other allies, and rouse themselves into action. (For a cinematic instance of this, think of Aragorn's recovery from the fall over the cliff in the Two Towers movie.)
Of course, this way of doing it opens up even more the gap between gameworld and mechanics - as the use by the warlord's player of the healing power does not correspond to something that the warlord PC is actually doing in the gameworld at that time - and so may not be attractive to you.
Story-wise this is great. I can even imagine my fat agressive slob of a tiefling warlord berating the other PCs that if they fall when he's still up, he'll haunt their dreams for eternity... but as an ongoing repeated happening, this one's going to run a little thin. In the end to accept this healing as working, you either have to come up with a commonsense approach that is repeatable, producing a narrative that doesn't conflict with what's happening (which at the moment I can't), or you just have to shrug the shoulders and say - well that's how it works... um... yeah.
Or, you can do what our group did and say, "hey, while this would be real handy, it doesn't make sense so we'll house rule against it".
Thanks Pemerton anyway for the response, I really appreciate your time and thoughts.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
What I would like to see, instead of a 'repeatable narrative', is for the warlord's player describing a narrative appropriate to the scene...
Until that ideal group of players lands at my table, I think I am stuck with:
or you just have to shrug the shoulders and say - well that's how it works... um... yeah
__________________
"Words take on strange and wonderful powers when they are written down.
Context and intonation disappear, and the words sit in a void to be construed according to the mood, intelligence and socio-political leanings of the reader."
--- Siri Agrell
Fast healing is laughably easy to set up in D&D 0 to 3.5. Hecek, in 3.0 and 3.5, you can even use the "Fast Healing" quality, adding it to all PCs or all creatures....whatever it is you want.
You're missing the point here, I think. The point is, per RAW, the pre-4E healing system produces a ridiculous result. It must produce a ridiculous result, because RAW says it takes a mighty warrior longer to recover from the same wounds as a wimpy wizard. Your suggested solution seems to be: just house rule it away.
But when you see a ridiculous result in 4E's healing, we go on and on and on about it. Why not just house rule it away? You only get a certain proportion of your healing surges back per day of rest, for instance.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
You're missing the point here, I think. The point is, per RAW, the pre-4E healing system produces a ridiculous result. It must produce a ridiculous result, because RAW says it takes a mighty warrior longer to recover from the same wounds as a wimpy wizard. Your suggested solution seems to be: just house rule it away.
No; my suggested solution is that you are misunderstanding what hit points represent. I went into no small amount of detail about the same; no house rules were needed. The "damage" unrecovered by the mighty warrior represents less than 1 hp damage to the wimpy wizard, not because warriors take longer to heal, but because hit points do not have an absolute value.
IOW, especially in 1e, these are explicitly not the same wounds.
OTOH, if you want to change the paradigm presented, you must house rule. And, it is easier to do so in (say) 1e than 3e, or in 3e than 4e. IMHO, of course.
Unlike, say, falling damage in 1e (and etc.), which consistently produces ridiculous results and requires house ruling if you want to avoid them.
Quote:
But when you see a ridiculous result in 4E's healing, we go on and on and on about it. Why not just house rule it away? You only get a certain proportion of your healing surges back per day of rest, for instance.
I have said many, many times upthread that, were there not other problems with 4e that are just as problematical to me, I would do exactly that.
However, I should note that the argument is the result not of an inability to devise houserules where needed, but the inability of some folks to recognize that the RAW might result in ridiculous results in the first place. I.e., the cut & paste-go-round only continues due to the denial that the RAW consistently produces a result where one of the following occurs: (1) players disjoin game mechanics from narration, (2) players do not narrate portions of the game results related to the in-world meaning of damage and/or healing, (3) players retcon narration, or (4) plays accept that ridiculous results will ensue.
AFAICT, every "solution" presented requires either changing the RAW (house-ruling) or dealing with one of the four situations outlined above. Some of the houserule suggestions are good ones, and some playstyles make one or more of the four RAW options above less problematical.
And, out of curiosity, why blame me that "we go on and on and on about it"? You're free to get off the cut & paster -go-round any time you want.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Raven Croewking and Fifth Element step away from the thread, it might not have heard you.
To continue on this path, madness lies and ye'll be cursed to forever haunt the interwebs disputing the relative weight of a hit point between a wizard and a barbarian and the rest of us will have to read it.
I.e., the cut & paste-go-round only continues due to the denial that the RAW consistently produces a result where one of the following occurs: (1) players disjoin game mechanics from narration, (2) players do not narrate portions of the game results related to the in-world meaning of damage and/or healing, (3) players retcon narration, or (4) plays accept that ridiculous results will ensue.
AFAICT, every "solution" presented requires either changing the RAW (house-ruling) or dealing with one of the four situations outlined above.
Gah, this continues to drive me crazy. This seemingly automatic and totally unchallenged assumption that the four options listed above are, essentially, the only ones on the table.
Now, the fifth option I'd propose COULD simply be a subset of your (4) above, but in my opinion, you'd simply be applying the word "ridiculous" in a pretty darn arbitrary manner at that point.
What about:
(5) Players assume that D&D4E takes place in a much more inherently magical world than Earth, every PC is somewhat superheroic and "magical" in some sense, and so the heroes recovering with seemingly-miraculous speed from terrible injuries without requiring the aid of Arcane or Divine spells or items is not a narrative disconnect, but merely a different theme for the game, and a different model of in-world physical reality?
I totally understand that lots of players don't LIKE that kind of world, that kind of narrative, that kind of underlying assumption as to how the D&D fantasy world works, but not liking it doesn't mean that it literally cannot be considered as being what the game is intended to model.
The ONLY argument I've ever seen against that possibility amounts to "Yeah, but I don't want to play that kind of game. I want to play Conan or Lord of the Rings, not The X-Men."
I get that, and more power to you, but that PREFERENCE doesn't totally invalidate the possibility that 4th Edition D&D is built to represent a different sort of fantasy world than you're used to or would prefer.
I'm not asking that anyone embrace that idea, if they don't like it. I just want to see the possibility listed with the others, because if it is, it means that not EVERY choice has to equal an inherent brokenness in the game or a necessary willful choice by players to turn a blind eye to something intrinsically inconsistent.
Of course, you could say, "That's just part of (4), because suggesting that anyone would recover from being disemboweled to being just FINE after a night's rest, or following a rousing pep talk from the Sarge (who has never studied a lick of magic in his life), is plainly ludicrous."
But that's just a personal preference issue in game theme. There's nothing MORE ridiculous about that kind of "fantasy world physics" than any of the other "not congruent with Earth reality" assumptions and tropes which are already widely accepted by gamers and fantasy fiction lovers.
And, in my view, since the game rules as written directly suggest that such IS the way the D&D world actually works, in-game and in-narrative, it's my opinion that the possibility that 4th Edition is, in fact, built around such an assumption of altered reality, and thus contains no actual disconnect between the mechanics and the in-story occurrences.
I'd be MUCH happier to see people saying something like,
"Oh wow, WotC has turned D&D into Marvel Superheroes, and every character is Wolverine now. How lame! The rules are consistent with that in-world narrative reality, so it works as a game system with no need to jump through hoops, thus it isn't actually broken as such. However, I REALLY hate that thematic choice, and feel that it doesn't adequately present the kind of fantasy world and story that I want to play in, or am used to, and I will thus either change the game or not play it. Furthermore, I'm so unhappy about this drastic change to the basic nature of the game world and fantasy style of D&D that I'm going to continue to complain about it here, because it was really such a poor idea,"
instead of,
"There's NO possible way that anyone could EVER intend to tell a fantasy story in which the heroes heal that fast naturally, or in which some non-magic-using mundane guy shouting at your unconscious body suddenly causes a giant axe wound in your chest to close as you jump back to your feet ready to fight. That's just silly. So therefore, D&D 4E is BROKEN and in order to make it work, you HAVE TO play all sorts of metagamey narrative tricks or change the rules themselves for consistency with the only sort of "realism" which could POSSIBLY be considered "non-ridiculous". This is so patently obvious that in any discussion of this whole topic, I will always portray the situation such that the game MUST BE flawed, and the ONLY options are to ignore the rules, ignore the narrative, perform an amazing juggling act with the rules and the narrative to fit my idea of what should be realistic, or house rule some stuff."
The first example above is reasonable, to me. I don't mind people HATING the new edition, bashing it, loudly stating that it doesn't fit their preferences, and even saying that it's "not D&D as I understand the definition". But the second example is what I'm seeing a LOT of, whether or not they put it in such direct terms, and it just seems extremely tunnel-visioned to me.
This is not a straw man. This is really how I see the arguments playing out in these threads.
__________________
"I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me."
- Simone de Beauvoir
Last edited by firesnakearies; 29th November 2008 at 01:39 AM..
Reason: Editing rocks.
Gah, this continues to drive me crazy. This seemingly automatic and totally unchallenged assumption that the four options listed above are, essentially, the only ones on the table.
Sorry, firesnakearies, I should have listed an option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not. I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human. Frankly, I forgot your point when I wrote the bit you quoted.
It is certainly a valid solution, though not one I favour.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Sorry, firesnakearies, I should have listed an option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not. I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human. Frankly, I forgot your point when I wrote the bit you quoted.
It is certainly a valid solution, though not one I favour.
RC
Thank you! I'm happy now.
As an aside, I don't favor it especially, either. I'm houseruling the hell out of the damage system in 4E, myself. But it IS a perfectly valid way of interpreting the game, and I find it unfair that people seem to constantly overlook that.
EDIT: Oh, and wow, you put my own point MUCH more elegantly than I did! "option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not. I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human."
Great way of stating it, nice and succinctly.
__________________
"I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me."
- Simone de Beauvoir
Really, I wasn't attempting to pass over your solution, especially as it is the only one that I've had to add to the first time I parsed out the options oh-so-long-ago. Kudos to you, Sir!
If it helps, I have read comments where folks say 4e is like Marvel Superheroes, and healing surges are Wolverine-ish. I don't think the designers intended a supers game, though.
Quote:
EDIT: Oh, and wow, you put my own point MUCH more elegantly than I did! "option (5) where the world acts in accordance to the rules, whether they make sense in terms of our real life world or not. I.e., where a game-human cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a real-world human."
Great way of stating it, nice and succinctly.
Thank you, Sir. Thank you very much.
(It is a rare day that I am more succinct than anyone else!
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Gah, this continues to drive me crazy. This seemingly automatic and totally unchallenged assumption that the four options listed above are, essentially, the only ones on the table.
Now, the fifth option I'd propose COULD simply be a subset of your (4) above, but in my opinion, you'd simply be applying the word "ridiculous" in a pretty darn arbitrary manner at that point.
What about:
(5) Players assume that D&D4E takes place in a much more inherently magical world than Earth, every PC is somewhat superheroic and "magical" in some sense, and so the heroes recovering with seemingly-miraculous speed from terrible injuries without requiring the aid of Arcane or Divine spells or items is not a narrative disconnect, but merely a different theme for the game, and a different model of in-world physical reality?
Interesting idea, personally not keen on it but interesting idea. Speaking for my self I am quite happy to view hit point as plot protection. Many years ago I decided that as a plysical wounds modeling system D&D (in all variation) was ludricous and went in search of better sytems, Rolemaster, GURPS and so forth. In the end of the day I decided if I was grim an gritty I'll use Warhammer and for more magical campaign I'll go back to D&D. But nobody get seriously hurt unless it is fatal. So no PC ends up as a blind beggar in the village green or dies screaming in the woods as gangerene eats his guts.
I want Conan the movie or LoTHR the movie with a bit more magic not the grim reality of medieval warfare.
To a certain extent why do people want realistic wounding? Not sure I understand the sandbox play argument. A week down time (with out magical healing) is sprained ligaments territory. Deep life threatening iwounds 2 to 6 months on the flat of your back and you survive because they cut off the rest of the limb. So your character is out for another year to retrain the cope with the missing appendage, if it is an arm or an eye.
And given the ubiquity of magical healing, from potions,pc characters and or wands, natural healing is almost never invoked so what exactly is all the fuss about anyway?
Combat narration, I do see the argument there, but don't understand as to why a healing surges used as are not taken into account.
Comparing 3e to 4e directly is not a proper comparison a 1st level fighter in 3e (absent magical healing) has Xhp but his 4e counter part has x*healingSurgeValue hit points.
Healing surges are awesome.)
.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
