PDA

View Full Version : Why Pun-Pun Doesn't Work



Jergmo
2010-07-13, 08:37 PM
Alright! So, you managed to get your Candle of Invocation. Somehow. I don't know how you did it, but well done!

So, you light your candle, and in a dramatic tone shout, "Pazuzu! Come to me, and fulfill in me the power to ultimately break the universe!"

...

...

That's funny...where's Pazuzu? Why isn't he answering your summons, gosh darnit? You don't have all day.

Oh. Unique creatures aren't obligated to answer the summons of a Gate spell, nor are they under your control through your spell. You probably got off lucky, though, friend. He could have just stepped through and chosen to devour you. Dreadfully sorry. :smallfrown:

NelKor
2010-07-13, 08:39 PM
You use Pazuzu to get the candle, then gate in Efreet's...

The Shadowmind
2010-07-13, 08:39 PM
Going to be ninja'd but, Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu, is how you get the candle, the candle is for the Efreeti

tyckspoon
2010-07-13, 08:40 PM
Pazuzu is not being summoned by a Gate spell. He is being summoned by a Paladin reciting his name. Pazuzu's information, in the same writeup that says his attention can be gained by reciting his name, specifically says that he is very helpful to Paladins. Pazuzu is then asked for the Candle of Invocation, which he cheerfully provides by way of his ability to perform a Wish.

And there are something like 6 different valid entry ways to Pun Pun Ascension; the level 1 Paladin summoning Pazuzu is merely the earliest. The other methods range from, IIRC, level 4 to 17.

nekomata2
2010-07-13, 08:41 PM
Yeah, you use a knowledge religion check to learn of Pazuzu, then you chant his name to get him to come, since he will come to Paladins. The Wish is for the Candle, and ???, become Pun-Pun.

Zovc
2010-07-13, 08:44 PM
That's funny...where's Pazuzu? Why isn't he answering your summons, gosh darnit? You don't have all day.

Oh. Unique creatures aren't obligated to answer the summons of a Gate spell, nor are they under your control through your spell. You probably got off lucky, though, friend. He could have just stepped through and chosen to devour you. Dreadfully sorry. :smallfrown:

Friggin' DM fiat! Always attempting to be justified by a ruling!

Jergmo
2010-07-13, 08:46 PM
Why would Pazuzu help you break the universe?? I've never seen a Pun-Pun Paladin.

NelKor
2010-07-13, 08:47 PM
Because Pazuzu gives wishes to any non evil person who speaks his name as a way to corrupt them, He especially likes paladins.

Gametime
2010-07-13, 08:48 PM
Mind, Pazuzu still isn't technically obligated to answer when you call his name three times, but the fluff written in the book is suggestive enough that the DM would either need a good explanation for it or have to admit that it's ordinary fiat.

Of course, if there's anywhere that fiat is justified, it's in stopping the ascension of Pun-Pun, so I doubt many would complain.


Why would Pazuzu help you break the universe?? I've never seen a Pun-Pun Paladin.

Then you haven't seen the latest version of Pun-Pun.

Also, it's assumed that Pazuzu doesn't realize what you'd do with the candle, I think.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-13, 08:49 PM
And another hopeful champion against the nefarious forces of TO falls flat...

Optimystik
2010-07-13, 08:50 PM
Because Pazuzu gives wishes to any non evil person who speaks his name as a way to corrupt them, He especially likes paladins.

Actually, it's any non chaotic evil person. This is important because a Paladin of Tyranny can call on him without being smote, despite already being evil. (And I believe that's Pun-Pun's earliest ascension build.)

In any case, Pazuzu is just the quickest way of getting the candle, not the only way.

pingcode20
2010-07-13, 08:51 PM
Technically, Pazuzu just hands you the key to breaking the universe. A key as simple as a candle of invocation, a petty little 8400gp magic item that is massively overpowered for what it costs.

A little suspicious, maybe, but without knowing ahead of time that this paladin plans to take over the universe with theoretical op shenanigans it's a completely reasonable wish.

Kesnit
2010-07-13, 08:51 PM
This may seem like a silly question, but I can't recall ever seeing it answered...

Why is Pun-Pun called "Pun-Pun?" Why not "Blasted Kobold" or the like? :smallsmile:

FoE
2010-07-13, 08:52 PM
Isn't it generally accepted that Pun-Pun wouldn't actually work in a game and is only a theoretical build? :smallconfused:

Jergmo
2010-07-13, 08:55 PM
Technically, Pazuzu just hands you the key to breaking the universe. A key as simple as a candle of invocation, a petty little 8400gp magic item that is massively overpowered for what it costs.

A little suspicious, maybe, but without knowing ahead of time that this paladin plans to take over the universe with theoretical op shenanigans it's a completely reasonable wish.

*Scratches head* I'd think he and others would figure it out pretty quickly before you get the chance to become too powerful to be destroyed, though.

Mewtarthio
2010-07-13, 08:56 PM
Isn't it generally accepted that Pun-Pun wouldn't actually work in a game and is only a theoretical build? :smallconfused:

Oh, yes. Absolutely. You see, Pun-Pun is infinitely powerful. Thus, if he were ever to appear in a serious game, he would inevitably transcend the boundaries of said game and manifest in our own reality, which would be a Very Bad Thing.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-13, 08:56 PM
*Scratches head* I'd think he and others would figure it out pretty quickly before you get the chance to become too powerful to be destroyed, though.
Maybe, maybe not. Pun-Pun ascension happens very quickly, and a quick detour to prevent scrying before you really get started is both to be expected, and unlikely to get much notice since it's a common thing to do.

Seriously, just face it: it's rules legal. No one's ever, ever going to do it in-game. It's just TO.

Crow
2010-07-13, 08:56 PM
ALSO:

The Candle of Invocation only gives the user the ability to cast the Gate spell. It DOES NOT supply the experience cost required for that specific purpose.

In Addition, any sufficiently ranked diety will have knowledge of what Pun Pun is about to attempt early enough to prevent it, if it is somehow related to the diety's portfolio.

Math_Mage
2010-07-13, 08:56 PM
Since Pun-Pun doesn't depend on Pazuzu to work, why does it matter?

Mystic Muse
2010-07-13, 08:58 PM
Seriously, just face it: it's rules legal. No one's ever, ever going to do it in-game. It's just TO.

Actually, Somebody on these forums (Wish I could remember who) wrote about a session where one of his players did try to pull off Punpun. However, it was a different method than the level 1 Paladin IIRC.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-07-13, 08:59 PM
Oh, yes. Absolutely. You see, Pun-Pun is infinitely powerful. Thus, if he were ever to appear in a serious game, he would inevitably transcend the boundaries of said game and manifest in our own reality, which would be a Very Bad Thing.

...so, who wants to run a PbP game where any level of optimization is allowed? :smallamused:

Temotei
2010-07-13, 09:00 PM
Oh, yes. Absolutely. You see, Pun-Pun is infinitely powerful. Thus, if he were ever to appear in a serious game, he would inevitably transcend the boundaries of said game and manifest in our own reality, which would be a Very Bad Thing.

Technically, it's limitless power, isn't it?

Pun-Pun could stop, but he doesn't, and that's it. Limitlessly powerful, but he could stop, which means he's not infinitely powerful?

I dunno. That's awfully technical. :smallamused:

mrcarter11
2010-07-13, 09:02 PM
I've seen it done in a game before.. The DM didn't know about it, and one of the players did.. It was entertaining playing with him in the party..

true_shinken
2010-07-13, 09:04 PM
Isn't it generally accepted that Pun-Pun wouldn't actually work in a game and is only a theoretical build? :smallconfused:

It's not only generally accepted, it's openly stated.
It's been like that ever since he first surfaced.




The Candle of Invocation only gives the user the ability to cast the Gate spell. It DOES NOT supply the experience cost required for that specific purpose.

Someone needs to read how casting from items works...

Jergmo
2010-07-13, 09:04 PM
I've seen it done in a game before.. The DM didn't know about it, and one of the players did.. It was entertaining playing with him in the party..

Haha. Any chance you could elaborate on what happened? :smallamused:

Optimystik
2010-07-13, 09:07 PM
Isn't it generally accepted that Pun-Pun wouldn't actually work in a game and is only a theoretical build? :smallconfused:

Actually, he will work - the game just gets really boring after that.

Dust
2010-07-13, 09:08 PM
I've seen it done in a game before..
As have I - or rather, heard the stories about it. It was from a longtime 3.5 optimizer and jerkwad convincing his girlfriend to run him games simply so he could roll out stuff like Pun-Pun and the Emerald Legion.

ToySoldierCPlus
2010-07-13, 09:09 PM
Isn't it generally accepted that Pun-Pun wouldn't actually work in a game and is only a theoretical build? :smallconfused:

It's accepted that Pun-Pun should never be played in a game, but the builds work. It wouldn't be TO if they didn't.

mrcarter11
2010-07-13, 09:11 PM
I'm not terribly knowledgeable on how to become pun-pun.. I know more than one method exists. Well we had three players, and in the first session, on of the players used I believe the paladin method of becoming pun-pun. And he went and adventured with us still. At some point, I was around level 7 and pun-pun decided to change me. Somehow I ended up becoming the wish and the third player became the word.. It might sound dull, but was actually a lot of fun

Optimystik
2010-07-13, 09:13 PM
As have I - or rather, heard the stories about it. It was from a longtime 3.5 optimizer and jerkwad convincing his girlfriend to run him games simply so he could roll out stuff like Pun-Pun and the Emerald Legion.

I googled Emerald Legion because of you, and this site was the first result.

I got a good laugh. Damn those Swedes!

Criptfeind
2010-07-13, 09:47 PM
Can anyone link me to the current pun pun build? The only one I have even been able to find is the original. Also does it still work on the crazy snake people?

Evard
2010-07-13, 10:04 PM
wait.. pazuzu? aint the the name of the dog(?) on Neighbors from Hell? Hmmmm

lol

faceroll
2010-07-13, 10:21 PM
Pun-pun would never be allowed to exist because the Marrush or whatever (the race that gives pun-pun the ability to do whatever he wants) have already ascended to over-deity-hood and are on constant vigil for that sort of thing.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-13, 10:24 PM
As have I - or rather, heard the stories about it. It was from a longtime 3.5 optimizer and jerkwad convincing his girlfriend to run him games simply so he could roll out stuff like Pun-Pun and the Emerald Legion.

Wow, what a real jerk. I hope his gf didn't put up with it for long. xD
What's Emerald legion, btw? xD

Mystic Muse
2010-07-13, 10:24 PM
Pun-pun would never be allowed to exist because the Marrush or whatever (the race that gives pun-pun the ability to do whatever he wants) have already ascended to over-deity-hood and are on constant vigil for that sort of thing.

It was pointed out in some thread that the ability doesn't actually work on Sarrukhs

Criptfeind
2010-07-13, 10:25 PM
No one cares if pun pun works because you can not convince ether side that they are wrong. Also why do most people attack pun pun on the wrong grounds? Go for the rules not the damn NPC reactions.

Optimystik
2010-07-13, 10:26 PM
Wow, what a real jerk. I hope his gf didn't put up with it for long. xD
What's Emerald legion, btw? xD

Basically, you take a troll, remove its main weaknesses (i.e. give it fire and acid immunity) to create a mini-tarrasque that won't stay dead, then mass-produce.

faceroll
2010-07-13, 10:26 PM
It was pointed out in some thread that the ability doesn't actually work on Sarrukhs

Sarrukh gives a mindless minion the ability minus the line that it can't be used on Sarrukhs. See where this is going?

Crow
2010-07-13, 10:28 PM
Someone needs to read how casting from items works...

No, you need to read how Gate works. You can cast the spell from the item just fine. But the use of Gate which you need is a special use and has an XP component. The candle does not provide that XP component (It neither says it does, as the Golem Manuals do, nor is the price adjusted to include an already included XP component.)

DragoonWraith
2010-07-13, 10:30 PM
Even if so (don't care to check all of the relevant rules, but I'm skeptical that you've come across the solution to this major problem after so many TO'ers have been over this), Gate's XP cost is only 1,000 XP. This is hardly the end of the world; a level 2 character can afford that as long as he's at least half way to level 3...

OracleofWuffing
2010-07-13, 11:32 PM
The Level 1 Pun-Pun build I always see uses a ring of 3 wishes, not a Candle of Invocation. (Ardent, wish PaO on a psicrystal to a viper, wish PaO on yourself to a sarrukh)

Though I would argue that the Candle of Invocation's text, "burning a candle also allows the owner to cast a gate spell," means that I'm allowed to cast the gate spell, whatever purposes I'm using it for doesn't matter. Should it say it provides the XP cost? Probably. Should it have a different price? Probably. Should Wizards of the Coast given more diligence to this item, overall? Probably. :smalltongue:

Ranos
2010-07-13, 11:35 PM
You want to know about Pun-pun, eh ? Let me tell you about that blasted kobold.

There is a rumor, in the darkest circles of the roleplaying community. Says when you've gone deep enough into the world of roleplaying games, there's some kind of initiation ritual. Perhaps you've heard about it. Hell, some of you must already have gone through it. I know you're reading this, you bastards. I won't stay silent anymore.

It all began when my cleric, Elfstar, was raised to the 8th level. That's when my world turned into hell. I was accepted into the coven and went through an intense occult training. I became a priestess and a witch. And the source of our power ? The goddamn Pun-pun. Bastard "ascended", gave himself the "ability to be a god in real life", and now he's toying with us mortals, using occult texts like d&d manuals as the gateway to create his dark servants.

I've been in his thrall for a long, long time. Too long. I've seen things no man should ever see, done horrible things in his name, used terrible spells. But no more. Yesterday, I found my friend, Marcie, dead. They tried to make it look like a suicide, but I could smell the magic lingering in the air. The poor, foolish girl had tried to ascend, just to get back at the DM. She'd had her thief killed the day before, with a poison trap. She was innocent ; to her, it was just a game. But the DM was one of us. We're everywhere. The moment poor Marcie invoked Pazuzu, she was already good as dead. A dominate person later, and she was hanged in her room.

And that's why I'm not going to take it anymore. I'm gonna make the kobold pay, tonight. Maybe I'll take him by surprise. Probably not, but I have to try. Wish me luck.

Pazuzu, pazuzu, pazu-

sambo.
2010-07-13, 11:38 PM
Haha. Any chance you could elaborate on what happened? :smallamused:

at my table, attempting to become Pun Pun effectivly summons Pun Pun

so; if anyone tried to introduce a Pun Pun character into any game i was DM'ing, i'd do the following:

after the first Manipulate Form iteration to boost any aspect of the character, they would hear a deafening peal of thunder (make a save or fall flat taking XxX temprary stat damage or something).

after the second iteration, they would be struck by lightning from the heavens (take enough damage to leave them at 1HP, 1Str, 1Dex, 1Con, 1Cha. Wis and Int remain).

if they try a third iteration, they would have effectvly summoned the "real" Pun Pun who arrives, demolishes, disintegrates and discombobulates the insolent PC with the words "There Can Be Only One".

at this point, the character is irreversably and irretrievably dead.

Use of Manipulate Form by PCs is to Pun Pun what the Pazuzu chant is to Pazuzu.

at least, that's how i'd deal with it.

mrcarter11
2010-07-13, 11:40 PM
I don't think our DM really knew what was going on.. He is kinda laidback.. But then after a month or so. We had pun-pun, wish, and word all together.. and it was still a lot of fun.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-14, 12:00 AM
Dear Ranos: I love you. Despite the biological impossibility, I want to have ten million of your babies. In lieu of that, please accept one (1) Internet.


You want to know about Pun-pun, eh ? Let me tell you about that blasted kobold.

There is a rumor, in the darkest circles of the roleplaying community. Says when you've gone deep enough into the world of roleplaying games, there's some kind of initiation ritual. Perhaps you've heard about it. Hell, some of you must already have gone through it. I know you're reading this, you bastards. I won't stay silent anymore.

It all began when my cleric, Elfstar, was raised to the 8th level.

Ozymandias9
2010-07-14, 12:14 AM
Maybe, maybe not. Pun-Pun ascension happens very quickly, and a quick detour to prevent scrying before you really get started is both to be expected, and unlikely to get much notice since it's a common thing to do.

Seriously, just face it: it's rules legal. No one's ever, ever going to do it in-game. It's just TO.

Actually, Pazuzu does make that particular Pun-Pun ascension somewhat questionable: the same source that describes how helpful he is to paladins notes that he generally scrys before he pops up when invoked. If you have scrying safeties up, he might not show. If you don't, he could reasonably learn of your plan.

Not necessarily RAW illegal, but it does make it more questionable than, say, the original druid ascension (editing as I'm writing: I'm told that the original was actually an egotist. Druid was the first I saw).

Keld Denar
2010-07-14, 12:36 AM
wait.. pazuzu? aint the the name of the dog(?) on Neighbors from Hell? Hmmmm

Dunno about that, but Pazuzu is the name of Professor Farnsworth's gargoyle in Futurama.
http://www.pspsonywallpaper.com/wp-content/themes/psp3/wallpapers/7198206-futurama---pazuzu.jpg

Also relevant is the fact that Pazuzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazuzu_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)) (also know an Pazrael) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazuzu) is the abyssal lord the south-west wind and of fiendish avians and all things evil and winged.

Thajocoth
2010-07-14, 12:38 AM
The reason Pun-Pun doesn't work is because he doesn't have to. He can just sit around all day and let his wishes do the work for him.

Freegle
2010-07-14, 03:53 AM
I always thought Pun Pun's use of a familiar was a weak point on his path of ultimate power. Granted it's bonded to its master, but at some point it'll be more intelligent than Pun Pun before he can absorb the stat, what's to stop it from simply saying "No"?
It seemed a more elegant roleplaying fiat than the more 'heavy-handed' DM fiats out there.

This has been got around anyway, with the use of psi-crystals. So it's a moot point.

BobVosh
2010-07-14, 04:10 AM
I always thought Pun Pun's use of a familiar was a weak point on his path of ultimate power. Granted it's bonded to its master, but at some point it'll be more intelligent than Pun Pun before he can absorb the stat, what's to stop it from simply saying "No"?
It seemed a more elegant roleplaying fiat than the more 'heavy-handed' DM fiats out there.

This has been got around anyway, with the use of psi-crystals. So it's a moot point.

Why would it? Its master's power is it's power.


Actually, Pazuzu does make that particular Pun-Pun ascension somewhat questionable: the same source that describes how helpful he is to paladins notes that he generally scrys before he pops up when invoked. If you have scrying safeties up, he might not show. If you don't, he could reasonably learn of your plan.

Not necessarily RAW illegal, but it does make it more questionable than, say, the original druid ascension (editing as I'm writing: I'm told that the original was actually an egotist. Druid was the first I saw).

He gains immunity to scrying after a little bit of the ascension, I think.

Myou
2010-07-14, 04:30 AM
at my table, attempting to become Pun Pun effectivly summons Pun Pun

so; if anyone tried to introduce a Pun Pun character into any game i was DM'ing, i'd do the following:

after the first Manipulate Form iteration to boost any aspect of the character, they would hear a deafening peal of thunder (make a save or fall flat taking XxX temprary stat damage or something).

after the second iteration, they would be struck by lightning from the heavens (take enough damage to leave them at 1HP, 1Str, 1Dex, 1Con, 1Cha. Wis and Int remain).

if they try a third iteration, they would have effectvly summoned the "real" Pun Pun who arrives, demolishes, disintegrates and discombobulates the insolent PC with the words "There Can Be Only One".

at this point, the character is irreversably and irretrievably dead.

Use of Manipulate Form by PCs is to Pun Pun what the Pazuzu chant is to Pazuzu.

at least, that's how i'd deal with it.

Whereas I just don't allow Manipulate Form in my games.

WinWin
2010-07-14, 04:33 AM
pfft. Sarrukh gives ability to familliar. The share spells effect has been ruled to work both ways. The Sarrukh modifies it's familliar, and shares the effect with itself. Share spells ignores type, allowing effects to effect creatures, even when they normally would not. Effectively, the Sarrkh's familliar becomes the focus of the loop. Once even one Sarrukh has a familliar, they can all use it as a focus to skip the restrictions on modifying themselves. Before long, every Sarrukh is the familliar of every other Sarrukh that it is friendly with. They all form a cricle and manipulate form far faster than Pun-Pun ever could. Reaching ascendancy far faster than he ever could. In fact they already have. Pun-Pun is a lie.

Bodkins Odds
2010-07-14, 04:40 AM
Okay, I know how to solve the problem! One, don't let Sarrukh exist in your game world. Two, any PC using Manipulate Form causes an Quarut to hunt them down...

...and retroactively remove said PC from the timestream.

2xMachina
2010-07-14, 04:57 AM
Pun Pun happens

DM: Ok, you win D&D. Shall we now play a campaign where there is a challenge? Or would you prefer to go home?

Seriously, there is no need to stop Pun Pun. Pun Pun wins. K, bye bye. No point playing the game any more. Start a new game where you're not Pun Pun.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-14, 05:00 AM
How to foil Pun-Pun in one easy step:

1. Don't play Forgotten Realms, you twit.

sofawall
2010-07-14, 05:05 AM
The share spells effect has been ruled to work both ways.

Well, see, Pun-Pun uses the rules in the book. Your version uses some house rule. I think Pun-Pun can be considered better than your build, since it actually works with the rules given in the book, the baseline for any TO discussion.

Bodkins Odds
2010-07-14, 05:31 AM
I think he was asserting that this was an official WotC ruling, whether this is true I have no idea.

sofawall
2010-07-14, 05:33 AM
It isn't in the errata. Seems less than official.

kamikasei
2010-07-14, 05:36 AM
Once even one Sarrukh has a familliar, they can all use it as a focus to skip the restrictions on modifying themselves. Before long, every Sarrukh is the familliar of every other Sarrukh that it is friendly with.

Whaaa...? I'd call on Morbo but he's too busy going :smallconfused:. I have no idea what this bit is supposed to mean.

9mm
2010-07-14, 06:00 AM
You want to know about Pun-pun, eh ? Let me tell you about that blasted kobold.

You sir, are awesome.


How to foil Pun-Pun in one easy step:

1. Don't play Forgotten Realms, you twit.

Always a good rule

Vulaas
2010-07-14, 06:06 AM
How to foil Pun-Pun in one easy step:

1. Don't play Forgotten Realms, you twit.

The problem is that with sufficient determination, you can 'ascend' within core as well. It's just much, much harder.

Bayar
2010-07-14, 06:09 AM
How to foil Pun-Pun in one easy step:

1. Don't play Forgotten Realms, you twit.

Ahahaha. Well played Yuki_Akuma, well played.

ToySoldierCPlus
2010-07-14, 06:24 AM
The problem is that with sufficient determination, you can 'ascend' within core as well. It's just much, much harder.

Oh, you've gotta be kidding me. I vaguely remember the egoist build, but could somebody remind me how, exactly, one ascends to Pun-Pun through core only?

Prime32
2010-07-14, 06:29 AM
You can't do it through Core-only, but you can do it through Core + Serpent Kingdoms.

Tshern
2010-07-14, 06:38 AM
There was an attempt to ascend in core, but it didn't work. Unlimited Wishes, hit dice (and everything that comes with it), clones and whatnot were achieved though.

Myth
2010-07-14, 07:32 AM
Pun-Pun has the Ice Assassin spell as a spell-like ability at-will. He uses it to copy an arbitrarily high number of gods. Pun-Pun then commands a god clone to make him a proxy. This makes Pun-Pun a rank 1 demigod. Pun-Pun then makes another creature (Lokiyn, the originator of the trick, used squirrels) a proxy. This lowers Pun-Pun to divine rank 0. Pun-Pun then orders another ice assassin god to make him a proxy. At divine rank 1 again, Pun-Pun invests another squirrel with a divine rank. Pun-Pun repeats this process a NI number of times.

The reason why Pun Pun doesn't work IMO (as i stated in another thread already) Is that however ambiguous the Ice Assassin text is, it cannot reproduce deities and their Salient Divine Abilities. If it can you might as well say that anyone capable of casting Ice Assassin can create a 100% version of Lord AO and win the DnD.

Also, the proxy trick where one gains Divine Ranks ad infinitum is a blatant stupidity. So let's say that one can really make a clone of a God via a 9th level spell for argument's sake. So that clone makes Pun Pun a Proxy. Pun Pun is DR1 with the same SDAs of the orginial deity. Pun Pun makes his own proxy, reducing himself to a DR0 quasi-deity, and gaining a DR1 Proxy. This is where the exploit stops as Pun Pun is still, by all the rules, a divine rank 0 proxy of the original deity, hence he cannot be made in to a proxy AGAIN unless he can somehow remove his proxy status completely which is impossible by RAW.

BobVosh
2010-07-14, 07:47 AM
It isn't in the errata. Seems less than official.

Feels like a ruling from the FAQ.


You can't do it through Core-only, but you can do it through Core + Serpent Kingdoms.

Isn't SK nominally a Forgotten Realms book?

Eloel
2010-07-14, 08:08 AM
The reason Pun-Pun doesn't work is because he doesn't have to. He can just sit around all day and let his wishes do the work for him.

Sigged....

DragoonWraith
2010-07-14, 08:14 AM
The reason why Pun Pun doesn't work IMO (as i stated in another thread already) Is that however ambiguous the Ice Assassin text is, it cannot reproduce deities and their Salient Divine Abilities. If it can you might as well say that anyone capable of casting Ice Assassin can create a 100% version of Lord AO and win the DnD.
Yes, that is exactly what we're saying. Ice Assassin is a ridiculously stupid spell that was not well thought out. RAW, Ice Assassin can do exactly that.

Analytica
2010-07-14, 08:18 AM
Isn't SK nominally a Forgotten Realms book?

My point exactly. Sarrukhs, like Incantatrices, Hathran and Red Wizards, are guaranteed to exist in Forgotten Realms only. Similarly, Planar Shepherds and Artificers are guaranteed to exist in Eberron only. If they do so in other settings, they do so because of design choices made by the DM for that game, and thus by DM fiat.

2xMachina
2010-07-14, 08:21 AM
Why does Pun Pun working matter?

Even if the DM let you do it, would anyone even bother to ascend?
An I win button, without any challenge, is just boring. Might as well just quit the game?

Prime32
2010-07-14, 08:28 AM
My point exactly. Sarrukhs, like Incantatrices, Hathran and Red Wizards, are guaranteed to exist in Forgotten Realms only. Similarly, Planar Shepherds and Artificers are guaranteed to exist in Eberron only. If they do so in other settings, they do so because of design choices made by the DM for that game, and thus by DM fiat.Red Wizards are Core.

Analytica
2010-07-14, 08:32 AM
Red Wizards are Core.

Ooops. :smallredface: I did not say Red Wizard, nosireee...

Telonius
2010-07-14, 08:35 AM
Oh, yes. Absolutely. You see, Pun-Pun is infinitely powerful. Thus, if he were ever to appear in a serious game, he would inevitably transcend the boundaries of said game and manifest in our own reality, which would be a Very Bad Thing.

In my campaigns we call him "the DM."

lesser_minion
2010-07-14, 08:37 AM
No, you need to read how Gate works. You can cast the spell from the item just fine. But the use of Gate which you need is a special use and has an XP component. The candle does not provide that XP component (It neither says it does, as the Golem Manuals do, nor is the price adjusted to include an already included XP component.)

If it was a scroll of Gate, you'd be right. If an optional spell effect carries a surcharge, then you must pay the surcharge when you create the item, otherwise the optional effect cannot be used.

In the case of a candle of invocation, however, it's pretty much explicit that the item replicates the calling function, so the costing is presumably a typo. Either way, it's an exception to the rule, despite that being completely retarded.

Regarding Pazuzu, the fluff (and, for that matter, the explanation of the Temptation ability) entirely justifies him not appearing. He does get to use all of his spell-like abilities on you, irrespective of range, SR, or saving throws first, IIRC.

He only appears to those he considers worth his time, and he takes motivation into account. It's also noted that he expects some reasonable effort to achieve whatever was desired without calling upon him, IIRC.

He also helps out in the easiest way he can. He doesn't give wishes out unless that's the easiest way to do things, and he explicitly doesn't hand characters the means to do everything on a plate.

For future reference, a core + SK ascension uses Shapechange.

pingcode20
2010-07-14, 08:37 AM
Why does Pun Pun working matter?

Even if the DM let you do it, would anyone even bother to ascend?
An I win button, without any challenge, is just boring. Might as well just quit the game?

In this case, the victory is not in the hands of the one who pushes the button, but in the hands of the TO engineers who designed and implemented the button.

Volomon
2010-07-14, 08:37 AM
Pazuzu is not being summoned by a Gate spell. He is being summoned by a Paladin reciting his name. Pazuzu's information, in the same writeup that says his attention can be gained by reciting his name, specifically says that he is very helpful to Paladins. Pazuzu is then asked for the Candle of Invocation, which he cheerfully provides by way of his ability to perform a Wish.

And there are something like 6 different valid entry ways to Pun Pun Ascension; the level 1 Paladin summoning Pazuzu is merely the earliest. The other methods range from, IIRC, level 4 to 17.

Wait a paladin summons the Pazuz a Lawful Good, in order to summon the Efritte you have to be Lawful Evil.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 08:45 AM
Might be possible to summon an Efreet via a scroll and UMD, even if you aren't LE. Doing so might count as an "evil act" though.

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 08:46 AM
Wait a paladin summons the Pazuz a Lawful Good, in order to summon the Efritte you have to be Lawful Evil.

Paladin of Tyranny.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 08:49 AM
Depends on if "Pazuzu likes helping paladins and always takes pains to ensure no harm comes to the paladin as a result of his help" applies to nonstandard paladins as well.

"Almost always agrees to provide aid" might not apply to campaign-shattering power like Candle of Invocation looping.

Erts
2010-07-14, 08:51 AM
I just imagined quite vividly the image of my DM and a transcended Pun-Pun locked in an epic magical battle...

okpokalypse
2010-07-14, 08:55 AM
at my table, attempting to become Pun Pun effectivly summons Pun Pun

so; if anyone tried to introduce a Pun Pun character into any game i was DM'ing, i'd do the following:

after the first Manipulate Form iteration to boost any aspect of the character, they would hear a deafening peal of thunder (make a save or fall flat taking XxX temprary stat damage or something).

after the second iteration, they would be struck by lightning from the heavens (take enough damage to leave them at 1HP, 1Str, 1Dex, 1Con, 1Cha. Wis and Int remain).

if they try a third iteration, they would have effectvly summoned the "real" Pun Pun who arrives, demolishes, disintegrates and discombobulates the insolent PC with the words "There Can Be Only One".

at this point, the character is irreversably and irretrievably dead.

Use of Manipulate Form by PCs is to Pun Pun what the Pazuzu chant is to Pazuzu.

at least, that's how i'd deal with it.

What if the first action of the newly aspiring Pun-Pun was to give himself Time Regression (Sp) at Will as a Free Action? Then, as a free action, regressed in time like 2 minutes and did all his buffing in a temporal loop :smallsmile:

By the time the incumbent Pun-Pun got there, it'd be too late as the aspiring Pun-Pun just infinitely Buffed in an Infinite time-loop :smalleek:

Kish
2010-07-14, 08:56 AM
Paladin of Tyranny.
Might I venture that an example of grotesque rules abuse which can only work in the absence of a DM which hinges on the DM using variant rules annihilates itself?

(Also? Sarrukhs are in exactly one published setting, which is an extremely high-magic setting and has multiple entities--Mystra, Elminster--designed almost solely to brutally smack down abuses of magic. That is why Pun-Pun doesn't work, because he's flatly impossible in any setting but the Forgotten Realms and would never get anywhere near the end of his apotheosis in the Forgotten Realms.)

(Don't say anything about the Spellplague. Everything in this thread hinges on 3.x rules; Pun-Pun is equally, which is to say infinitely, far from working in 4ed.)

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-14, 08:59 AM
What if the first action of the newly aspiring Pun-Pun was to give himself Time Regression (Sp) at Will as a Free Action? Then, as a free action, regressed in time like 2 minutes and did all his buffing in a temporal loop :smallsmile:

By the time the incumbent Pun-Pun got there, it'd be too late as the aspiring Pun-Pun just infinitely Buffed in an Infinite time-loop :smalleek:

What makes you think Pun-Pun wouldn't have already have done that himself the minute the aspirant started getting anywhere, using his awesome scrying abilities...?

Assuming he didn't just make up a literal "I win" power...

lesser_minion
2010-07-14, 09:33 AM
(Don't say anything about the Spellplague. Everything in this thread hinges on 3.x rules; Pun-Pun is equally, which is to say infinitely, far from working in 4ed.)

I don't remember who posted it, but it was pointed out that Pun-Pun is trivial in 4th edition. Once he's in 3rd edition, he can shift to another edition, retaining all of his 3rd edition capabilities working exactly as they do in 3rd edition.

Of course, that's one of those "too broken for TO abuses".

LibraryOgre
2010-07-14, 01:37 PM
Depends on if "Pazuzu likes helping paladins and always takes pains to ensure no harm comes to the paladin as a result of his help" applies to nonstandard paladins as well.

I would argue that it does not; UA is a wholly optional book of options (yes, the redundancy is intentional), which is generally NOT taken into account while writing other things. "Paladin" in books outside of UA will apply pretty much only to real paladins (i.e. LG), not the variants, unless stated otherwise, just like discussions of druids is going to assume the core druid, not the "fast hunter" variant, and discussions of rangers aren't going to be about the shapechange ranger.

2xMachina
2010-07-14, 01:42 PM
Does it matter if you fall? You're Pun Pun. Paladin class lvls is crap in comparison.

Kish
2010-07-14, 01:55 PM
I'm not seeing what that's a reply to.

Radar
2010-07-14, 03:39 PM
Actually neither Pazuzu nor the Palladin class are important for Pun-Pun. That is just one of many variants. You can just gather money for that Candle of Invocation or sidestep the whole ordeal of dealing with Efreets and Sharrukh and take it's power through Master of Many Forms without contacting it even once.

Gametime
2010-07-14, 03:41 PM
It is astonishing to me how many people seem to think Pun-Pun is supposed to be played. :smallconfused:

OracleofWuffing
2010-07-14, 03:52 PM
In which book does the "Pazuzu is especially chummy with tempting paladins" line appear? I wanna see if I can end-run around the rules with a guy named Paladin.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-07-14, 03:54 PM
Fiendish Codex I, it is in his monster entry

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 03:56 PM
Fiendish Codex 1 (though I think it also appeared in the Dragon article on Pazuzu)

In FC1:

Pazuzu particularly enjoys corrupting paladins and takes pains to ensure that the first time he helps a paladin, no evil comes as a result of his assistance, hoping to encourage the paladin to call on him again. Aid granted by Pazuzu is typically granted in the manner easiest for the demon prince to manifest, often in the form of his wish spell-like ability.

OracleofWuffing
2010-07-14, 04:04 PM
Ah, yes, I see, thank you. I was going off a web enhancement somewhere that didn't have anything on paladins. Well, the lack of capitalization looks like I couldn't do the name trick, but I think I could get off just saying my character is a paladin in the same way Miko is a samurai or something. :smalltongue:

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-14, 04:06 PM
Pun-Pun is utterly impossible outside of Forgotten Realms.

The Sarrukh's Manipulate Form ability only works on Scaled Ones native to Abeir-Toril. If the kobold is from, say, Oerth... tough luck, it doesn't work.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 04:15 PM
Hence "ask Pazuzu to cast Wish on you to turn you into a Scaled One native to Toril"

This based on the assumption that there's only one Abyss, that serves all the worlds that have "The Abyss" in their planar cosmology.

Gametime
2010-07-14, 04:57 PM
Hence "ask Pazuzu to cast Wish on you to turn you into a Scaled One native to Toril"


And assuming that that's a valid use of Wish, and that your game's multiverse includes Toril. Plenty of settings just assume the one Material Plane exists, which would presumably make Toril-nativity shenanigans impossible.

At this point, though, it's less about what the rules say you can do and more about what the rules don't specifically exclude.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 05:07 PM
I'm not sure if the Abyss and the Demon Princes actually exist in Eberron- it suggests using Demon Princes as Rakshasa Rajahs- so if you're playing an Eberron game, there may be no Pazuzu to contact (or he might be imprisoned and unable to answer the call).

OracleofWuffing
2010-07-14, 06:23 PM
(or he might be imprisoned and unable to answer the call).
Nope, it says right there he always uses Sense Motive to try to determine whether the one who calls him is trying to entrap him. :smallbiggrin:

For those who are not HTML6 compliant yet, yes, this post is a joke.

Stompy
2010-07-14, 06:33 PM
Answering the OP concerns:


That's funny...where's Pazuzu? Why isn't he answering your summons, gosh darnit? You don't have all day.

Pazuzu, is well, not around anymore. Someone found the Pun Pun trick before you, ascended to godhood, then, just so no one could challenge him, viciously murdered Pazuzu until he turned into dust and vapor. Then the dust and vapor were viciously murdered into nothingness. Then Pun Pun ate the history behind Pazuzu, just so his iron grasp on 3.5 could not be challenged, ever. You don't want to know what happened to the Sarrukhs. :smalleek:

...you may not have all day, but Pun Pun does. And he knows that you are trying to take his power.

The Big Dice
2010-07-14, 06:53 PM
At this point, though, it's less about what the rules say you can do and more about what the rules don't specifically exclude.

What the rules don't exclude is a scary, scary place to go.

After all, nowhere in the rules does it say that Kobolds can't fly. Which means flying Pun-Pun is perfectly legal without him having to do anything.

Also, the stat boosting trick for Pun-Pun takes time. That's when he's vulnerable. And because you're dealing wih finite numbers at every step of the way, to get infinite stats means taking an infinitely long time doing it.

Even with time loop shenanigans, infinitly long times are, well, they last for infinity. Better to settle for arbitrarily high numbers instead. And that's assuming Pazuzu hasn't simply trapped your hapless Kobold in a dream world that resembles the real one in every detail. Except for the part where you're playing Pun-Pun instead of being unconcious in a cave somewhere.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-14, 07:00 PM
A. The rules do specify that Kobolds cannot fly.

B. Pun-Pun does not rely on assuming the absence of a rule to the contrary is the same as a rule to the opposite. Pazuzu is not important, the Candle of Invocation is not important, just the ability to get Manipulate Form and be able to use it on yourself. There are lots of ways to do it.

At some point, Pun Pun becomes truly unstoppable - his actual numbers cease to be important, because he can grant himself any ability imaginable as a Free action that can be taken out of turn. It is literally impossible for anything to happen that he doesn't like. It's impossible for anything to have happened that he doesn't like, for that matter...

Gametime
2010-07-14, 07:05 PM
What the rules don't exclude is a scary, scary place to go.

I couldn't agree more.


Also, the stat boosting trick for Pun-Pun takes time. That's when he's vulnerable. And because you're dealing wih finite numbers at every step of the way, to get infinite stats means taking an infinitely long time doing it.

I am not clear on the means, but Doc Roc is quite the authority on the subject and he claims that Pun-Pun can achieve basically absolute power in something like one round.

Again, I really don't know how it works, and it's possible I'm misrepresenting the facts, but everything I've seen of Pun-Pun leads me to believe that he's even more terrifyingly powerful than the standard observer can glean from a cursory glance.


Even with time loop shenanigans, infinitly long times are, well, they last for infinity. Better to settle for arbitrarily high numbers instead. And that's assuming Pazuzu hasn't simply trapped your hapless Kobold in a dream world that resembles the real one in every detail. Except for the part where you're playing Pun-Pun instead of being unconcious in a cave somewhere.

I can't see Pazuzu doing that unless he realized you were going to try and become Pun-Pun, though.

Which is, honestly, the main problem with stopping Pun-Pun; there are certainly beings strong enough to, but are any of them constantly monitoring all the kobolds in the world just in case? The only beings who get free notifications on this stuff are deities, and Pun-Pun's ascension doesn't really fit neatly into any deific spheres of influence.

Unless, of course, you have an Overdeity like Ao with spheres of everything, but then Pun-Pun basically already exists anyway. :smalltongue:

tyckspoon
2010-07-14, 07:06 PM
Even with time loop shenanigans, infinitly long times are, well, they last for infinity. Better to settle for arbitrarily high numbers instead. And that's assuming Pazuzu hasn't simply trapped your hapless Kobold in a dream world that resembles the real one in every detail. Except for the part where you're playing Pun-Pun instead of being unconcious in a cave somewhere.

Better to be all-powerful in a fantasy than to be a level 1 Kobold Paladin in the 'real' world, really.

Focusing on the Pazuzu method is missing much of the point, anyway- there are a number of techniques that lead to Pun-Punitude. At its core, you can ascend with any ability that lets you turn into a Sarrukh and use Manipulate Form. The very first method was actually just another exercise in finding really silly broken things to do with Shapechange.

Lamech
2010-07-14, 09:50 PM
Wait why are you getting a candle of invocation instead of a ring of three wishes? Calling an outsider with wish creates all sorts of problems, the ring does it with out any fuss.

pingcode20
2010-07-14, 09:53 PM
Wait why are you getting a candle of invocation instead of a ring of three wishes? Calling an outsider with wish creates all sorts of problems, the ring does it with out any fuss.

Too expensive. Wish only makes magic items up to 15,000gp.

NEO|Phyte
2010-07-14, 09:54 PM
Wait why are you getting a candle of invocation instead of a ring of three wishes? Calling an outsider with wish creates all sorts of problems, the ring does it with out any fuss.

What pingcode20 said, also, It's generally frowned upon when you use Wish to get more Wishes. Candle gets around that by not casting Wish.

lesser_minion
2010-07-14, 09:54 PM
Wait why are you getting a candle of invocation instead of a ring of three wishes? Calling an outsider with wish creates all sorts of problems, the ring does it with out any fuss.

Surcharges.

Only a candle of invocation works, because any other magic item can't be used to make further magic items (a magic item that casts wish can only create another magic item if the original item's creator paid it, which is never the case).

senrath
2010-07-14, 09:59 PM
Too expensive. Wish only makes magic items up to 15,000gp.

Nope. There is no gp limit to the magic items it can make.

OracleofWuffing
2010-07-14, 11:42 PM
Too expensive. Wish only makes magic items up to 15,000gp.
The limit's 25,000, and that only applies to mundane items.


Only a candle of invocation works, because any other magic item can't be used to make further magic items.
The ring of wishes is provided by Pazuzu's spell. The wishes are then used for casting Polymorph Any Object. We're not using magic items to create magic items. In less Pun-Pun news, a Deck of Many Things is a magic item that can be used to make further magic items.

:smallbiggrin:"It's not wishing for more wishes, it's wishing for a magic item! Seriously!"

Criptfeind
2010-07-15, 02:32 AM
A. The rules do specify that Kobolds cannot fly.

Wait. Where?

hamishspence
2010-07-15, 04:51 AM
Sarrukh exist in 4E Forgotten Realms- but they dropped the Manipulate Form ability.

Pazuzu is in 4E Demonomicon- without the ability to grant wishes to players as far as I know.

So, while the original parts for Pun-pun exist in 4E, I don't think you can do anything like Pun-pun if you begin in the 4E ruleset.

Draxar
2010-07-15, 05:35 AM
This may seem like a silly question, but I can't recall ever seeing it answered...

Why is Pun-Pun called "Pun-Pun?" Why not "Blasted Kobold" or the like? :smallsmile:

I believe it may be based on Bun-Bun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Sluggy_Freelance#Bun-bun) from Sluggy Freelance, especially on said character's attempted ascension.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-15, 05:54 AM
Which is, honestly, the main problem with stopping Pun-Pun; there are certainly beings strong enough to, but are any of them constantly monitoring all the kobolds in the world just in case? The only beings who get free notifications on this stuff are deities, and Pun-Pun's ascension doesn't really fit neatly into any deific spheres of influence.

Unless, of course, you have an Overdeity like Ao with spheres of everything, but then Pun-Pun basically already exists anyway. :smalltongue:

There is a God of Kobolds... whose name I can never spell.

Although I'm not sure he'd object to a Kobold gaining Real Ultimate Power.

Pun-Pun is named Pun-Pun because that's what his parents clan named him, duh. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-07-15, 05:57 AM
There's more than one:

http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Kurtulmak

http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gaknulak

and if urds (winged kobolds) count:

http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Kuraulyek

The kobold demigod Dakarnok isn't described there though.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-15, 06:00 AM
Right, that guy.

And if he's also a Dragonwrought Kobold, he also falls under the portfolio of Io, and possibly either Bahamut or Tiamat depending on his lineage.

Boci
2010-07-15, 06:28 AM
Wait. Where?

Look at their speed.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 06:35 AM
The ring of wishes is provided by Pazuzu's spell. The wishes are then used for casting Polymorph Any Object. We're not using magic items to create magic items. In less Pun-Pun news, a Deck of Many Things is a magic item that can be used to make further magic items.

You know what I meant.

You cannot create a magic item from a ring of wishes without paying extra XP to allow it to create items (basically, it's an optional effect that costs more XP than the base effect, so you can't do it because you didn't pay for it).

I'm not sure how many wishes you need, but it's worth giving yourself a backup plan, so the infinite loop option is more useful in real terms.


Sarrukh exist in 4E Forgotten Realms- but they dropped the Manipulate Form ability.

Manipulate Form is out-of-scope for 4th edition monsters (since it's a plot-crafting ability).

They still have it, it's just not listed on their stat blocks.

Zen Master
2010-07-15, 06:56 AM
I can reveal why Pun-Pun doesn't work.

It doesn't work because of a number of faulty assumptions. Beginning with the assumption that npc's (Pazuzu, for instance, or the mentioned efreeti) are under player control. Further the assumption that wishes and magic items are under player control. And finally with the assumption that no one was clever enough to attempt this before in the entire multiverse and fail - after which the gods built in fail-safes of the order 'anyone who would ever try this later in life, dies at birth'.

You likely want to call that DM fiat. Fine by me. There's reasons for DM fiat to be desirable. There's really no reasoning in the world that could make player fiat so.

sofawall
2010-07-15, 07:05 AM
There is absolutely no reason to even think about attacking Pun-Pun on the grounds of DM Fiat, because it is freely accepted that The DM Wins. Pun-Pun is an example of Theoretical Optimization. Theoretical Optimization is what is possible if the DM allowed everything as it is in the book, with no houserules. It is not meant to be played, it is not meant to be used. It is merely a mental exercise, someone saying "Hey, look at the knots I can bend the system into!". We all know it won't work in a game. That's part of the premise of the build! The creator, before even beginning to describe the build, says this. Emphasizes it. Iterates it, and reiterates it. Nobody cares how he works at your table. What he is designed to show is what is possible in the system.

That said, let's look at your criticisms in a TO framework, where Pun-PUn was made.

What you are saying is Pun-Pun is impossible either because NPCs and spells act totally different from how they are described in the book (taking this into house rule territory, and out of TO, therefore out of this discussion) or because Pun-Pun already exists. The first one can be discounted immediately, and, well, think about the second one.

EDIT: And let me just say this one more time. Saying Pun-Pun doesn't work outside of a TO environment is like saying a stealth submarine doesn't work in Kansas. Of course not, that not what is was made for.

Radar
2010-07-15, 07:57 AM
I can reveal why Pun-Pun doesn't work.

It doesn't work because of a number of faulty assumptions. Beginning with the assumption that npc's (Pazuzu, for instance, or the mentioned efreeti) are under player control. Further the assumption that wishes and magic items are under player control. And finally with the assumption that no one was clever enough to attempt this before in the entire multiverse and fail - after which the gods built in fail-safes of the order 'anyone who would ever try this later in life, dies at birth'.

You likely want to call that DM fiat. Fine by me. There's reasons for DM fiat to be desirable. There's really no reasoning in the world that could make player fiat so.
Yes, no sane DM would ever allow Pun-Pun. Still Pun-Pun doesn't require any sort of fiat to work. Pazuzu and infinite Wish exploits are just the fastest possible way of aquiring Manipulate Form, but not the only one. The most straightforward are Shapechange spell and Assume Supernatural Ability feat from Savage Species. It's that simple and can't be circumvented without a fiat.

edit: nasty typo.

Grail
2010-07-15, 08:20 AM
{Scrubbed}

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-15, 08:23 AM
{Scrubbed}

Your players would try to play something that says in the build at least once that it is not meant to be played, in addition to it being TO and therefore a thought experiment only by default?

As a nitpick, powergamers wouldn't play Pun-Pun. Munchkins try to play Pun-Pun.

sofawall
2010-07-15, 08:25 AM
In this equation, LoP would be the power gamer. The guy who tries to use it at the table? He is most definitely a munchkin, and a fool of a Took to boot.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 08:32 AM
I can reveal why Pun-Pun doesn't work.

Because it was never meant to?


It doesn't work because of a number of faulty assumptions. Beginning with the assumption that npc's (Pazuzu, for instance, or the mentioned efreeti) are under player control. Further the assumption that wishes and magic items are under player control. And finally with the assumption that no one was clever enough to attempt this before in the entire multiverse and fail - after which the gods built in fail-safes of the order 'anyone who would ever try this later in life, dies at birth'.

All of these are things that are supposed to be the case, but nothing is done that's outside of the guidelines the rules suggest for those items.


You likely want to call that DM fiat. Fine by me. There's reasons for DM fiat to be desirable. There's really no reasoning in the world that could make player fiat so.

It's been said before, but you've missed the point. Nobody's trying to come up with something that works in a game -- most settings don't have Sarrukh, and in 3rd edition, there's no expectation whatsoever that the FR are part of your campaign setting.

Acanous
2010-07-15, 08:34 AM
Easiest way to stop it is by having encounters happen to the player every time he tries starting things off. If you go the Pazuzu route, OK, you have your candle now, but yes, Gods know what you're up to and here's a random band of CR equivilent things they sent to stop you.

Oh, you beat them. Are you trying again? Well here's another encounter.
Repeat until player learns, dies, earns his godlike power the normal way, or gives up.

Grail
2010-07-15, 08:34 AM
Your players would try to play something that says in the build at least once that it is not meant to be played, in addition to it being TO and therefore a thought experiment only by default?


Some of them (at least 2) would probably consider trying it. They overlook many, many things like that.



As a nitpick, powergamers wouldn't play Pun-Pun. Munchkins try to play Pun-Pun.

Semantics. Like the difference between a Geek and a Nerd. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 08:42 AM
Easiest way to stop it is by having encounters happen to the player every time he tries starting things off. If you go the Pazuzu route, OK, you have your candle now, but yes, Gods know what you're up to and here's a random band of CR equivilent things they sent to stop you.

Oh, you beat them. Are you trying again? Well here's another encounter.
Repeat until player learns, dies, earns his godlike power the normal way, or gives up.

The entire premise behind TO is that the DM doesn't care to prevent imbalances from occurring, even when they depend on poor interpretations of unclear rules.

We don't really need to know how Pun-Pun can be stopped -- we already know that no sane DM will allow it in the first place.


Semantics. Like the difference between a Geek and a Nerd. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

No, they aren't.

Powergamers are people who want to play powerful characters. On its own, this implies nothing about even their willingness to optimise (someone who seeks to play mechanically powerful characters is an 'optimiser').

Optimisers, or 'min-maxers' are people who try to make the most mechanically efficient characters possible, without ruining the game for other players.

Munchkins are people who try to play the game to 'win', without respecting the other players, the DM, or the spirit of the game.

Boci
2010-07-15, 08:45 AM
Semantics. Like the difference between a Geek and a Nerd. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

No they are. One very big difference is that powergamers will play a batman wizard, not Pun-Pun.

Lord Loss
2010-07-15, 08:47 AM
My only comment is that the argument is void, seeing as pun-pun can be attained without use of Pazuzu.

Also, Pun-Pun is an exercise of thought, no gamer will truly play Pun-Pun.

sofawall
2010-07-15, 08:48 AM
Like the difference between a Geek and a Nerd. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

No. One is insulting, the other is a preference.

Powergamers make powerful characters for the sake of making powerful characters. They do not break the rules of the game, because then what is the point? Note the word "game" in their name?

A munchkin, on the other hand, is someone who is perfectly willing to break the rules of the game and impose himself on everyone's fun just to have a powerful character.

So a power gamer would be the one who comes up with Pun-Pun, and goes "Hey, look, cool build". A munchkin is the one who goes "Real Ultimate Power?!?! I must bring that to the table! Screw the rest of the party, who needs them, I'm invincible!"

Also, the mere fact that someone corrected you means that someone feels there is a real and legitimate difference.

Grail
2010-07-15, 08:50 AM
No they are. One very big difference is that powergamers will play a batman wizard, not Pun-Pun.

Some of the time, not necessarily all of the time.

Zen Master
2010-07-15, 08:56 AM
It's been said before, but you've missed the point.

Absolutely not.

Boci
2010-07-15, 08:57 AM
Some of the time, not necessarily all of the time.

No, power gamers will never play Pun-Pun, because there is now challange in Pun-Pun's build, since it already been done, and no challange in playing it because well, there just isn't. Whoever came up with Pun-Pun may very well have been a powergamer, but anyone who tries to play it is something else.

Grail
2010-07-15, 08:59 AM
Also, the mere fact that someone corrected you means that someone feels there is a real and legitimate difference.

That is an irrelevant argument.

Sure, you can disagree with me like I am disagreeing with you. But at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. I've been roleplaying for many many years, whilst most of you were probably still in nappies. The terms Min-Maxer then Power Gamers have been used in my groups for over 25 and 20 years. Munchkin is a newer term, but has been bandied around in my groups for over 15. They are all interchangeable and simply one term has come along to replace the other.

You can define them how you like. I say you are arguing semantics.

You will have another chip in, I'm sure... it's the internet, and you will have to get the final word in. So, enjoy. :smallsmile:

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 09:00 AM
Absolutely not.

There is nothing wrong with houseruling or making a sensible interpretation of a rule.

But Theoretical optimisation exercises like this are about what happens when you don't. Don't confuse them with something people actually might try to play.

Boci
2010-07-15, 09:02 AM
That is an irrelevant argument.

Sure, you can disagree with me like I am disagreeing with you. But at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. I've been roleplaying for many many years, whilst most of you were probably still in nappies. The terms Min-Maxer then Power Gamers have been used in my groups for over 25 and 20 years. Munchkin is a newer term, but has been bandied around in my groups for over 15. They are all interchangeable and simply one term has come along to replace the other.

You can define them how you like. I say you are arguing semantics.

You will have another chip in, I'm sure... it's the internet, and you will have to get the final word in. So, enjoy. :smallsmile:

Languages changes, even in the community of a single role playing game. It is now generally accepted that those terms are not interchangable, but no one is forcing you to keep up with newer gaming specific vocabulary.

sofawall
2010-07-15, 09:06 AM
The terms Min-Maxer then Power Gamers have been used in my groups for over 25 and 20 years.

They have been used for 20-25 years, eh? You're right, I haven't even been alive that long.

Guess what, though? Popular language has changed drastically in the last 2 years. 2. That is less than a tenth of your 25. I'd like to bring your attention to, for example, the recent trend of High School students to say something that is bad or displeases them is "Gay". Homophobia aside, this phrase was simply not used in the same way as little as 4 years ago. Why do you think something like this would be different, especially with the popular advent of the internet and gaming culture?

EDIT: Another example being the word "noob".

Zen Master
2010-07-15, 09:14 AM
But Theoretical optimisation exercises like this are about what happens when you don't. Don't confuse them with something people actually might try to play.

I'm not confused.

You have this little mind exercise: How badly can I break the game. I have mine: How simply can I fix it.

I'm not at all confused. I know exactly what Pun-Pun is about.

Optimystik
2010-07-15, 09:15 AM
You can define them how you like. I say you are arguing semantics.

Few terms are perfectly interchangeable. There is such a thing as connotation.

Surely you realize that the term "Power Gamer" is less negative than "Munchkin."

The Glyphstone
2010-07-15, 09:17 AM
That is an irrelevant argument.

Sure, you can disagree with me like I am disagreeing with you. But at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. I've been roleplaying for many many years, whilst most of you were probably still in nappies. The terms Min-Maxer then Power Gamers have been used in my groups for over 25 and 20 years. Munchkin is a newer term, but has been bandied around in my groups for over 15. They are all interchangeable and simply one term has come along to replace the other.

You can define them how you like. I say you are arguing semantics.

You will have another chip in, I'm sure... it's the internet, and you will have to get the final word in. So, enjoy. :smallsmile:

Should we also get off your lawn, while you wave that stick at us?:smallconfused:

Though it is likely but not guaranteed, based on your statement, that to you and your group, powergaming and munchkinry are the same. AD&D/older edition players are much more likely than 3.X-trained players to consider anything significantly different than S+B fighters/healbot clerics/blaster wizards to be cheesy munchkinry, because that's what their paradigm of 'normal' was learning the game*. Characters who don't mesh into those archtypes, either because they function differently than 'intended' or simply more powerful offend their sensibilities.

So to you and your group, with your background, it's entirely reasonable that building mechanically powerful/optimized characters goes hand-in-hand with munchkins. But to others, who had their D&D foundation based on the plethora of options that 3.X is capable of with all its glory and tarnish, there's a very distinct non-semantical difference.



*Disclaimer: Anecdotes are not data. But an overwhelming majority of the people I know who consider BC wizards, trip-fighters, or battle clerics to be 'cheese' were also long-term oldschool gamers. Thus, I've built up at least my own personal associations that such people are more likely to hold such opinions.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 09:18 AM
... the recent trend of High School students to say something that is bad or displeases them is "Gay". Homophobia aside, this phrase was simply not used in the same way as little as 4 years ago....

The words 'lame' and 'gay' were used interchangeably like that for most of the time I was in primary or secondary school, actually. They aren't an example, although your point is sound.

sofawall
2010-07-15, 09:25 AM
The words 'lame' and 'gay' were used interchangeably like that for most of the time I was in primary or secondary school, actually. They aren't an example, although your point is sound.

This I did not know. In my area, it wasn't until fairly recently it was used that way. In that case, I stand by Noob.

Myth
2010-07-15, 09:28 AM
Unless someone can disprove my previous statement I'm still saying Pun Pun can't gain Divine Ranks legally by RAW via the stupid porxy exploit, a flaw of which everyone has been conveniently overlooking for years now. A proxy making a proxy is still a DR0 Quasi-Deity and a proxy itself, and thus can't be raised to proxy status and gain DR1 AGAIN. It can either recall it's DR from it's own proxy and become DR1, or stay DR0 forever.

So guess what - Supreme Initative + Salient Life and Death = no Pun Pun, even if he has 20 bajillion to all stats via manipulate cheese form.

kamikasei
2010-07-15, 09:29 AM
So to you and your group, with your background, it's entirely reasonable that building mechanically powerful/optimized characters goes hand-in-hand with munchkins. But to others, who had their D&D foundation based on the plethora of options that 3.X is capable of with all its glory and tarnish, there's a very distinct non-semantical difference.

Perhaps more importantly: when speaking to people who will self-describe as power-gamers (as many here do) and regard "munchkin" as a derogative that does not apply to them, to insist that the terms are interchangeable in your own group's usage is basically saying that you're choosing to attribute behaviours to them that they abhor based on your understanding of the term even after they define their usage of it for you. That's kind of rude.

sofawall
2010-07-15, 09:43 AM
Unless someone can disprove my previous statement...

I think we're still waiting for you to prove it. We cannot disprove anything until you've proven it to us. So just go grab that text that says a creature can only be a proxy of one god, and we'll get back to you.

OracleofWuffing
2010-07-15, 09:51 AM
I'm not sure how many wishes you need, but it's worth giving yourself a backup plan, so the infinite loop option is more useful in real terms.
Well, in ideal circumstances, you only need two wishes, so the backup plan's built in to the third wish, I suppose. Guess it never hurts to have the option of receiving a 25,000 gp sandwich.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 09:54 AM
Well, in ideal circumstances, you only need two wishes, so the backup plan's built in to the third wish, I suppose. Guess it never hurts to have the option of receiving a 25,000 gp sandwich.

What kind of sandwich would that actually be?

:eek:

Mercenary Pen
2010-07-15, 10:08 AM
What kind of sandwich would that actually be?

:eek:

I'm thinking char-grilled fillet of Tarrasque with green leaf salad made from extinct species of vegetation would be at least that price...

Also, if I ever DM'ed 3.5e, my simple house-rules to prevent those forms of rules-abuse would be as follows:

1- players get a moderately high- but still finite- number of free actions per round (say 6-8 somewhere). Also, free actions will be re-named moderately-priced actions.

2- no infinite loops of anything under any circumstances.

These rules would apply to myself as well as the players, and I would make that clear up front... Seems simple enough- do players really need sufficient free actions per round to recite an entire norse saga before the dragon attacks?

DragoonWraith
2010-07-15, 10:30 AM
I can reveal why Pun-Pun doesn't work.

It doesn't work because of a number of faulty assumptions. Beginning with the assumption that npc's (Pazuzu, for instance, or the mentioned efreeti) are under player control. Further the assumption that wishes and magic items are under player control. And finally with the assumption that no one was clever enough to attempt this before in the entire multiverse and fail - after which the gods built in fail-safes of the order 'anyone who would ever try this later in life, dies at birth'.

You likely want to call that DM fiat. Fine by me. There's reasons for DM fiat to be desirable. There's really no reasoning in the world that could make player fiat so.
:headdesk:

Some of this is incorrect (Pun-Pun ascension does not require any NPC involvement, Pazuzu is just one of the easier ways to do it), some of it flies in the face of the rules (that Wishes for things listed in the Wish spell description as safe won't be), and some of it assumes that this is anything other than strict, pure TO never intended for a game.

What is so difficult to understand about something being a simple RAW shenanigan? It's something for people to chuckle at, shake their heads at the silliness of WotC's rules, and get on with. Why on earth do people feel the need to disprove it?!

This infuriates me, it really does. From the very beginning of this thread, it was just... I mean, it's insulting for someone to come along and say, "No, you're all wrong, every single one of the char-op'ers with thousands of hours worth of familiarity with the rules, and dozens of hours experience with various Pun-Pun builds, they're all wrong, because they all missed this obvious detail that only I can see!" No, no one missed that detail: you are just wrong.

For the purposes and system it was constructed (RAW TO), Pun-Pun works. Why can't people just accept that and move on?

Watchers
2010-07-15, 10:34 AM
I think I'll save an edited version of that post to use on these occasions. Do you mind?

Jergmo
2010-07-15, 10:34 AM
I'm not confused.

You have this little mind exercise: How badly can I break the game. I have mine: How simply can I fix it.

I'm not at all confused. I know exactly what Pun-Pun is about.

What Acromos said.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 10:36 AM
Also, if I ever DM'ed 3.5e, my simple house-rules to prevent those forms of rules-abuse would be as follows:

Candles of Invocation just need to be banned outright. The +2 bonus to cleric level is bad enough.

Free action limits are reasonable, but you need to define how much can be said as one action if you're going to do that.

Personally, I prefer to simply allow one of each free action available to you (post-update 4e now does the same thing, IIRC).

Gate just needs the calling function removed. It's just way too broken.

Jergmo
2010-07-15, 10:40 AM
Candles of Invocation just need to be banned outright. The +2 bonus to cleric level is bad enough.

Free action limits are reasonable, but you need to define how much can be said as one action if you're going to do that.

Personally, I prefer to simply allow one of each free action available to you.

Gate just needs the calling function removed. It's just way too broken.

My idea was just to have it allow a Will save in my campaign. A simple enough fix.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 10:48 AM
My idea was just to have it allow a Will save in my campaign. A simple enough fix.

That's not really enough.

In theory, you could have all creatures called on the same basis as a unique creature, instead of being automatically under your control.

The 'three wishes' thing is really better handled by removing the spell-like ability (or, possibly, limiting it to a single wish with the safeties removed), and instead have the 'three wishes' thing conveyed by having the efreet perform three services.

Jergmo
2010-07-15, 10:50 AM
That's not really enough.

In theory, you could have all creatures called on the same basis as a unique creature, instead of being automatically under your control.

The 'three wishes' thing is really better handled by removing the spell-like ability (or, possibly, limiting it to a single wish with the safeties removed), and instead have the 'three wishes' thing conveyed by having the efreet perform three services.

Do you have any ideas to help fix it a bit better, then, apart from removing it?

Watchers
2010-07-15, 10:52 AM
Do you have any ideas to help fix it a bit better, then, apart from removing it?

Well, line number two looks like a bit of a fix.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 10:53 AM
Do you have any ideas to help fix it a bit better, then, apart from removing it?

Simply have it let you call any creature, but on the same basis as calling a unique creature -- so you always have to negotiate.

Spell-like abilities shouldn't have their material components or XP costs removed. That limits the ability of players to abuse calling for free spells.

In addition, limit the wish spell-like ability provided by efreeti and djinni. Wish == 'service', not 'wish as in the spell'. And you get the three wishes from an appropriate magic item.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-15, 10:54 AM
I think I'll save an edited version of that post to use on these occasions. Do you mind?
Assuming that you're talking to me: sure.


What Acromos said.
No, you're still confused, and so is he. Pun-Pun is not about breaking anyone's game. Pun-Pun is about toying with the rules. There's nothing to fix, unless you care to claim that your posts are official Errata for 3.5?


In other words, what Acromos said was correct, until he suggested that it was anything other than DM fiat. It is fiat - and that's not a bad thing. You are supposed to DM fiat anyone who actually tries to become Pun-Pun. But that's not even remotely the same thing as "Pun-Pun does not work". It does, RAW, which is all that matters for the purposes of any discussion of Pun-Pun.

Caphi
2010-07-15, 10:54 AM
That's not really enough.

In theory, you could have all creatures called on the same basis as a unique creature, instead of being automatically under your control.

The 'three wishes' thing is really better handled by removing the spell-like ability (or, possibly, limiting it to a single wish with the safeties removed), and instead have the 'three wishes' thing conveyed by having the efreet perform three services.

Pun-Pun is a RAW mental exercise. In most all playgroups, there's no need to artificially limit him beyond the normal gentlemen's agreement of any game with a social aspect.

That said, I like this idea. The original mythological efreet was simply bound to the owner of the item's service, but beyond possessing super-superhuman strength, speed, skill, possibly an army of vassals, and generally unimaginable wealth and treasure, didn't actually have phenomenal cosmic power. If you asked them to do something, they'd just do it for you; it may be done extremely quickly, with extremely high quality, but the thing goes out and does it.

Of course, at this point you could just planar bind something that would actually help you more. If I was Aladdin and had a choice, I would have picked a giant earth elemental to build me that palace.

Optimystik
2010-07-15, 10:56 AM
*snip*

*Applause*

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-15, 10:57 AM
*Disclaimer: Anecdotes are not data.

Nitpick: Anecdotes are totally data.

They're not good data. But they're better than no data.

Anecdotal evidence is still a type of evidence, even if it's not very convincing.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 10:59 AM
Pun-Pun is a RAW mental exercise. In most all playgroups, there's no need to artificially limit him beyond the normal gentlemen's agreement of any game with a social aspect.

Well, this is vaguely tangential -- we're now thinking of ways to limit calling abuse.

I'm happy branching the thread if anyone wants to carry on discussing gate cheese.


*Applause*

Totally seconded.

Optimystik
2010-07-15, 11:02 AM
They're not good data. But they're better than no data.


I'm not so sure about that, given the number of people I've seen make faulty conclusions based on anecdotal data. (e.g. Psionics is overpowered because there was this one guy in my playgroup last Tuesday...)

The irony of course, is that my assertion is itself anecdotal. :smalltongue:

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-15, 11:06 AM
I'm not so sure about that, given the number of people I've seen make faulty conclusions based on anecdotal data. (e.g. Psionics is overpowered because there was this one guy in my playgroup last Tuesday...)

The irony of course, is that my assertion is itself anecdotal. :smalltongue:

An anecdote is better than no evidence at all, but hard evidence is better than an anecdote. You see?

Backing up your argument with an anecdote makes it a little more believable - and at least shows everyone why you think that. Just saying "Psionics is overpowered!" is bad debating.

Oh, by the way, I agree with DragoonWraith in all things.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 11:07 AM
Anecdotal evidence is still a type of evidence, even if it's not very convincing.

That's basically spot on.

A formal report on some appropriate, well-analysed data on the subject would obviously better, but an anecdote can serve, if necessary.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 11:11 AM
The problem with anecdotes is that they often lead to faulty conclusions. Saying they are better than no evidence flies in the face of the (anecdotal) evidence of the people who say monks are OP, or psions or OP, or wizards aren't OP, or ToB is broken, etc.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence, sure, but not necessarily better than no evidence. You could say anecdotal evidence has a tendency to be...

:smallcool:

contaminated.

senrath
2010-07-15, 11:15 AM
For the purposes and system it was constructed (RAW TO), Pun-Pun works. Why can't people just accept that and move on?

I think some of the people who can't accept it (not all of them) just really don't want to believe the rules of the game are that broken.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-15, 11:17 AM
The problem with anecdotes is that they often lead to faulty conclusions. Saying they are better than no evidence flies in the face of the (anecdotal) evidence of the people who say monks are OP, or psions or OP, or wizards aren't OP, or ToB is broken, etc.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence, sure, but not necessarily better than no evidence. You could say anecdotal evidence has a tendency to be...

:smallcool:

contaminated.

An argument made with anecdotal evidence is easier to refute and better for, you know, arguing. If you just state something it's harder for your opponent to disprove.

Milskidasith
2010-07-15, 11:26 AM
An argument made with anecdotal evidence is easier to refute and better for, you know, arguing. If you just state something it's harder for your opponent to disprove.

The purpose of an argument is not to argue, but to come to an accurate conclusion (or to get your way, but in this case I assume we're talking about balance issues so it's mostly about figuring out what is balanced). Anecdotal evidence can easily lead you astray from an accurate conclusion, which makes it worse, in those cases, than having no way to draw a conclusion at all.

Optimystik
2010-07-15, 11:35 AM
The purpose of an argument is not to argue, but to come to an accurate conclusion (or to get your way, but in this case I assume we're talking about balance issues so it's mostly about figuring out what is balanced). Anecdotal evidence can easily lead you astray from an accurate conclusion, which makes it worse, in those cases, than having no way to draw a conclusion at all.

This is what I was getting at. Arriving at no conclusion is often better than arriving at the wrong conclusion, since the former at least carries with it the inherent need for more information. The latter can easily result in a closed mind.

senrath
2010-07-15, 11:38 AM
This is what I was getting at. Arriving at no conclusion is often better than arriving at the wrong conclusion, since the former at least carries with it the inherent need for more information. The latter can easily result in a closed mind.

To be fair, either can lead to a closed mind. Although I will agree that misinformation is probably more likely to lead to a closed mind than no information.

lesser_minion
2010-07-15, 11:50 AM
The problem with anecdotes is that they often lead to faulty conclusions. Saying they are better than no evidence flies in the face of the (anecdotal) evidence of the people who say monks are OP, or psions or OP, or wizards aren't OP, or ToB is broken, etc.

You're right -- anecdotal evidence does need to be handled extremely carefully. But once you've done that, I think an anecdote is still better than no feedback at all.

The real issue with it is basically that you run the risk of coming up with a 'global' solution to one person's issue, and fixing something that isn't broken for everyone else.


This is what I was getting at. Arriving at no conclusion is often better than arriving at the wrong conclusion, since the former at least carries with it the inherent need for more information. The latter can easily result in a closed mind.

QFT.

Zen Master
2010-07-15, 12:58 PM
:headdesk:

Some of this is incorrect (Pun-Pun ascension does not require any NPC involvement, Pazuzu is just one of the easier ways to do it), some of it flies in the face of the rules (that Wishes for things listed in the Wish spell description as safe won't be), and some of it assumes that this is anything other than strict, pure TO never intended for a game.

No part of the Pun-Pun shenanigans would work at my table. At the very least, it requires (in all versions I've seen) that the players get to decide what happens with wishes and summons.

Ask me, any efreet you try to pry a wish out of will use it's wish to turn you into this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG201.jpg). With an added clause that you get the mental stats too.

Like I've already stated - I'm perfectly aware that Pun-Pun is a mental exercise, and kind of a joke. You however seem to not realise that my refusal of him is the exact same thing.


What is so difficult to understand about something being a simple RAW shenanigan? It's something for people to chuckle at, shake their heads at the silliness of WotC's rules, and get on with. Why on earth do people feel the need to disprove it?!

Who disapproves? You think the fact that I raise conter-arguments somehow means I think you shouldn't invent stuff like Pun-Pun? That's not the case.

I enjoy theoretical optimization. I'm not very good at it - not having the books, and therefore the knowledge - but I find it amusing. Pun-Pun however is something that, to me, lacks the elegance and inventiveness of other such capers. (That still doesn't mean I disaprove - just that I find it unappealing. Like a Monét painting.)


This infuriates me, it really does. From the very beginning of this thread, it was just... I mean, it's insulting for someone to come along and say, "No, you're all wrong, every single one of the char-op'ers with thousands of hours worth of familiarity with the rules, and dozens of hours experience with various Pun-Pun builds, they're all wrong, because they all missed this obvious detail that only I can see!" No, no one missed that detail: you are just wrong.

Who's wrong? I never said anyone was wrong.

I find it startling that you are allowed to go on and on about Pun-Pun - supporting him. But if anyone goes against it, they infuriate you?

Why?


For the purposes and system it was constructed (RAW TO), Pun-Pun works. Why can't people just accept that and move on?

Pun-Pun doesn't work. Your RAW interpretations require the player to decide what happens.

Your view: By WBL you can buy magic items of your choice (for instance the candle of invocation), you decide what happens when you summon, you decide that the efreet (for instance) wants to use its wish on your behalf, and how the wish works.

My view: None of the above. That's all GM decisions.

Now, you're completely correct that the theoretical limits of RAW allow for Pun-Pun. However, the theoretical limits of RAW also deny Pun-Pun.

You base your argument on what the player could point to - and demand.

I base my argument on what the DM could point to - and state as fact.

Both are RAW. I have no problems accepting viewpoints that differ from my own. How about you?

Tshern
2010-07-15, 01:06 PM
You can make a Pun-Pun with infinite Miracles as well. It just takes longer.

Caphi
2010-07-15, 01:08 PM
Acromos, Rule 0 technically isn't RAW. It's convenient, admirable, and practically speaking a requirement lest a player try to invent Pun-Pun at a table.

That's fine, because practicality, Rule 0, and players at tables are all entirely outside the scope of Pun-Pun discussions.

It's like arguing against drag racing by invoking traffic rules.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-15, 01:10 PM
No part of the Pun-Pun shenanigans would work at my table.

So? It's not meant to be played.

By the way: An efreet can't turn you into a gelatinous cube with its Wish SLA unless you actually wish for something at all like that. They can't grant their own wishes.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-15, 01:10 PM
{Scrubbed}

tyckspoon
2010-07-15, 01:11 PM
No part of the Pun-Pun shenanigans would work at my table. At the very least, it requires (in all versions I've seen) that the players get to decide what happens with wishes and summons.


Metamorphosis + Metamorphic Transfer. Shapechange + Assume Supernatural Ability. True Mind Switch with a Sarrukh. Anything that lets you be a Sarrukh and use Manipulate Form can initiate Pun Pun; the low-level approaches just use Wish to bypass the hoops you would otherwise have to jump through, like acquiring ML 14 to Metamorph into a Sarrukh (not that that itself is especially hard; I'm fairly certain you could do it by level 9 without much difficulty.)

Optimystik
2010-07-15, 01:12 PM
Now, you're completely correct that the theoretical limits of RAW allow for Pun-Pun. However, the theoretical limits of RAW also deny Pun-Pun.

DM fiat can't be considered in a TO discussion. Saying "the players could never buy this item in my campaign" does not invalidate the fact that WotC sat down, designed that item, and put a price tag on it.

It's fine for you to ban that item at your table, or make it not work right once purchased, but none of that is RAW.

EDIT: And as tyck pointed out, you don't even need items, they just make the process faster.

Connington
2010-07-15, 01:25 PM
{Scrubbed}

Optimystik
2010-07-15, 01:30 PM
Pun-Pun can only exist in a word with a GM with no common sense whatsoever.

You probably didn't intend it that way, but this can be taken as very insulting to DMs that have run games with Pun-Pun in them.

Zen Master
2010-07-15, 01:33 PM
[i]Stop getting in a huff because you refuse to understand the concept.

I'm in a huff??????

Also, I understand perfectly. There's really no mystery.

Radar
2010-07-15, 01:34 PM
(...)

EDIT: And as tyck pointed out, you don't even need items, they just make the process faster.
Which was brought up time and time again in this thread:
neither Pazuzu, nor Wish spell are essential for Pun-Pun.
Here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER.) you have the version with Master of Many Forms and Assume Supernatural Ability. No Wishes, no NPCs, no fiat or arbitrary judgement.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-15, 01:38 PM
I'm in a huff??????
Certainly acting like it.


Also, I understand perfectly. There's really no mystery.
Then why on earth do you constantly bring up your table, what any DM would do, etc etc? They are in no way relevant to any discussion of Pun-Pun.

You're really telling us nothing we don't already know. Your continued posturing as if you were the only sane one and that all of us are morons who don't know how the game works is yes, insulting.

Jergmo
2010-07-15, 01:42 PM
Looking above, all I can say is "Whoops."

senrath
2010-07-15, 01:47 PM
You probably didn't intend it that way, but this can be taken as very insulting to DMs that have run games with Pun-Pun in them.

Allow me to alter his statement slightly. Pun-pun can only exist in a world where the GM either isn't paying attention, has little common sense, or explicitly knows and allows him.

Zen Master
2010-07-15, 01:47 PM
{Scrubbed}

Oh, I was. Now, I'm absolutely resigning from this discussion.

No, as far as I can see, no one is listening to what I'm saying. But - that's ok, lets just leave it be. These discussions spiral totally out of control, every time - and I'd rather avoid having any part of it.

I do find it strange that so many react with aggression to views that are different from their own. No attempt at all to understand that view - just the apparent desire to crush it.

Actually, that's not entirely fair. If anyone is genuinely interested, send me a PM instead. I will post no more here.

Lord Raziere
2010-07-15, 01:58 PM
you know, discussions like these are the reason why I even have the idea of a "Edition Wars" comic, you know a comic about the DnD fanbases tendency to go into a massive edition war every time a new one comes out, and these discussions gave me the idea that eventually the extremist 3.5 players in the war would eventually resort to summoning Pun-Pun to wipe out the 4E players.

and I don't know where I was going with this. Perhaps nowhere? Or a (not so) subtle nuclear weapons metaphor?

Ravens_cry
2010-07-15, 02:04 PM
Anecdotal evidence carries extra weight in a group experience like D&D because, in my view, it tells you what is done, not just what can be done.
Maybe for that hypothetical group, based on what Player B did and the parties general optimization comfort level, psionics IS overpowered.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-15, 02:10 PM
Psionics is overpowered if everyone else in the party is a Fighter, Monk or Rogue. :smallwink:

Caphi
2010-07-15, 02:13 PM
I do find it strange that so many react with aggression to views that are different from their own. No attempt at all to understand that view - just the apparent desire to crush it.

So you've said something demonstrably, objectively incorrect, and when people call you out on it, with a detailed explanation of where and how you have missed the mark, your response is "oh, let's not argue! Arguing is bad. Shall we not have peace?"

Platitudes like that are just a mask or a shield for blocking out other viewpoints.

See what I did there?

Ravens_cry
2010-07-15, 02:18 PM
Psionics is overpowered if everyone else in the party is a Fighter, Monk or Rogue. :smallwink:
Two of which are in the typical party.

2xMachina
2010-07-15, 02:21 PM
Use warblade/factotum.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-15, 02:30 PM
Use warblade/factotum.
And if your using SRD only?

Optimystik
2010-07-15, 02:35 PM
Two of which are in the typical party.

The typical party also has a wizard and/or cleric, in which case the Psion would be distinctly overshadowed.


And if your using SRD only?

Presumably, if you can access the SRD you have internet access. Therefore, replace Factotum with Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) and Fighter with Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2), then proceed.

Connington
2010-07-15, 02:36 PM
You probably didn't intend it that way, but this can be taken as very insulting to DMs that have run games with Pun-Pun in them.

I could amend that to take the long form.

Any DM that allows Pun-Pun in their game either lacks common sense, is dangerously passive, lacks a reasonably complete understanding of the mechanics of DnD, or is running a joke campaign and doesn't care.

Basically, what senrath said.

Anyways, this hasn't really been a fruitful discussion. Every one agrees that no player could get away with Pun-Pun at the table. The argument seems to be over whether something can work in theory but not in practice, which seems pretty obvious to me.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-15, 02:38 PM
I dunno, Pun-Pun is definitely something you could not see coming if you didn't know about it, didn't really know how Candles of Invocation could be abused, didn't know what a Sarrukh was, etc.

Kylarra
2010-07-15, 02:40 PM
Boards like this one assume an "optimal" level of optimization, which is generally higher than some groups and in a sufficiently lower optimized setting, many things may have a disproportionate effect than they would otherwise in the vacuum RAW/high OP generic "assumed world" of boards such as this.

The problem people tend to have on both sides of the fence is assuming that, on the side of people presenting it, anecdotal evidence is sufficient to posit a universal truth, and on the side of people refuting it, that the person stating something is stating it as a universal truth.

Admittedly, this is a communication problem inherent in the internet and not limited to this issue alone. :smalltongue:

Connington
2010-07-15, 02:43 PM
In which case, you just pull an over-god out of your hat and have him kill Pun-Pun. Yes, I know it's an unstoppable force vs and unmovable object situation, but your the DM, you dictate the results. I maintain that any DM that lets Pun-Pun work without actually wanting him to is failing in his role as DM.

2xMachina
2010-07-15, 02:45 PM
I could amend that to take the long form.

Any DM that allows Pun-Pun in their game either lacks common sense, is dangerously passive, lacks a reasonably complete understanding of the mechanics of DnD, or is running a joke campaign and doesn't care.

Basically, what senrath said.

Anyways, this hasn't really been a fruitful discussion. Every one agrees that no player could get away with Pun-Pun at the table. The argument seems to be over whether something can work in theory but not in practice, which seems pretty obvious to me.

And what would happen if a Dm lets a player use Pun Pun?
You win. Bye bye, you can go home now.

And as a player, what if you control Pun Pun? You win without challenge. Aren't you bored?

Pun Pun is NEVER played, only built. If it exists, it's a DM controlled NPC.
There is no fun playing char who makes up their own rules.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-15, 02:53 PM
I dunno, Pun-Pun is definitely something you could not see coming if you didn't know about it, didn't really know how Candles of Invocation could be abused, didn't know what a Sarrukh was, etc.

As soon as they wish for something they used to get more wishes, you should probably get a little suspicious.

Caphi
2010-07-15, 02:54 PM
I dunno, Pun-Pun is definitely something you could not see coming if you didn't know about it, didn't really know how Candles of Invocation could be abused, didn't know what a Sarrukh was, etc.

Then how would the combo ever get off the ground? It wouldn't get beyond "Okay, I wish for a Sarrukh to appear." "Uh, what's that?" "..."

Connington
2010-07-15, 02:54 PM
Pun Pun is NEVER played, only built. If it exists, it's a DM controlled NPC.
There is no fun playing char who makes up their own rules.

There have been incidents of players trying to become Pun-Pun. It's completely inadvisable and never ends well, but it's happened. Just because it shouldn't be attempted doesn't mean it hasn't. Sort of like playing FATAL.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-15, 02:59 PM
The typical party also has a wizard and/or cleric, in which case the Psion would be distinctly overshadowed.

Above certain optimization levels, yes.
But that was my point. The level of optimization comfort and, admittedly, competence varies from group to group and player to player.



Presumably, if you can access the SRD you have internet access. Therefore, replace Factotum with Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) and Fighter with Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2), then proceed.
Irrelevant. What books and sources you use is a choice, not just a matter of budget.

Boci
2010-07-15, 03:40 PM
Irrelevant. What books and sources you use is a choice, not just a matter of budget.

Yes, a lot of people stick to what is arguably the most unbalanced book in the 3.5 libary. Psionics doesn't really make it any more unbalanced.

Optimystik
2010-07-15, 04:01 PM
Irrelevant. What books and sources you use is a choice, not just a matter of budget.

I fail to see how the existence of mechanically superior and freely available alternatives to the two weak classes you mentioned is irrelevant to a balance discussion.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-15, 04:03 PM
Yes, a lot of people stick to what is arguably the most unbalanced book in the 3.5 libary.
And many people are happy in that situation, either because a) they don't play the unbalanced classes in unbalanced ways or b)they have fun regardless. Or c), something I haven't thought of.

Psionics doesn't really make it any more unbalanced.
Again, that depends on your groups playing style.

Boci
2010-07-15, 04:28 PM
And many people are happy in that situation, either because
a) they don't play the unbalanced classes in unbalanced ways

Then surely you can play psionics whilst avoiding being unbalancing


b)they have fun regardless.

Then why would psionics power level be a problem?


Again, that depends on your groups playing style.

True, but play style and preference are a different ballgame to overpowered.

Roland St. Jude
2010-07-15, 05:06 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for review. Likely to stay locked. You've taken a funny little lark of a post and turned it into an excuse for bitter bickering. Not cool.