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

[Wicht]

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

Um, I confess there is no book-keeping when I do it. I just keep a mental track of how much damage was actually done to drop the monster, how many rounds its been and then roll with it.

 

[Sunseeker]

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 think one of the reasons I dislike 3.5 and it's offshoots(such as pathfinder) is it's overreliance on feats to do everything, from minor, to major alterations to how a character will play. I find feats are best utilised for "specilized training" within the realm of a given class, and I don't particularly feel that stuff like deciding who gets hurt/healed by your healing requires that level of specialized training. I'd rather my characters take a feat that alters their play in an interesting and creative fashion, rather than bog themselves down with feat taxes.

I really wish that feats were bought with a point-system so that there would be more granularity between feats that alter things significantly and feats that don't, because obviously not all feats are created equal.

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?

Channel Positive Energy is just the example we're running with in this thread. I do allow Channel Negative Energy to directed in the same fashion.

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.

Right, and I do mention some things to players when, regardless if they are aware of it or not, could have unintended negative consequences. It's really a lot of "How well do I know this player?" Some folks like to take risks and are willing to suffer the consequences, some aren't, the best I can say generally is that if you're playing with mature players, they'll be aware of the risks and won't need reminding. If you're not, well...that's another issue.

 

[Nightfall]

I've had it done several times, especially when dealing with living creatures. Course it was more prevalent as I had the PCs try to besiege the castle.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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

Oh, I agree. But the DM still has to track their exact negative hit points before he can decide whether they rejoin the fray or run away, and that's the real problem. (Also, from a player perspective, I can't really know before I revive the enemy that they are not going to rejoin the fray, so it's risky to channel energy in combat {where it's cool} rather than wait until the battle is over and the enemies have all been decapitated before patching the group up {which is kinda boring to me}.)

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".

If the cleric wants to affect downed opponents, let him. I'm arguing for "cleric chooses who is affected," not "only allies of the cleric are affected." (I tend to play my clerics in a similar way as you apparently do.)