The Violet Ray of a Prismatic Spray spell hit the Swashbuckler at the very end of Book 5 of our Skull and Shackles campaign, and of course, after he killed the big bad, he failed his save... so, it says he is sent to another plane, but where can I find a list of random planes so I can figure out where he was sent? Is there an RNG list somewhere?
Wow, can we please stop with requests to ban things? This has gotten absurd! It feels like every week we have a new topic about something, generally obscure, that someone doesn't like, and they bemoan the damage it does/might wreak upon the campaign. Enough already.
You know what does damage the campaign? Coming to the official forums and wading through post after post by forum "regulars" griping about their latest pet peeve, and stirring up the forum mob to get that which upsets them removed from the game.
Aside from being drearily monotonous, it is also a massive turn off as a player. Basically it comes across as either, wow, there must be a lot wrong with this game, what with all these complaints... Or it looks like, hmm, there sure are a lot of people whining to management to get their way. Neither is the kind of thing that inspires confidence in the campaign, or those involved in it. It is even worse when those supporting these ban threads start to look like a forum clique.
Seeing things long legal removed from the campaign... especially on the grounds of anecdotal complaints... has a disheartening effect, and gets frustrating. If it happens too often, or even the requests become too commonplace, that frustration can grow to to annoyance, or just hit a plateau and inspire defeated disinterest.
The more onerous and fickle the rules and rulings in PFS become, the less fun the campaign is. Let's not suck the fun out of the game in a quest to remove everything that we disagree with.
Yikes, sorry about the wall of text... I guess I had more to say than I thought.
Well, I read through all of this and thought, "Wow, some people had some weird experiences!", and then I got to thinking and realized they weren't so far off my own.
In and Out of Game - The Early Years OK, seriously this is covering a period of time from when I was 11 and got my first D&D Red Box, and on through most of High School (roughly 1983-1989). Honestly most of it was the typical roleplay experiences of a group of suburban boys in the 80's... more goofy and over the top ideas that I am sure we thought were awesome back then, mixed with juvenile forays into alcohol and recreational pharmaceuticals. Mostly cringe worthy, I am sure. One important point of note; while there were the urban legends, there was no real anti gaming crusade. Of course this was the Suburbs of NYC, so not exactly the bible belt.
That Living Stereotype DM OK, my senior year of high school found me playing in an AD&D game at the local Comic Book store.
The DM was seriously a living embodiment of most every negative gamer stereotype... he was morbidly obese and did nothing for his health, gorging on pizza and fried chicken constantly, and as a result sounded like he was both gasping and snoring if he walked more than 5 feet. He also had the trifecta of gamer funk... rank body odor, swamp ass, and death breath, because he couldn't be bothered with his personal hygiene either. He did indeed still reside with his mother in his late 30s as well. Now, none of this was for lack of finances or getting out of the house... he was the co-owner of the comic store. Yes, he was "Comic Book Guy", in all the worst ways. Fortunately, for all of his physical drawbacks, he was actually a pretty miserable person otherwise. He communicated in a nasally condescending tone that only barely expressed his general superiority complex in any situation he felt he had some authority... such as his store or games he DMed... On the plus side, he was at least an absolutely horrid DM too! At least he strove to be the complete package!
The "final straw" example of his GM style that made me walk away? I was playing a fiery red headed female cavalier (what can I say, it was the 80s and I had a thing for Red Sonja!) Anyway, I missed a session and the next week I come back and he writes my character back into the group with a far too descriptive, self satisfaction story about how she was sharing quality time with his GMPC, Sir NoPersonality The Paladin. When I interrupted his lascivious tale to inform him that, no, my character would not have done that, especially on account of her backstory involving her promise of purity, he insisted by saying how charismatic Sir StickintheMud was, and how my character couldn't resist his charms. To wit I asked, "So, your Paladin forced himself on my character, despite her beliefs, seducing her against her will?". That produced a round of yelling, gasping, wheezing and snorting... it really sounded like an angry 4H feeding time intermixed with some know-it-all "mmkay?"s... and I decided that I could use a break from gaming for a couple of months until I got to college...
The College Years AKA those OTHER stereotypes A few weeks after starting my first semester in college, I met up with the campus gaming organization. Lots of different people, lots of different games, some good, some pretty atrocious. This was also when I got my first in depth experience with "How some male DMs become morons because of bewbs".
So there was a DM we'll call "J"... nice enough guy, goofy but who isn't in the gaming world? He was not only a DM, but the group president. He would run a lot of games, but only if, we'll call her "JD", was able to play. "JD" was my first experience with a "Queen Bee"... as in she had to be at the center of everything, and in charge of everything. That in and of it's self wasn't too terrible, I was always good at shrugging off people who bothered me. But coupled with that she apparently had a magical talent to conceal any and all redeeming virtues she was in possession of. She was a bitter, whiny, manipulative, foul troll of a woman. And I say that with all apologies towards trolls. She was also the master of the Mary Sue character, especially when "J" was DMing, because he would give her anything she wanted.
This eventually culminated in a AD&D campaign he was running set in her favorite world, Katherine Kurtz' The Chronicles of Deryni. Now, everyone in the campaign had restricted races and classes to fit in to this pseudo-medieval British Isles analogy, with limited magic and only the rarest of the rare having psionic powers... so the female players at the table consisted of a Drow?! a Faerie Dragon?!?!?! and then "JD's" character, a High Deryni Archer-Ranger with full Psionics... and no stat below 18, especially not comliness! So, this went about as one can imagine... "JD" and the other female players pretty much directed the show, and the GM basically treating the rest of us as glorified NPCs. Since "JD" was making all the decisions, and that was leading to some spectacular failures (including a few character deaths... not hers, of course, she was miraculously never hit.), some of use decided to conspire against her and see what happened. We sent messages to the DM telling him of our plans to take "D" down a peg or two through an embarrassing series of pranks... we prep, we plan, we pick the time and the site... and then DM "J" tells "D" every single detail, "because she can totally read everyone's mind... no, I am not giving you saves", and in a temper tantrum at people daring to work against her, she launches a preemptive psychic ATTACK against everyone not in her clique and actually kills some players (again, saves? No no, she is a special psionicist!), which then strips away the last f*ck the player of the Assassin had, and he assassinated her. And he rolled a 1% on the dice. Dead. Finito.
That is when the explosion happened. It was a twofold explosion, actually. First, "JD" became a red faced quivering fountain of rage, cursing and sputtering and throwing accusations and personal attacks around. And then stormed off. Then the DM "J" flipped his lid, screeching and shouting, "That's it! This campaign is over!" as he angrily stuffed all of his books into a backpack and stormed off after her, trailing loose leaf sheets in his wake. At which point the player of the Assassin stroked his chin and mused, "Hmm, an entire campaign world killed... that has to be enough XP for demigod status at least!"
There were more of those type of situations over the years, where the DM was mooning over a particular player to the detriment of the game, but I became far more cognizant of the signs and extricated myself from the danger zone post haste. Some days my wife gets mad at me and says she thinks I am extra hard on her characters in games I run... I make sure to recount this story and my promise to NEVER be that GM.
Another say what? Game that occurred in college was a DM who had a chart. For everything. No exaggeration, he had charts for virtually every mundane detail in the game. But the kicker came when we were camping for the night and my Fighter was on watch and he asked what I was doing. So for a bit of descriptive flavor, I said my character was sitting with his back to the fire to maintain his night vision as he sharpened and oiled his sword... His response? "You can't do that, you don't have Weaponsmithing". Thankfully that happened early in the first session...
The Army Years - Organized Chaos
My time in the Army proved to be an exceptional time for gaming. Being stationed in a few isolated areas with like minded soldiers certainly helped a lot, but even when I was stationed at Ft Benning or Ft Bragg, there was always a healthy gaming community. Of course, when most of your gaming group is made up of Infantry, Cavalry, Armor or Intelligence field soldiers, the way they approach games can be very different. While min maxing and even optimization weren't really buzzwords or issues, team organization and tactics sure as hell were! When you have a group of people who are trained to deal with certain types of situations in certain ways, much of that transfers over into the game sessions... which can make for some very frazzled DMs!
The roleplay was surprisingly good and varied in my time in the service. Surprisingly, most soldiers I gamed with were not afraid to take on risks and embrace character options without balking. This was especially true when the group was entirely military... I guess the barriers went down then. Also, a lot of alcohol was consumed.
In fact, while a lot of exceptionally good... and even some atrociously bad RP took place, when you have a lot of for lack of a better phrase, "tough guys", all amped up and in close confines, some heated arguing and even friendly fisticuffs were not unheard of. But, considering some folks tales of woe... I think that is rather tame! Well, that and the occasional joker deciding to set off some unexpended pyro from the last trip to the field, mid game... a CS canister is a pretty good real world stand in for a Stinking Cloud spell...
The here and now Since I left the Army, the gaming has been varied. Some good, some bad, some that makes you scratch your head... I have seen the table flippers and the rage quitters. I have sat at tables with the gamer funk champions and Special Snowflakes. But by and large my experiences have been positive. Not always the best RP, but mostly folks just getting together and having a good time, and nothing that really squicked me out.
Except for one.
I was running a homebrew Pathfinder campaign with a primitive, tribal setting. One of the players was playing an Oracle with the Wolfscarred Maw curse that I allowed to be a Panther maw instead on account of the tribal totem. OK, no big deal I think...
Did I mention that this character is played by a middle aged man who spends his time at the table watching cat girl anime and always plays furries?
Sooo, when the group gets into combat and the Ranger needs healing, the Oracle proceeds to start licking him. Because that is how he casts his cure spells. Because cats lick wounds. And the player is miming this out.
So, that happened.
So, all in all I think my gaming experiences over the past 33 years have been fairly, you know, normal.
Damn, that which I think I tried to block out...
In the early autumn of 1993 while assigned to unit on Ft Benning, a group of us were were in the barracks playing a game of AD&D 2E, in effort to pass the time while a portion of our unit had been deployed to a hostile location in east Africa. We were probably drinking a little too much, laughing a little too loud... you know, coping mechanisms. But these were old school concrete block buildings, so unless you pounded on the wall, your neighbor wouldn't even hear you. So it came as quite a shock when the CQ knocked on the door and informed us that one of our comrades had just shot another in the head, then turned his pistol on himself, in their room maybe 100 feet away.
Just two days earlier I was hanging out in front of our barracks, knocking back 40s of that nasty a$$ Olde English 800 that my friend (the murder victim)loved to drink, with him. He had just been demoted after a series of issues... all involving his roommate and eventual murderer... but he had been given fresh orders to go to Ft Bragg and a chance to get himself straitened up. He was telling me how he was looking forward to getting squared away, having a new start and being able to prove himself as a soldier. He had just turned 22 a week before his death. Turns out his friend and roommate didn't have the same positive outlook and he couldn't accept them going separate ways.
Every now and again I would gut down half a 40 of OE"800" and pour the rest out in memory of my friend Alvis. Funny, it had been years since I thought about it, or the fact that it happened literally a few doors down while we were playing D&D. But I always remember the scene, the blood, one of our medics... fresh from the shower wand walking back to his room when it happened... wearing nothing but blood as he kneeled there fighting to keep him alive, watching them load him onto the ambulance. And finally... the smell. How the investigators kept that room off limits for 3 days in the mid September, Georgia heat before they let us clean it...
Wow. Sorry about that...
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
People are forgetting the real reason that we game. The whole point of playing a game is to have fun. If your players are b+&%+ing and complaining about the way you run the game you are doing it wrong. From the sound of the original poster the biggest issue is he wants to be in control of everything and is not able to do it. He needs to delegate more and loosen up his restrictions.
I cannot disagree with this conclusion any more strongly.
While the game is indeed about having fun, if the players are constantly b@+@$ing than they are wrong. Especially if some of what he says these players are doing... ignoring the GM?, refusing to give information on your character? refusing to take damage? arguing about every situation?... than they should leave the group because that is unacceptable, spoiled brat, childish b*))$#!t.
The GM is supposed to be having fun too, and they put a hell of a lot more time and effort into a game than a player does in almost every case, and if the players are not helping out and trying to facilitate everyone having fun, then they are part of the problem in a bad game environment.
I am definitely pleased with the direction this sets seems to be going, having quality NPC and set dressing minis really can make a game more immersive, in my opinion.
I do have one serious question for Erik Mona or whomever makes these decisions; Does Paizo plan to maintain the same rate of "Rare" minis per brick as previous cases?
I ask because this month the newest case of D&D minis was released and whereas prior to this you would get sufficient "Rares" per brick to ensure a complete collection of all the standard minis and approximately half of the "special" invisible minis in a case, they decided to reduce the number of Rares per brick this time around, resulting in not receiving 7 to 8 of the set minis per case (4 "Rare" and 3-4 of the "special rare").
Now I know that D&D is WotC/Hasbro, however, the same company, WizKids/NECA, makes and packages the miniatures for both Pathfinder and D&D.
I also know that it is always stated that you are not guaranteed a complete set of minis in a case, it rarely occurs where you do not.
That said, I am hoping that this change was a parent company idea and not a WizKids idea and that Paizo has no intention of changing the packaging rate of their minis. Because honestly, after spending that much money on a case, it is insultingly frustrating to not receive a complete set on account of someone deciding to make a mini-game out of the collection process.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Wow! That seriously sounds like a real pain in the
Actually I would say that comments of dissatisfaction like his have indeed helped. When a company releases a substandard product, it is up to the consumers to let them know they are displeased and to hold them to a higher standard.
People have every right to express their negative opinions of a product if they feel that it is not up to the standard of publishing quality Paizo should be producing. There is a lot of frustration regarding the sloppy, slap-dash quality of the ACG and how it seemed rushed out to fit a deadline without sufficient quality control, resulting in far too many errors and confusing or conflicting rules. The fact that they waited an entire year to correct all those mistakes is worthy of criticism as well.
Customer dissatisfaction is a driving force in improving business and product quality, if there is nothing but praise and shouting down of any complaints then you breed complacency, which leads to a further degradation in quality.
Paizo is a company, not a friend or someone putting out a freebie product in their spare time, and it is up to the customers of that company to demand and ensure a certain standard of excellence. I like the product they produce, I make sure to purchase everything in the printed RPG line (save for a few out of print maps and older Modules/APs), and I know that I personally want them to continue printing high quality releases to add to my collection, and not ones that look like they came from a second rate publisher.
So yes, a year's worth of comments like his and others should indeed have helped, considering that Paizo does seem interested in putting out the best product that they can.
... and all 5 walked out after completing the entire dungeon with about 25 minutes to spare!
Thursday night in Fayetteville, NC, our local VL Nick Baumeister ran Bonekeep for his 150th table of PFS (Yay Nick!)
The group consisted of:
Adana Bonereaper, level 7 Inquisitor of Pharasma
I believe it was the first time through for all of us, maybe one had played before and used a GM replay, not certain though. 4 of us were definitely first timers, so it was all knew... and painful!
We did surprisingly well, with only Krojan dropping into negatives once on account of taking damage while Life Linked. Surprisingly smooth run and the group meshed very well with overlapping buffs and debuffs and the occasional spot heals as needed. Some useful purchases of expendables greatly assisted in making some encounters more manageable.
Most importantly, we all had a lot of fun... even if the Inquisitor of Pharasma "threatened" not to heal a certain skull if it summoned any undead... ;)
Thanks again Nick and all my fellow players.
And you would have been wrong and outside of your ability to do so.
Nowhere is it written that the Inquisitor had to render assistance to the Necromancer. You cannot make up rules infractions to punish someone because you don't like a decision. It is pretty disheartening the number of posters who claim they would do just that.
Wow, between this and the MotFF discussion, there sure seems to be a lot of folks who want to see stuff banned just because they don't like/agree with it.
These are not broken things, these are not overpowering things.
How about instead of calling for bans, if you do not like something, just don't do/use/play it?
These calls for something to be banned/retired because someone doesn't like it, or worse, "we just can't agree on it, so we should ban it"... congratulations, because you can't agree, you should get your way by default by having the thing removed entirely. Wonderful... need to stop. It is not a healthy intellectual process to simply ban that which we do not agree with.
I'm just making sure there seems some predisposition towards the Necro. I'm fine with consistency but if people would be appalled at a good character being let bleed out by an evil one then I have an issue.
Throughout this thread you seem to have latched on to the idea that people have supported the right of the Inquisitor to let the Necromancer die because he was/did something evil. That is not the case. I think most of the people who defended the Inquisitor's choice of inaction (myself included) did so because;
1: There was a broken in game agreement based upon in game ideology.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the alignment of the characters in this case. However, if the Inquisitor was Good aligned, then I would say there was a problem based on an alignment infraction, but if he is Neutral aligned, as the Deity he worships, then there is no rules issue at all.
And as you cannot be Evil in PFS, the questions become;
"Can a Neutral character allow a fellow character (Good or Neutral) to die through inaction?"
Yes, by definition a Neutral character isn't required to help someone and shouldn't be penalized.
"Can a Good character allow a fellow character (Good or Neutral) to die through inaction?"
Possibly, however doing so would almost certainly be an alignment infraction.
"Does the Deity of a Divine empowered character have any sway on the situation?"
Usually, because there are mechanical penalties in place for violating the tenets of a character's faith, and that needs to be taken into account as well. A player should not be forced to take a penalty to his character for violating his Deity's strictures, just to save another character.
Once again we have a second hand account that feels like the Necro was being a dick. We don't actually know if that was the case.
We can only base our opinions on the information given... trying to add in feelings, motivations, maybes and suppositions is fruitless.
As was related:
Necromancer and Inquisitor make agreement to work together is no undead are created.
Agreement stands and Inquisitor uses own resources to heal the party, including Necromancer.
Necromancer breaks agreement and raises an undead minion.
Inquisitor decides to walk away, sticking to original agreement resolution.
Party pleads with Inquisitor to stay to complete the mission.
Mission continues, but Inquisitor no longer renders assistance to Necromancer.
Given what was related here, it seems the Necromancer decided to end their agreement (whatever reason is irrelevant, simply that the pact was broken at this point), then the Inquisitor did stick around so that they could complete the mission, but he decided to cease administering healing to the Necromancer at that point on. One action (or inaction as it were) was the consequence of the other.
I am very disturbed by the number of people clamoring for punishment of the Inquisitor, throwing around claims of violations of (non existent) rules and oaths, or making outlandish claims of PvP violations (Even so far as to completely ignore or alter written rules to support their opinions). It is indeed just a game, and sometimes there are consequences in a game and sometimes you even may die in a game as a result of your decisions.
The true issue would be how the two players react after the fact and whether they can keep the issue an in character situation and not let it carry over.
Either way though, there should be no bending or re-interpreting of rules just because someone may have some sore feelings over a character loss.
No, there is not. You are not obligated to save your companions, only that you must cooperate to complete your mission. Well, the mission was complete. To borrow from Batman, "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you"
No, you put it into Military terms.
But Pathfinder Society is not a military organization... nor a government agency, or religious hierarchy or any other such organization that is based upon or demands any such devotion or structure.
The Society is a disparate group of scholars, grave robbers, mercenaries, adventurers, con men and diplomats, with the occasional idealist and zealot mixed in. They don't have that kind of rigid adherence to rules or structure, they care if the job gets done and the Society doesn't get a bad name from it.
And besides, any notion that the Society actually cares if a character dies or not is thrown out the window by the fact that it requires so much prestige to pay for a Raise. Oh, they will bring you back... if you have proven yourself valuable enough or essentially kissed up to the right people... but not out of the goodness of their hearts.
If anything the conversation is more likely to go like this;
Dwarf: "I tried me best, but he died... and he just stood there and watched!"
The GM should have asked the players at the beginning if they would be able to have their characters work together, and if they were unable to do so, asked one or the other to use a different character for the scenario.
Beyond that, I fail to see the problem (aside from the end of game temper flaring and such). Neither player broke a single game or PFS rule. The Necromancer used a legal class ability, the Inquisitor chose not to use one. There is no rule that says you must use your spells or resources to aid your party members, and it certainly isn't something worthy of an atonement spell.
The Pathfinder Society is far to nebulously defined, belief inclusive and open ended in it's missions and goals to simply say, "everyone must get along at all times, no matter what". The Society is not some fervent loyalty inducing order that melds it's members into lockstep marching adherents; it is in many cases, just a job, and one with some often very unsavory objectives and associates. The only thing they require is to conduct your mission, "Explore", tell them what happened, "Report", and work together long enough to accomplish that, "Cooperate".
Looks to me like they did all of that, at least long enough to accomplish the final goal... the Society isn't the Ranger Regiment with an oath about leaving a fallen companion to fall into the hands of an enemy. In fact, the Society itself won't do a damned thing to help you out out of a "sense of teamwork", you have to have earned the prestige for them to even lift a finger. So why should a fellow player? Especially when the mission is complete.
Perhaps not kind, but definitely not illegal. And the "don't be a jerk" rule isn't meant to be a bludgeon to force players to play the way you want them to.
All of these "you can do non lethal, grapple, hold person, counterspell..." arguments are great... unless of course the characters don't have access to those spells or abilities, or aren't grapplers, or able to successfully drop Mittens McMurder reliably with a -4 penalty to hit before he mangles you or another party member.
Yes, it is unfortunate that your companion is no longer in control of his actions. It is more unfortunate if he kills another party member because people were holding back or not playing to their character's strengths. If you can neutralize the character without much harm, groovy, go you. Otherwise it is your responsibility to drop them as fast as possible to prevent more damage to the rest of the party. It does you no good to take one casualty while trying to prevent another.
I stand by my earlier comments, I think some people are going out of their way to justify making it more difficult than it needs to be.
It is supposed to be a more fun, more consistently accessible form of flavor for the players to feel like they are actually doing things to support their factions. I don't think the idea is to try to read them in such a way to make them needlessly difficult, unlikely or specific.
"Teacher, teacher! You forgot to give us homework!"
I think it is fine to mention something when the DM slips up... players are quick to mention something when it is in their favor, so it is only fair play.
I tend to be a rules stickler in PFS because if those are the rules I was supposed to make my character by, then those are the rules I expect to play by. Both as a player and a GM.
People getting mad like that seems like a basic case of someone being upset that they got caught trying to get away with something.
I think you should always have the chance to earn that extra prestige to keep the potential of 1xp-2pp, as that forms a restriction on how you can spend your gold.
For Free RPG Day modules or even full length modules that are currently awarding 4pp, there should be benchmarks where you earn more prestige due to extent of your achievements. It can't entirely be a matter of doing something for the Society, but also just the individual notoriety of a successful adventurer.
And it should always be something you earn in the scenario/module. Something the player has control over being possible, and not some limited time boon or "if you play on this day" nonsense. Let the players have the chance to earn the most out of their reputation and reap the rewards of it.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Just for the record, the Fate's Favored trait does not enhance the Halfling's Luck save bonus. The trait enhances only Luck bonuses, Halfling's Luck is actually a Racial bonus.
In our Iron Gods campaign our party barbarian has an enchanted, adamantine-chained chainsaw with a gravity clip.
The carnage is vast and glorious... and well worth the fact that anything can hear us coming from at least a room away. Plus, in some of the adventures, you just don't really feel comfortable touching the walls or doors...
John Compton wrote:
The module should have an in game means of earning the second prestige... all of them should. If you want a check mark change, make it so only the most current awards the extra table of credit.
Prestige should be something the players can earn on account of their actions, not because they happened to play on a particular day.
I won't run a table with 7 players, I find it more disruptive and trivializing to an adventure than it is worth. And since legal table size is capped at 6 and our sign ups on Warhorn are for 6 slots, I choose not to go over that number.
By the same token, I will not sit at a 7 player table either. I will excuse myself from the session and leave the GM with a more manageable number.
As for other reasons, if I know that a particular player is disruptive or that there is significant animosity between certain players that will cause friction and disrupt the game, I have no problem telling them to find another table... though in that case I will generally tray and work a swap with another GM to keep everyone happy.
In a home game, well, it's a home game for a reason, so that I only invite those I want to be there.
Because of text limits they put the comma and then the "powdered silver worth 25 GP", because the value is identical as the 5 pounds of powdered silver is the component for making holy water.
You also picked the one spell that had multiple options and is presented that way.
Every spell that has a special cost has it listed, the ones that fall under the "spell component pouch" limit do not.
Michael Brock wrote:
Why? Because not everyone can attend conventions, not everyone can get together with groups that have a 4 or 5 star GM, and even when they do, that might not be what's on the docket. I am certain this is less of a concern in areas with a very active PFS participation, but not all areas... and thus not all players... have that luxury.
I get specials like Bonekeep, designed as special challenge to your player characters, but these are two scenarios using specific pregens to allow players to play something outside of the normal allowances for PFS, and now the access to them will become gated. I am sorry but I do not agree with using something as a reward to your 4/5 star GMs, when that reward comes at the expense of limiting the access to other players.
These adventures seem to me to be something more of the player base would be interested in experiencing, but now it will put a limit on that, and I just don't see the point. You should never design a reward for some, that makes other people beholden to them to be able to experience game content.
Just my take, obviously you may feel otherwise.
For those still arguing in favor of a greater change or allowance in regards to characters affected by this FAQ, I would offer the advice that being sarcastic, dismissive of opposing arguments, insulting the understanding of those with opposing opinions, engaging in hyperbole, or passive-aggressively asking the same question over and over with subtle variation after they have been answered, doesn't strengthen your cause or garner support.
There is a campaign rule that an animal companion cannot have Hit Dice greater than the master's level +1, how can you justify a non class animal purchasable by anyone, having hit dice in excess of what a class ability can grant?
At the very least the hit dice should not be allowed to exceed the character level, and animals shouldn't be able to have stats greater than an equivalent level animal companion of the same type.
But if people do not see a problem with someone being able to purchase a class feature at a higher level than the feature itself is limited to, then I don't know what to tell you.
I think that purchasable combat animals can not only trivialize encounters, but they directly take away from classes who have class abilities that specifically grant combat companions. For that reason alone they should not be allowed. When the questioned is asked so flippantly, "Well who does it hurt?", the clear answer would be, aside from the players who aren't fond of a purchased NPC overshadowing their efforts and essentially removing their purpose in an adventure, it specifically hurts those players who chose a class to gain a companion... only to have their companion completely trivialized because someone decided to spend a few hundred gold to acquire an asset beyond the legal capabilities of anything they can do.
There are ways to get combat pets in the game and they involve character choices, they should not involve purchased allies. If not, why not allow players to simply use hirelings then? Why buy a tiger when you can hire a level 5 mercenary to just do all your fighting for you? It is exactly the same thing, only without pretending it is some form of pet to justify it.
The point is where do you draw the line?
Mike and John already drew the line... and people want it redrawn further out, ostensibly so it is fair to group A, B and C.
Well, what about group D? I mean, once you redraw the line, someone else will have a reason why it would be more inclusive to extend it a bit more to allow for these other cases. And how could you say "No, this is where we say no more", when there would have already been an added allowance.
And if we really don't expect a mad rush of this, then the campaign leadership made the right call already, as this choice will impact the fewest people.