PDA

View Full Version : A What-Pun?



FatherMalkav
2008-05-08, 01:31 PM
Ok, I'm sorry but I have to ask; what IS a pun-pun? All I've beenable to glean from the board is that it's a kobold, has something to do with polymorph, and breaks the rules like a CoDzilla.
At least I think that's it.
Am I right?

Laurellien
2008-05-08, 01:35 PM
At no point does Pun-Pun or CoDzilla break any rules.

Pun-pun uses three words and a DC 25 knowledge: the planes check to become an omnipotent god of gods at level one.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-08, 01:35 PM
Try here (http://tinyurl.com/2c9np).

And here (http://tinyurl.com/5wcovw).

Edit: To answer more directly, it is the stupidest D&D meme ever, and I wish everyone who brings it up in a thread would have a heart...burn. The D&D version of Godwin's Law is something like "As a D&D discussion grows longer, the probability of some idiot bringing up Pun-Pun approaches 1."

Keld Denar
2008-05-08, 01:36 PM
Behold, he who is the Alpha and Omega of Theoretical Optimization.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801

FatherMalkav
2008-05-08, 01:45 PM
Laurellien:I didn't mean breaks like 'blatantly disregards' but as ‘abuses a loop hole within’. I’m aware how to make CoDzillas and that they follow the rules.

Tsotha-lanti: I apoligize for bringing up a touchy subject, I'm just curious.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-08, 01:56 PM
Well, the first two links were more the thrust of my post.

Seriously, JFGI. It's faster. People who answer you are just going to Google it and give you the first link.

Burley
2008-05-08, 02:01 PM
Pun-Pun isn't optimized, at all. It exploits a stupid loop-hole in rules. That's it. You don't find the best of the best and fit them together, which is what optimizing is. Pun-Pun is finding ONE THING and using it over and over until there is a googleplex in each stat. It's lame, and purely hated by a lot of people, especially me.
And, yeah. I did have a player try to bring a kobold whatever to my table, I looked at the sheet, realized the feats and spells it had listed, and tore it up in front of him. We both knew what was up, and I put it down.

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-08, 02:17 PM
Really, anyone who brings theoretical optimization to a game(without specific instructions from the GM) is being a jackass. It'd be like bringing professional athletes to a neighborhood pickup game. That being said, I don't see anything wrong with Pun-Pun in theory, as that's what he is. A though exercise.

GoC
2008-05-08, 02:26 PM
Pun-Pun isn't optimized, at all. It exploits a stupid loop-hole in rules. That's it. You don't find the best of the best and fit them together, which is what optimizing is. Pun-Pun is finding ONE THING and using it over and over until there is a googleplex in each stat.
Completely wrong. In fact it needs about 20 different tricks to become omnipotent. And having infite (it requires another trick to get infinite and not just a googleplex) stats is only part of the whole thing. Try reading lussmanj's link.

Aquillion
2008-05-08, 03:11 PM
Completely wrong. In fact it needs about 20 different tricks to become omnipotent. And having infite (it requires another trick to get infinite and not just a googleplex) stats is only part of the whole thing. Try reading lussmanj's link.Not really. You're a kobold that uses some form of polymorphing that grants you SU abilities, and you have a snake familiar or other loyal animal that obeys your command (or even a friend/summon that qualifies as a scaled one, anything will do.) Then you become a Surrakh, grant it Manipulate Form, turn back so it can grant it to you, and that's it. Everything else is window dressing... once you have Manipulate Form and the ability to use it on yourself, you're essentially omnipotent.

In fact, the only thing you need is to be a wizard with two specific spells (or even just one spell if you have a snake familiar); everything else is optional. Use Shapechange and summon monster X (to summon a scaled creature that you can give manipulate form to.) You don't even need to be a kobold -- you can just shapechange into one to receive manipulate form initially, then grant yourself shapechange at will to stay as one whenever you want, or grant yourself a version of manipulate form that works on anything.

All the other tricks are just playing around.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-08, 03:17 PM
Not really.

Ya rly. The Monty time manipulation trick is more central to Pun-Pun's suite of 'immortality powers' than the Sarrukh stuff.

Chronos
2008-05-08, 03:31 PM
And do you really need that time manipulation after you've got a million in each of your stats? Sure, Pun-Pun can use any theoretical optimization trick anyone thinks of, but what makes him Pun-Pun is the Manipulate Form thing.

Victor Thorian
2008-05-08, 03:52 PM
Everytime someone tries to become Pun-Pun, The Omniscificer comes and prevents him before he can start the cheese.

sonofzeal
2008-05-08, 04:17 PM
Everytime someone tries to become Pun-Pun, The Omniscificer comes and prevents him before he can start the cheese.
QFT. Even though Pun-Pun can now ascend faster than the Omniscificer can.

As to Pun-pun not being optimized - seriously, read through the thread history, and look at how many revisions it's gone through. It's not just one stupid trick, it's a whole massive series of them working together to twist the rules into pretzels and allow infinite power. You need a trick or three to gain easy access to the Manipulate Form ability, a trick to gain uncapped strength (which Manipulate Form, by itself, doesn't allow), a further trick to get divine rank 0, another to gain uncapped divine rank, another to gain true infinities, and even more tricks to speed up the whole process so you're not just like the Rage trick where you theoretically have infinite strength, but only gain it at a rate of 2 or so per day. I've seen more complex builds, but not often, and never in play.

Blanks
2008-05-08, 04:29 PM
And, yeah. I did have a player try to bring a kobold whatever to my table, I looked at the sheet, realized the feats and spells it had listed, and tore it up in front of him. We both knew what was up, and I put it down. That was fitting.
An alternative approach would have been to wait until he tried to summon the first monster and just tell him that the spell failed. When he asks why, tell him that he knows why. Then proceed to have his abilities fail whenever he tries to "activate cheese". Leave him with the kobold wizard that he came with.

[Insert Neat Username Here]
2008-05-08, 04:51 PM
Really, anyone who brings theoretical optimization to a game(without specific instructions from the GM) is being a jackass. It'd be like bringing professional athletes to a neighborhood pickup game. That being said, I don't see anything wrong with Pun-Pun in theory, as that's what he is. A thought exercise.

Indeed. The purpose is to point out a system flaw, and it does a great job of that.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-08, 05:13 PM
And do you really need that time manipulation after you've got a million in each of your stats? Sure, Pun-Pun can use any theoretical optimization trick anyone thinks of, but what makes him Pun-Pun is the Manipulate Form thing.

I'd rather have 'lol, infinite of me throughout infinite time' than 'lol, statz' any day. Also, time manipulation foils many anti-Pun-Pun tricks (Terminator, etc).

illathid
2008-05-08, 05:26 PM
Everytime someone tries to become Pun-Pun, The Omniscificer comes and prevents him before he can start the cheese.

I thought that trick didn't work anymore because Pun-Pun can begin his ascension at first level, whereas the Omnificer needs to to be at least level 4.

If one actually looks at the Omnificer thread, it explains why this is relevant information.


Background Understanding
[Premise 1] Once a character becomes nigh-omniscient and nigh-omnipotent such as Pun-Pun is, circumstances make it impossible for new threats to arise. This is because said nigh-omniscient/omnipotent character would know about any new potential threats and have the capability to quash them before they have a chance to mature.

[Premise 2] With enough time, experience, etc, pretty much any moderately optimized character could become nigh-infinitely powerful. What is impressive about Pun-Pun is that this power level is accomplished with alarming speed, i.e. at level 5.

[Premise 3] Thus, the only accurate way to compare two or more nigh-omniscient characters would be to evaluate the amount of time it takes for these characters to reach their ultimate state.

[Premise 4] Controlling for DM temperament and nonmechanical circumstances, as we must on the Character Optimization Boards, experience points obtained is the best way of comparing timeframes between characters. If character experience point levels are the same, then round-by-round analysis of capability curves would be necessary.


Thus as Pun-Pun can ascend at first level (by abusing a knowledge check to gain favors from Pazuzu), the Omniscificer is not able to beat Pun-Pun. What I find particularly interesting about Pun-Pun is that any attempt that is made to beat him will invariable become assimilated into his ascendent form. Therefore Pun-Pun is very much like the Borg of D&D.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-08, 06:02 PM
Thus as Pun-Pun can ascend a first level (by abusing a knowledge check to gain favors from Pazuzu), the Omniscificer is not able to beat Pun-Pun. What I find particularly interesting about Pun-Pun is that any attempt that is made to beat him will invariable become assimilated into his ascendent form. Therefore Pun-Pun is very much like the Borg of D&D.

Exactly - it gets a little ontological once one gets into the realm of time travel, though.

illathid
2008-05-08, 10:01 PM
Exactly - it gets a little ontological once one gets into the realm of time travel, though.

Which is one reason I tend to like being both a DM and a Philosophy major. :smallwink:

Player1: So now I use this obscure trick to travel through time.

Player2: Hahaha, Yes! The BBEG better watch out, cause we're going to take him out of the picture before he can even begin his plan for world domination.

Me: Ok, you all stop existing.

Players: What?!?!?! WHY?!?!?!

Me: Didn't I tell you? This world functions under a Presentist function of time travel. You can't travel to the past cause it doesn't exist. What happens when you go to a place that doesn't exist? You stop existing yourself.

Player1: Nu-uh, you just made that up. Show me where it says that in your notes.

/show them/

Player2: Wow, It really does that it in your notes... Why would you ever feel the need to make a note of that?

Me: :smallamused:

Maerok
2008-05-08, 11:06 PM
I would throat-punch a player if they even mentioned Pazuzu. :smallbiggrin:

Cirigan
2008-05-08, 11:30 PM
Which is one reason I tend to like being both a DM and a Philosophy major. :smallwink:

Player1: So now I use this obscure trick to travel through time.

Player2: Hahaha, Yes! The BBEG better watch out, cause we're going to take him out of the picture before he can even begin his plan for world domination.

Me: Ok, you all stop existing.

Players: What?!?!?! WHY?!?!?!

Me: Didn't I tell you? This world functions under a Presentist function of time travel. You can't travel to the past cause it doesn't exist. What happens when you go to a place that doesn't exist? You stop existing yourself.

Player1: Nu-uh, you just made that up. Show me where it says that in your notes.

/show them/

Player2: Wow, It really does that it in your notes... Why would you ever feel the need to make a note of that?

Me: :smallamused:

that is awesome, and makes me think i should right down stuff...

Peregrine
2008-05-09, 03:54 AM
That was fitting.
An alternative approach would have been to wait until he tried to summon the first monster and just tell him that the spell failed. When he asks why, tell him that he knows why. Then proceed to have his abilities fail whenever he tries to "activate cheese". Leave him with the kobold wizard that he came with.

And rename his character "Nup-nup".

Blanks
2008-05-09, 04:11 AM
And rename his character "Nup-nup".
That is now also part of the official "what to do when pun-pun shows up in a real game" guide:smallbiggrin:

Devils_Advocate
2008-05-09, 08:30 PM
Laurellien:I didn't mean breaks like 'blatantly disregards' but as ‘abuses a loop hole within’.
That's a very non-standard definition of "break" you've got there. I recommend using "exploits" instead in the future if you wish for your meaning to be more clear.


I apoligize for bringing up a touchy subject, I'm just curious.
While many people may be sick of Pun-pun threads, Tsotha-lanti wasn't criticizing you for starting a Pun-pun thread. He was criticizing you for starting a thread to ask a question that you could have very easily found the answer to yourself.

It's possible to discuss something that has already been discussed a million times and say something new about it, or at least something new to the people reading the discussion, which amounts to the same thing. Asking a question that has already been asked a million times, on the other hand, is likely to mostly produce explanations that have already been seen many, many times before. Discussion may then follow, but it's unlikely to be very original, as it has the same starting point as many similar discussions.

PROTIP: If you want to know what something is or read a description of it, just use Google and/or Wikipedia. If, after doing that, you still have unanswered questions, or want to say something about what you read, then feel free to start a thread about it. That way you're far more likely to start off with something relatively original, which will be more welcome.

The World Wide Web does not need to have countless basic questions and their answers duplicated in countless places. That just clutters things up. It clogs the tubes, man. The internet isn't a dump truck! You can't just dump things on it!

:smallwink:

monty
2008-05-09, 08:45 PM
I disagree. I think the internet is, in fact, a dump truck. At least based on most of the garbage I see when I'm online.

Jayngfet
2008-05-09, 09:04 PM
Pun-pun, god of rules lawyers and munchikins, he has all domains, and wizard schools, his favored weapon is grabbing a yuan-ti abomination fighter with a spiked chain by the tail, and can dual wield them.

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 09:15 PM
There is an important difference between a Pun Pun and something like CodZilla. The super cleric or the wizard is simply optimizing and being much more powerful than the other players. This is because, well, 3E is horrible broken. However Pun pun is using cheap loop holes in the system. ergo, it is simply cheating. With Codzilla, you can blame the designers, but every system will have a pun pun.
from
EE

slexlollar89
2008-05-09, 09:33 PM
Iv'e read the relavant link and tried to uncover the information about this, but exactly how does Pun Pun gain divine ranks? What is the ice clone ability?

tyckspoon
2008-05-09, 09:37 PM
Ice Assassin is a spell that creates an exact (construct) duplicate of a being. Complete with all its powers and attributes.. apparently including divine rank. It's supposed to be used to kill whatever you cloned (hence Assassin) but it's under your control. So if you manage to use it to clone a god, you can then command your clone-god to transfer its Divine Ranks to you.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-09, 10:02 PM
Additionally, Ice Assassin requires you to pay XP, and to have a part of what you are cloning as a material component.

Pun-Pun of course grants himself Ice Assassin as a SLA, which of course ignores all components including Material and XP, thus allowing him to create Clones of Gods, that no one else would be able to do.

He also takes advantage of the invest Divine Ranks rule by cloning a minor God, and then giving his own Divine Ranks to random squirrels, after he has say 150 squirrels all with a Divine Rank of 1, he retracts them and has 150 Divine Ranks that where all provided to him by a single Demigod Ice Assassin. That he then kills, insuring they can never be taken back.

chiasaur11
2008-05-09, 10:20 PM
Additionally, Ice Assassin requires you to pay XP, and to have a part of what you are cloning as a material component.

Pun-Pun of course grants himself Ice Assassin as a SLA, which of course ignores all components including Material and XP, thus allowing him to create Clones of Gods, that no one else would be able to do.

He also takes advantage of the invest Divine Ranks rule by cloning a minor God, and then giving his own Divine Ranks to random squirrels, after he has say 150 squirrels all with a Divine Rank of 1, he retracts them and has 150 Divine Ranks that where all provided to him by a single Demigod Ice Assassin. That he then kills, insuring they can never be taken back.

Well, he isn't stated to kill the squirrels in any build I've seen. He's a decent enough true neutral kinga guy, after all.

hamishspence
2008-05-10, 03:19 PM
Sometimes rules are statted out differently in two different places, so whatever you say, it with be wrong by RAW in one of the two places. The Rainbow Servant (Complete Divine), with table contradicting text (sample chacter's caster level fits table though, suggesting its the text thats wrong.

Or in Champions of Ruin: 3 feats, 1 for piercing, 1 for slashing, 1 for bludgeoning weapons. identically styled prerequisites. But, the text for one of the 3 feats makes it weaker than the others. Whereas, in the table, all 3 give identical benefits.

Serpent Kingtoms; the Naga Overlord class as written is buggy (3rd benefit does not make sense) But the sample Naga Overlord characters have the benfit fixed, so that it does.

For Manipulate Form, the sample sarrukh character, the leader of the Okothian Sarrukh, is only listed as being able to grant extraordinary abilities, not supernatural or spell-like.

If one was to cite the chracter version as the correct version of the feat, that would partially fix Pun-pun (not the stat problem, still there, but the Godly Powers problem. No more spell-like abilities. or passing on of manipute form, since its supernatural. And you are adhering by Rules As Written in one place in the book, though not the other.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-10, 03:30 PM
Sometimes rules are statted out differently in two different places, so whatever you say, it with be wrong by RAW in one of the two places. The Rainbow Servant (Complete Divine), with table contradicting text (sample chacter's caster level fits table though, suggesting its the text thats wrong.

Or in Champions of Ruin: 3 feats, 1 for piercing, 1 for slashing, 1 for bludgeoning weapons. identically styled prerequisites. But, the text for one of the 3 feats makes it weaker than the others. Whereas, in the table, all 3 give identical benefits.

Serpent Kingtoms; the Naga Overlord class as written is buggy (3rd benefit does not make sense) But the sample Naga Overlord characters have the benfit fixed, so that it does.

For Manipulate Form, the sample sarrukh character, the leader of the Okothian Sarrukh, is only listed as being able to grant extraordinary abilities, not supernatural or spell-like.

If one was to cite the chracter version as the correct version of the feat, that would partially fix Pun-pun (not the stat problem, still there, but the Godly Powers problem. No more spell-like abilities. or passing on of manipute form, since its supernatural. And you are adhering by Rules As Written in one place in the book, though not the other.

I think you need to reread the parts of the rules that explain what to use if you have a conflict. All of those have a very clear answer that is 100% RAW. Because my RAW, example characters do not override the text of an ability, and they are wrong when they disagree.

Also by RAW, text trumps table, especially as regards feats, where tables often present only half the explanation.

hamishspence
2008-05-10, 03:46 PM
Even If sample character and table agree? Rainbow Servant being most notable example. And none of the core 3 books say anything about what to do where contradictions exist between rules in two places in same book, nor does Rules Compendium. Might have to look up errata for some of the supplements, but Rainbow Servant is commonly discussed and people tend to come down on the other side: that the table showing non-full spelcasting is right, not the text, which suggests full spellcasting.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-10, 04:00 PM
Even If sample character and table agree? Rainbow Servant being most notable example. And none of the core 3 books say anything about what to do where contradictions exist between rules in two places in same book, nor does Rules Compendium. Might have to look up errata for some of the supplements, but Rainbow Servant is commonly discussed and people tend to come down on the other side: that the table showing non-full spelcasting is right, not the text, which suggests full spellcasting.

Yes they do, it's called: Text trumps table. Period. It's also called example characters do not overwrite the actual rules. Period.

People come down on the side that the Table is the more "balanced" approach. But everyone recognizes that according to RAW, text trumps table, period.

hamishspence
2008-05-10, 04:33 PM
It actually says: Exceptions to this will be called out as needed. And Sage Advice pointed out that the rainbow servant and sacred fist were good examples of such exceptions, where the table was better.

Champions of Ruin doesn't have an errata, and Serpent Kingdoms errata doesn't mention any of the problems.

Nor did Monster Manual errata fix the bug in the Balor's stats: the damage listed is much lower than correct for Strength.

They are not always helpful when rules are listed differently.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-10, 04:38 PM
It actually says: Exceptions to this will be called out as needed. And Sage Advice pointed out that the rainbow servant and sacred fist were good examples of such exceptions, where the table was better.

Champions of Ruin doesn't have an errata, and Serpent Kingdoms errata doesn't mention any of the problems.

Nor did Monster Manual errata fix the bug in the Balor's stats: the damage listed is much lower than correct for Strength.

They are not always helpful when rules are listed differently.

Did I ever say anything about errata? No. Because the correct answers are already there. There is no reason for me to expect errata for already clear answers.

The Sage also has no authority over the rules, so unless some errata or the Rules Compendium tells me that they are exceptions, I'm going to continue pointing to the fact that text trumps table.

You just want there to be conflicts where their are none. Because you want to pretend that all the horribly exploitive rules actually make sense. The fact is, it's very clear what the rules are in all of the above cases, and while many people don't like those rules, that has nothing to do with what the actual rules are.

hamishspence
2008-05-10, 04:47 PM
The point being that the only places where I have seen Text Trumps Table is at the top of- the errata. Not seen it in any of the actual books. And even said errata say there are exceptions.

A lot of books look like they needed better proofreading. And sometimes, what would be the "correct" version of the rule is only shown once, whereas the "wrong" versions of the rule is shown multiple times, and actually makes more sense (Naga Overlord, Rainbow Servant)

hamishspence
2008-05-10, 04:54 PM
And sometimes, even within single text section a rule may be missed: Fiendish Codex 2: Corruption rating below 3 can be reduced to 0 by atonement actions, corruption rating 4 or higher requires atonement spell, plus actions. What happens at corruption rating 3? The point to be made is there are times when RAW can actually give two possible answers. Or a statblock may have obvious errors. So which is RAW? Playing the erroneous statblock, or playing it with the error fixed?

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-10, 05:06 PM
RAW is playing with the flawed statblock. The fixed one is a houserule(a minor one, but still a houserule). Anything you do that is not 100% taken from the primary text of an ability is a houserule, and this is one reason few(if any) groups play completely by RAW with no exceptions.

Also, note that there is no such discrepancy with Pun-Pun, as the text does work(even if it can be easily exploited in its current form), and thus the statblock which disagrees with the text is in error.

hamishspence
2008-05-11, 11:01 AM
What about playing with the unflawed statblock as opposed to the flawed text for prestige class?

If one was to use the sample sacred fist character or Rainbow Servant character, as written, as NPCs, would that be RAW, given that it contradicts text (but not table)?

Or, for that matter, the Naga Overlord characters Terpenzi and his descendant as villains? Here, again, the statblock makes more sense than the prestige class section: Do we use it, or "correct" it to match the prestige class?

If you are right, and making any changes to a statblock is not RAW, then you cannot win, since the rules in the stablock will not match the (IMO miswritten) prestige class rules. but correcting it will not be RAW either.

Flickerdart
2008-05-11, 11:11 AM
You're all of you wrong. Pun-Pun isn't the most powerful build. Someone created the Omniscificer, a character who can become all-powerful one whole level earlier than Pun-Pun, with actually infinite skill ranks and stats, not just arbitrarily huge. A character with infinite Knowledge points, combined with the rule that when a roll exceeds the DC for a Knowledge check by X the DM provides an additional tidbit of useful knowledge, a single roll in each field means the Omniscificer will know everything. Including the Pun-Pun rising to power somewhere, and exactly how to kill it.

Behold! (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=546612)

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-11, 11:33 AM
hamishspence, I'm not sure what your arguing in your post. By RAW, Text always trumps tables and statblocks(which are notoriously unreliable), so anything else is a houserule. The only way to change this is through errata, which is effectively a change in the RAW. While these houserules may sometimes be necessary, they are still houserules.

Flickerdart, actually, Pun-Pun now works faster than the Omnifiser, and thus beats it(I believe that the creator recognizes this).

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-11, 11:49 AM
You're all of you wrong. Pun-Pun isn't the most powerful build. Someone created the Omniscificer, a character who can become all-powerful one whole level earlier than Pun-Pun, with actually infinite skill ranks and stats, not just arbitrarily huge. A character with infinite Knowledge points, combined with the rule that when a roll exceeds the DC for a Knowledge check by X the DM provides an additional tidbit of useful knowledge, a single roll in each field means the Omniscificer will know everything. Including the Pun-Pun rising to power somewhere, and exactly how to kill it.

Behold! (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=546612)

Psst, that's somewhat out of date. Pun-pun can now ascend at Lvl 1, now. The more recent attempt to kill him - LoP's 'Terminator' came very close to doing him in, but required an artifact and couldn't deal with all the clones. Also, remember that any trick that you could use against Pun Pun is now added to his list.

hamishspence
2008-05-11, 11:52 AM
The point was that you said RAW was playing with the flawed statblock, not the fixed one, yet you also said that text trumps table (which is only stated in downloadable errata, not in Rules Compendium or any of the books) So, either way, there is a conflict, so, in effect, its impossible to play by RAW.

Flickerdart
2008-05-11, 01:18 PM
Wait, what? Ascend at level one?

Good thing 4e is right around the corner.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-11, 01:22 PM
Wait, what? Ascend at level one?

Good thing 4e is right around the corner.

Ya rly. He can get the wish necessary to start off the loop by making a DC 25 knowledge check at level one, invoking Pazuzu, and there he goes.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-11, 01:23 PM
Hmm...can you link to the Terminator? I'd like to see it.


Also, I THINK there is a way to defeat Pun-Pun...but it requires audio recordings and a very specifically worded ability.

Chronos
2008-05-11, 01:25 PM
Wait, what? Ascend at level one?Yeah, apparently there's some sort of demon prince named Pazuzu who'll appear and grant you a wish if you say his name three times (for the low, low price of a portion of your soul, of course). So all you need to get started is a first-level character with a high enough score in Knowledge (the planes) to know about Pazuzu. Then you apply some standard Wish/Candle of Invocation cheese, to turn yourself into a Scaled One if necessary and summon up a Sarrukh. In fact, the trick can actually be used with any race, and almost any class, now.

hamishspence
2008-05-11, 01:36 PM
Pazuzu does have discretion as to what form the aid he provides is, and doesn't always provide it, and not always in the form of wish (though usually) And never does it for chaotic evil beings.

Heliomance
2008-05-11, 01:44 PM
Which is why the preferred build is a paladin. Pazuzu's even more likely to grant the help if a paladin asks. Besides, all you ask him for is a Candle of Invocation. I feel he'd be quite likely to grant that.

Newtkeeper
2008-05-11, 02:49 PM
Wait, what? Ascend at level one?

Good thing 4e is right around the corner.

Which reminds me. Who wants to start the betting pool on how many splatbooks it takes to get 4un-pun?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-11, 03:10 PM
The point was that you said RAW was playing with the flawed statblock, not the fixed one, yet you also said that text trumps table (which is only stated in downloadable errata, not in Rules Compendium or any of the books) So, either way, there is a conflict, so, in effect, its impossible to play by RAW.

RAW is not playing by the flawed stat block. RAW is playing by the (definitionelly) correct Text. The text trumps table, and the sample character stat blocks are also trumped by text. Errata amends Text. Errata is part of RAW.

It is very easy to play by RAW, you just follow the rules. Instead of looking at all the places that rules contradict each other, and then ignoring the rules on what to do with those contradictions.

Newtkeeper
2008-05-11, 03:23 PM
It is very easy to play by RAW, you just follow the rules. Instead of looking at all the places that rules contradict each other, and then ignoring the rules on what to do with those contradictions.


Remember, though, the words of a wise jedi: "Easy path the dark side is". Playing by RAW, with no handwaveing or rule zero, while easy, is slightly silly. Quite apart from CODzilla balance issues (or pun-pun, for that matter), the little exploits like water healing and diplomacy cheese make for a rather odd game.

Not that there's anything wrong with silly.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-11, 05:20 PM
Remember, though, the words of a wise jedi: "Easy path the dark side is". Playing by RAW, with no handwaveing or rule zero, while easy, is slightly silly. Quite apart from CODzilla balance issues (or pun-pun, for that matter), the little exploits like water healing and diplomacy cheese make for a rather odd game.

Not that there's anything wrong with silly.

I never claimed it was the best way, or even fun. Just easy. Because the rules allow for certain things and not others, and generally speaking you'd have to try very hard to come up with something that the rules don't have a system for. Yes it leads to weird things like useless abilities, or contradictory information in which one section should clearly be ignored. Yes it still explains what to do in every situation.

Moff Chumley
2008-05-11, 06:03 PM
Pun-Pun started as a thought exercise in a way to exploit a certain rule, and evolved into a standard for CharOp geeks.

Flickerdart
2008-05-11, 06:14 PM
Which reminds me. Who wants to start the betting pool on how many splatbooks it takes to get 4un-pun?
Put me down for 20GP on "whenever the Monster Manual comes out", my good sir.