Why Pun-Pun Doesn't Work

[Watchers]

I think I'll save an edited version of that post to use on these occasions. Do you mind?

[Jergmo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*snip*

*Applause*

[Yuki Akuma]

*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]

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]

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.

[Yuki Akuma]

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.

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]

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]

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...



contaminated.

[senrath]

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]

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...



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

: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. 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]

You can make a Pun-Pun with infinite Miracles as well. It just takes longer.

[Caphi]

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]

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]

{Scrubbed}

[tyckspoon]

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]

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.