Pathfinder 1E How many GMs use Divine Channeling to revive unconscious opponents?

[Sunseeker]

I try to avoid "gotcha" stuff in my games. Makes me look like a jerk and my players feel stupid. How does that help the gaming experience?

 

[Wicht]

We enforce the RAW, though I personally think it's quite lame, and all clerics should be able to selectively target when channeling.

Why?

Is this feeling a matter of verisimilitude with you or more reflective of a gamist perspective, where you feel like the effect is undesirable for the game experience?

 

[Wicht]

How does that help the gaming experience?

Personally, I like it for two reasons: consistency within the game-world and it makes the game more challenging in its own way. I have always felt that, while it may not be as pleasant while going through it, the experiences which are more difficult, more deadly, and able to be survived by the skin of the teeth are more likely to leave an impression and remain those experiences fondly remembered afterward. The challenges where the party wipes the floor with the opposition, while being more immediately gratifying, are less likely on the whole, to bring the players back to the table again and again.

 

[N'raac]

That's what a burst does. All in the area are affected. You want to be able to leave people out? There's a feat for that, but its an added ability. Guess what? When the Wizard launches a Fireball, friendlies in the area get burned too. You want to select your target? Cure Wounds. Want to get multiple targets? Cure Wounds, Mass. Cure everyone in a large area? Channel Energy.

What about a feat that allows you to Channel Energy very narrowly - you get to hit one target per CHA modifier (rather than leave the same number out as Selective Channeling)?

 

[Wicht]

That's what a burst does. All in the area are affected. You want to be able to leave people out? There's a feat for that, but its an added ability. Guess what? When the Wizard launches a Fireball, friendlies in the area get burned too. You want to select your target? Cure Wounds. Want to get multiple targets? Cure Wounds, Mass. Cure everyone in a large area? Channel Energy.

What about a feat that allows you to Channel Energy very narrowly - you get to hit one target per CHA modifier (rather than leave the same number out as Selective Channeling)?

In my Secrets of Divine Channeling, I have one feat that allowed you to do a cone of channeling instead of a burst. I had toyed with having a secondary feat do it as a ray as well.

 

[Tovec]

I try to avoid "gotcha" stuff in my games. Makes me look like a jerk and my players feel stupid. How does that help the gaming experience?

1: Do you have them not get hurt by a friendly fireball either? That isn't fun for them, but I'm guessing they don't do it too often or they do in desperate circumstances, just as they would use the channeling (in combat).

2: Combat as war (vs. combat as sport). It's a whole conversation. I'm in favour, some others aren't. I like when effects hurt everyone they should hurt (or help) instead of just hurting enemies. It bothers me, it breaks in game fiction. But yeah, mostly the combat as war thing.

 

[N'raac]

I try to avoid "gotcha" stuff in my games. Makes me look like a jerk and my players feel stupid. How does that help the gaming experience?

It doesn't. My answer is that you don't go "HA! You have healed the Ogre too, and he rises to his feet", but "You know that the Ogre will also be in your burst, and will be healed as well, right?" The latter provides the player with the info his character would have, so he can make the decision how to proceed, fully informed. Perhaps he will Channel anyway, knowing the risk. Maybe he will choose a different action. Perhaps he will move to try to get the Ogre out of the area.

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, I like it for two reasons: consistency within the game-world.

See, I've always run AOE healing to affect only allies, unless the caster says otherwise, which yes, I realize is the opposite of the rules, but I also let players choose to deal "non-lethal damage" without a feat because frankly, I find it silly. It saves me a lot of trouble tracking, and it saves my players headaches. I'll grant you it gives a consistency to the RULES, but not the game-world, since game-worlds are by nature, non-consistent.

and it makes the game more challenging in its own way.

To me, it feels only more challenging to bookkeeping and tracking. Otherwise when it comes to challenge I concern myself less with "friendly fire" issues and more with creating challenging events for my players to overcome.

I have always felt that, while it may not be as pleasant while going through it, the experiences which are more difficult, more deadly, and able to be survived by the skin of the teeth are more likely to leave an impression and remain those experiences fondly remembered afterward. The challenges where the party wipes the floor with the opposition, while being more immediately gratifying, are less likely on the whole, to bring the players back to the table again and again.

This is a red herring at best. Not dealing with AOE healing healing the badguys doesn't necessarily make a game more challenging, it makes it more complicated, and increased complication does not in and of itsself generate better gameplay. Simple things can be challenging, complex things can be challenging, complicated things can be dull and grindy, while simple things can be drab and uninteresting. IMO, there are a lot of ways to approach creating a challenge, increased complication is one of them, but not always the best one, and one that when I DM, I try to avoid.

1: Do you have them not get hurt by a friendly fireball either? That isn't fun for them, but I'm guessing they don't do it too often or they do in desperate circumstances, just as they would use the channeling (in combat).

Yes, and no. I change things up for different games, depending on players. Generally speaking, if an ability could be directed(harm only baddies/heal only allies) then I assume it was. If a spell can't be, then well, it can't. As far as I know, Fireball cannot be directed outside of special features. Plus honestly, in most groups I've run people expect close-range fireball to harm them so I indulge them.

2: Combat as war (vs. combat as sport). It's a whole conversation. I'm in favour, some others aren't. I like when effects hurt everyone they should hurt (or help) instead of just hurting enemies. It bothers me, it breaks in game fiction. But yeah, mostly the combat as war thing.

I'm honestly not real decided on what side of that fence I fall on. I establish "game fiction" in each individual game, so I decide if everything will help or hurt, or selectively help and selectively hurt at the offset based on how some initial discussions with my players before the game.

It doesn't. My answer is that you don't go "HA! You have healed the Ogre too, and he rises to his feet", but "You know that the Ogre will also be in your burst, and will be healed as well, right?" The latter provides the player with the info his character would have, so he can make the decision how to proceed, fully informed. Perhaps he will Channel anyway, knowing the risk. Maybe he will choose a different action. Perhaps he will move to try to get the Ogre out of the area.

As above, I attempt to establish this at the outset of the game. If people have forgotten, I may remind them, but honestly it's not my responsibility as DM to track player effects. That may sound selfish, but honestly I can only track so much.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Why?

Is this feeling a matter of verisimilitude with you or more reflective of a gamist perspective, where you feel like the effect is undesirable for the game experience?

It's a gamist issue for me. Being able to choose who your magic healing 'splosion affects and who it doesn't is no more or less "realistic" than not being able to choose, so I can't base my preference on that. But most DMs I know don't want to bother tracking which downed enemies are dead, bleeding out, or have stabilized. They also don't want to leave their tipped-over miniatures on the combat grid for the rest of the encounter. And if all PC clerics can automatically exclude such enemies when they channel energy, those DMs probably don't have to. But if they can't exclude downed enemies, then their exact positions and hit point status become critically important, obligating the DM to keep track of those details in case a cleric decides to channel energy.

Basically, it's a lot of extra bookkeeping for very little payoff, in my opinion.

 

[N'raac]

Yes, and no. I change things up for different games, depending on players. Generally speaking, if an ability could be directed(harm only baddies/heal only allies) then I assume it was. If a spell can't be, then well, it can't. As far as I know, Fireball cannot be directed outside of special features. Plus honestly, in most groups I've run people expect close-range fireball to harm them so I indulge them.

I'd take the same approach. But the fact is that Channel Energy, by default, does not allow that choice. If the Cleric has Selective Channel, I'd assume that, provided the enemies in his burst are no greater than the number he can exclude, he chooses to exclude them. He can tell me otherwise if he wishes. I've specifically identified two I exclude and one I can't exclude, choosing the third because he went down three rounds ago, so he could be dead already and, if not, likely won't get enough back to be a threat, especially since he'll have to stand up to attack, which attracts AoO's.

I've also gathered villagers after a Goblin raid to take advantage of the HUGE number of people you can target with one Channel Energy burst. No villager who survived needs to stay wounded!

I'm honestly not real decided on what side of that fence I fall on. I establish "game fiction" in each individual game, so I decide if everything will help or hurt, or selectively help and selectively hurt at the offset based on how some initial discussions with my players before the game.

Nothing wrong with changing the rules. I just question what makes Channel Energy the special shiny that so desperately cries out for such a change. I assume this also means the Evil Cleric can Channel negative energy to hurt the PC's but ignore his warrior allies they are engaged with, right?

As above, I attempt to establish this at the outset of the game. If people have forgotten, I may remind them, but honestly it's not my responsibility as DM to track player effects. That may sound selfish, but honestly I can only track so much.

Again, I see nothing wrong with allowing the player to decide that he wouldn't have taken that action had he known that this target was in the radius, rather than yelling "HA! You healed the Bad Guy!" If you're not monitoring it, he probably gets away without healing the bad guy anyway.

It's a gamist issue for me. Being able to choose who your magic healing 'splosion affects and who it doesn't is no more or less "realistic" than not being able to choose, so I can't base my preference on that. But most DMs I know don't want to bother tracking which downed enemies are dead, bleeding out, or have stabilized. They also don't want to leave their tipped-over miniatures on the combat grid for the rest of the encounter. And if all PC clerics can automatically exclude such enemies when they channel energy, those DMs probably don't have to. But if they can't exclude downed enemies, then their exact positions and hit point status become critically important, obligating the DM to keep track of those details in case a cleric decides to channel energy.

I see a few things here. First, I agree removing the downed enemy is pretty common. Second, there's nothing wrong with deciding most creatures who catch a lucky break when near death aren't going to choose to leap up and attack again, but might slink away to save their own skin (PC's, generally being stark raving mad made of sterner stuff, might leap to rejoin the fray. If the occasional enemy would as well, maybe we should track his status. Maybe mooks don't cling to life as long as a PC would. As to exact positions, a 30' radius covers a lot of ground. Let the GM make the call. Finally, what if the Cleric wants to stabilize the downed opponents in the hope of taking prisoners they can question. My Cleric has commonly cast Stabilize on downed foes as the melee experts mop up the battle, for that reason or just because "good characters have respect for life".