It looks like 10 years ago today, the great Khan the Destroyer blessed us all with Pun-Pun, the mighty kobold.
(Thread here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1013486 )
From then on, one kobold won D&D and every subsequent edition, iron heart surging his way into eternity.
Kobolds everywhere, I salute you!
Seriously - Pun-Pun appeared in the world just before Hurricane Katrina ?! Maybe this was a Sign...
AFAIK Pun Pun never appeared in a single real game and even then required some dubious rules interpretations. Like being able to turn into a Sarrukh for starters.
The real purpose is completely messing the system. I like 3.X, but unbalance was present. Basically we remember it because it was a very incredible mental build exercise.
Considering that the build the knowing complicity of the DM, I thought the purpose of it was more humor than anything else.
Zardnaar wrote:
shadowknave wrote:
I can remember when I first heard of Pun-Pun, and all I could think was "why did anyone even bother?"
Then I noticed that there were a few folks finding these intentionally ridiculous but "technically possible" builds, whatever their personal reasons, and I had a good laugh.
It actually seems strange to me that I never had a player come to my table and try to build one of them - not Pun-Pun, not the drowned man, not any of the others I've completely forgotten - because for a few years there I had some seriously power-mad players in my group.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
People build things like Pun-Pun for the same reasons white-hat hackers hack - to explore the possibilities, to push the limits of the system, for the challenge of breaking the game... Theory-Op is just that - a mental exploration of the abilities and limits of the system. The beneficial side effect of Theory-Op and pushing the limits is that you learn where those limits are, and thus know which lines you shouldn't cross. No sane person who understands the diffference between Theory-Op and Practical-Op would ever bring one of the theory builds to a regular table. That's serious Munchkin territory.
My own meager efforts at theory-op during 3.5 were nowhere close to Pun-Pun, but I still wouldn't ever consider actually playing the swordsage/swashbuckler I built unless the table was full of guys like Tempest and Treantmonk who were breaking out their thought experiments just for giggles.
Personally, I thought the jump-charging paladins were the goofiest things to come out of 3.5 theory-op, but apparently it was some kind of a video game thing. Diplomancers and Rocket Monks were interesting, but every time I saw somebody mention jump-charging paladins all I could do was start humming The Twelve Days of Christmas... 
Anecdotatally, I actually had someobdy bring a jump-charging paladin to a table I played at, and it was hysterical watching the guy get frustrated because he'd just ripped it off the Char-Op boards with absolutely no understanding of how to play it, just like one of those guys who steals a trophy-winning Magic deck off the internet and can't win a game with it because he doesn't understand how it works.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
shadowknave wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I was involved in Pun-Pun, practically from the beginning (I worked with DisposableHero in creating an idea that, eventually, went on to give Pun-Pun infinite actions per round; Khan credited me when I explained how it worked to him), so I think I can offer some perspective here.
Pun-Pun was never, not ever, intended to see actual gameplay. Some of us like taking the rules and seeing how far they can go. Pun-Pun was the end result of that.
That's it, in a nutshell.
Basically, we aren't trying to create a powerful character to disrupt your games like some badwrongfun munchkin. We're looking at a system of rules that describe a world, and then asking how those rules work at the boundary. We're not trying to "win" D&D - we're playing around with the D&D world's laws of physics.
In general, we called this "theoretical optimization" as opposed to the more practical "character optimization". It helped evolve our understanding of the mechanics of the game and discovered a whole host of new tricks along the way (which were then used as the basis for more practical characters). There's no harm in asking "what if" - as long as you understand it's a theoretical question.
This is the same basic reasoning that gave rise to modern science, by the way. You notice things like parallax and the Doppler effect change how you see the world based on how fast you're moving, so you ask "what if I'm moving at the same speed as light?" and after a lot of work, you get relativity. In D&D's case, you got Pun-Pun. And just like science, it never stops - despite having "the most powerful character. EVER" completed, we quickly moved on from there to try to figure out a way to kill Pun-Pun that didn't rely on either DM fiat (because no sane DM would allow Pun-Pun anyway) or becoming Pun-Pun yourself. (I have a long-standing bet with the boards that if this is accomplished, I'll eat my hat on camera.)
Now, sometimes the line gets fuzzier. A great example would be the "Shadowcraft Illusionist" stunt, which, well, is hard to explain, but can produce some ridiculously strong and versatile wizards. The "full strength" versions can actually spontaneously cast Miracle using a lower-level spell slot (despite it being from a school they can't cast and from a different class' list, and not being able to cast 9th level spells at the time!) that, if people save against it, turns out to be more than 100% real. Obviously, this breaks the game six ways to Sunday - but the basic idea behind the build is present in a lot of smaller-scale characters, not capable of such immense powers. Several of those actually saw play. (Hell, I even played one - though it convinced me that I would never play a wizard again, since it was too powerful and too versatile at every level to be fun.) Is this theoretical or practical? The only answer is "yes".
Zardnaar wrote:
What about The King of Smack, when's his birthday?
Pun Pun is what I use for the time being when I try try and explain to my friends as to why we do not have a lot of splat books for 5th edition.
Granville7482 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I remember one of the earliest posts here was about the return of Pun-Pun relating to True Polymorph. Of course, that's not possible without a broken monster ability, but all they nee is to introduce that, and....
Zardnaar wrote:
Wasn't there talk about how Manipulate Form was vaguely enough worded that you could ascend beyond, and have every ability to come to mind, present in a book or otherwise?
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Quibbling such as it is, about when exactly is Pun-pun's "birthday",
Khan posted Incentive To Play A Kobold on 08-09-05, 04:01 AM.
... so happy belated ~birthday.
You already knew and have always known, I would be posting this.
Zardnaar wrote:
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote: