Why Pun-Pun Doesn't Work

[Connington]

{Scrubbed}

[Optimystik]

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]

[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]

(...)

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 you have the version with Master of Many Forms and Assume Supernatural Ability. No Wishes, no NPCs, no fiat or arbitrary judgement.

[DragoonWraith]

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]

Looking above, all I can say is "Whoops."

[senrath]

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]

{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]

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]

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]

Psionics is overpowered if everyone else in the party is a Fighter, Monk or Rogue.

[Caphi]

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]

Psionics is overpowered if everyone else in the party is a Fighter, Monk or Rogue.

Two of which are in the typical party.

[2xMachina]

Use warblade/factotum.

[Ravens_cry]

Use warblade/factotum.

And if your using SRD only?

[Optimystik]

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 and Fighter with Warblade, then proceed.

[Connington]

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]

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]

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.

[Connington]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 and Fighter with Warblade, then proceed.

Irrelevant. What books and sources you use is a choice, not just a matter of budget.

[Boci]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.