D&D 3E/3.5 Do builds like Pun Pun show 3.5 is broken?

[kingius]

Thinking about character builds with 3.5 has inevitably taken me down the path of thinking about known exploits of the system like Pun Pun. Do you think that such builds show that 3.5 is fundamentally broken?

I am beginning to wonder if Wizards did and that would explain the complete drawing board approach with 4th edition, as if somehow they felt that 3.5 was irredeemible. I'm not convinced that it is true that 3.5 is actually a broken system myself, but I am starting to wonder, and I'm curious about what others might think. Pun pun has been around for a while, of course, so this is nothing new, but as another poster pointed out, a spell that does 3d6 dexterity damage at 3rd level is really not very well balanced.

 

[Herzog]

No, builds like Pun Pun do not show 3.5 is broken.

What builds like Pun PUn show us is what happens when a game system accumulates a lot of additional rule sources, where authors of said resources do not take into account how their work interacts with the other (additional) resources.

This is especially true when said resources are published at approximately the same time and by different authors.

What we, as players, should take away from builds like Pun Pun is: Ok, the system seems to make this possible. Let's not do this. However, parts of this might help in making an underpowered character (when compared to other characters in your campaign) gain a foothold in the game.

What we, as DM's, should take away from bulds like Pun Pun is: Ok, the system seems to make this possible. However, these specific parts of the build are the results of a certain interpretation of the rules. Do I agree with that interpretation? If yes, I need to inform my players that I will allow that interpretation, as long as it doesn't result in Pun Pun. If not, I need to inform my players of my interpretation of those rules before it comes up in a game.

 

[Empirate]

There's a lot of theoretical optimization creations that can blow your mind: a game save mechanic, nanobots "aiding another" en masse, the Jumplomancer, infinite loops of many kinds... but in my opinion none of these show that D&D 3.5 is "broken".

D&D 3.x is an incredibly complex agglomeration of rules, all of which interact. It's any given group's responsibility to use some or all of the rules resources at their disposal, to allow or disallow certain combinations, to form gentlemen's agreements and so on. Note I said "rules resources": the available plethora of rules is a pool of resources you can draw on - you don't have to use all of them, but you can, which is awesome.

In fact, some groups will consider broken what is fair game in others. Some hate überchargers or supermount builds, others love them. Some hate Archivists cherrypicking divine spells from obscure spell lists, others find it natural that Archivists would do so and actually expect it. Some take for granted that Sorcerers always have Wings of Cover, Celerity and Arcane Fusion on their spell lists, others shy away from the "I'm untouchable and now I'll just go nova on you" mentality. Some like groups comprised of a Sword-and-Board Fighter, a sneaksy Rogue, a healing-focused Cleric, and a blaster Wizard. Others like groups composed of two Druids, a Psion and an Artificer.

How you play the game, and (as a consequence) what parts of the rules available you use is up to you. The sheer amount of rules available, however, makes sure that almost any kind of game format is supported in an almost endless continuum.

Personally? I love it. It allows me to switch from a pretty high-powered, high-optimization game to a rather 'gritty' stone age scenario and still use the same rules frame.
In my last campaign, the Barbarian had damage output well in the three-digit range before hitting level 10. The Conjurer blinked away from attacks and planar bound monsters cherrypicked for the occasion from five manuals and one folio. The Cleric charged up her buff spells and was untouchable while putting the hurt on in melee.
In my current campaign, the Druid doesn't step on the Ranger's toes too much thanks to class variants, the Warlock feels good about Shatter at will in a pretty magic-less campaign world with little equipment and lots of humanoid enemies, and I'm having fun combing through tons of books for interesting but low-power, low-CR foes for my group to fight.

 

[emoplato]

I am beginning to wonder if Wizards did and that would explain the complete drawing board approach with 4th edition, as if somehow they felt that 3.5 was irredeemible. I'm not convinced that it is true that 3.5 is actually a broken system myself, but I am starting to wonder, and I'm curious about what others might think. Pun pun has been around for a while, of course, so this is nothing new, but as another poster pointed out, a spell that does 3d6 dexterity damage at 3rd level is really not very well balanced.

I would say this is in the ball park. However it isn't because 3.X is "broken" it is because there is an issue of the variety of some classes can play vs. others that can't. This is mostly known as the tier system of power but it really boils down to the versatility of options, customization, and ability to extract other resources. The tier ones basically have all three of these aspects going on being able to grow outside of leveling and have vast amounts of options to change up or expand their abilities while tier fours and below on the other hand are waiting for either hand outs from the DM in the game or the next level to grow. A wizard can be a buffer/debuffer, control/enabler, crafter, and even a bit of blaster. A cleric can be a buffer tank, healer, enabler, debuffer, leader, and also a blaster. A barbarian though really only can be a ubercharger or a lockdown character. While this doesn't necessarily mean wizards and clerics will always be better than barbarians it does mean the player that chooses a Wizard or Cleric can have more options to cope with challenges and expand in times when the player with a Barbarian can't.

 

[Crothian]

The game is better that these builds can happen. It shows that there are plenty of rules and options that allow players to get creative in ways the writers never imagined. It also shows the importance of the DM.

 

[delericho]

Thinking about character builds with 3.5 has inevitably taken me down the path of thinking about known exploits of the system like Pun Pun. Do you think that such builds show that 3.5 is fundamentally broken?

No. Pun Pun shows that the Manipulate Form power is broken, and also highlights the weaknesses in the area of polymorph effects that dogged 3e throughout its life. Other such builds highlight other weaknesses in the system.

But 3.5e is an immensely complex system that accumulated a lot of additional complexity as it went, and which didn't receive sufficient playtesting in the supplements. Broken combinations are inevitable.

I am beginning to wonder if Wizards did and that would explain the complete drawing board approach with 4th edition, as if somehow they felt that 3.5 was irredeemible.

Actually, I initially thought that that might be the case, for a slightly different reason. However, exception-based design also has other significant benefits (as the 4e monsters show), and so I came to reverse my position.

What we, as DM's, should take away from bulds like Pun Pun is: Ok, the system seems to make this possible. However, these specific parts of the build are the results of a certain interpretation of the rules. Do I agree with that interpretation? If yes, I need to inform my players that I will allow that interpretation, as long as it doesn't result in Pun Pun. If not, I need to inform my players of my interpretation of those rules before it comes up in a game.

This.

Pun Pun depends on several rules being interpreted a very specific way. When you can interpret the rules in two ways, one broken and one not, which should you use?

(The specific weakness with the method comes in the Manipulate Form description, where it notes that "Sarrukh are immune to this effect." This is clearly intended to prevent exactly this sort of abuse, by preventing the creature from using the power on itself - MM3 merely specifies the creature type because only that creature has the power. And so Pun Pun fails at the first hurdle - by granting himself the Manipulate Form ability, he renders himself immune to any further uses of the power.)

 

[Alzrius]

It also shows the importance of the DM.

I was going to write a much longer post, but really this sums it up.

 

[James the Newbie]

I find the thing with D&D is that because its not a computer game, it is a game played in your imagination, and so your characters are capable of literally anything, this means that so can the monsters.

For the system to be broken the players or the monsters would have to be forced into situations where they interact with each other in an unfair way.

Superman is not a 'broken' super hero, because he is scaled correctly to his challenges, the same thing applies equally to spider man.

In summary, its not broken because there is always balance, even if the players played pun-pun, the monsters would also do so, and then you would start a new more reasonably balanced in power campaign and have fun. Or stay in the same campaign and realise that abusing the rules wont work, so you should have fun at workable power levels.

 

[Sekhmet]

Superheroes!

[sblock=Superhero brokenness!]I think the problem with that line of thinking is that Superman -is- broken. Superman Prime can do literally anything with a thought. He's a Mary Sue - perfect in every way.

The Hulk -is- broken. He's unstoppable. His comic book states that after the all the worlds in all the universes have been destroyed, the Hulk would be found floating in space with nothing to do until the end of time.

The One Above All is the very epitome of brokenness, having created all realities, in all timelines, in every single part of the universe, and cannot be acted upon by an outside force.

Comparing any of these to the other superheroes of their universe is how you determine they're broken. [/sblock]

 

[James the Newbie]

I dont think there broken because they can all be beaten, albiet with great difficulty
---
Superman can still beat the hulk, as has been shown

Superman had his ass kicked by batman, and a few other oponents

Superman Prime, being immune to kryptonite could still have his ass handed to him if you cut off his access to solar energy he would still be defeated
----

But in D&D the DM can make every challenge appropriate level, and make sure all players have equal power with house rules. All your doing is looking at epic level game play with madly high levels, rather than something broken, your looking at something on a high power spectrum rather than a more normal or low power spectrum.