Does immune to Paralysis mean immune to Hold?

[incognito]

Just like it reads

Dragons are immune to paralysis. Does this mean they are immune ot Hold Monster type spells?

 

[doktorstick]

They are not the same thing.

 

[gfunk]

I asked the same question a while back and I agree that they are different. Paralysis is a physical effect while Hold is mind affecting (i.e. your arms/legs still work but you can't will thme to move). Also, in the MM you will notice that some monsters are immune specifically to paralysis (Dragons) and others specifically to Hold spells (Unicorn).

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, they're different effects. Notice that in the DMG chapter that describes all the effects and special abilities and stuff, Hold and Paralysis are described under different headings.

 

[Corwin]

Yeah, they're different effects. Notice that in the DMG chapter that describes all the effects and special abilities and stuff, Hold and Paralysis are described under different headings.

Yeah, which begs further delineation. Poisons are under a different heading as well. Are dragons immune to poisons and venoms which cause a paralysis effect?

 

[the Jester]

I'd say that, regardless of the source of the paralysis, dragons are immune to the effect of paralysis. So if there was a Paralyzation spell (ah, 1e illusionists!), dragons would be immune to it. Paralyzation via a spell-like ability? Immune. Via ghoul touch? Immune. Via poison? Immune.

 

[Corwin]

But isn't that counter to your previous statement? If Poison has it's own section, different than Hold spells and Paralyzation, wouldn't they be different things all around? Each of the three?

Look, I'm not trying to sound argumentative or anything, I just thought your reasoning above started to split hairs a little. Especially since it brought up the question of Poisons. That's all.

In fact, I don't necessarily see why dragons should be immune to paralytic poisons (not that they need to worry about it with their rediculously high Fort saves ). After all, they aren't immune to poisons in general, right? A knock-out poison will work on them, in theory (if not for those darn Fort saves ), even though they are immune to Sleep. Why should paralytic poison be any different?

I'm just sayin'...

 

[incognito]

FYI: elves are immune to sleep poison, according to The Sage.

It's the effect, not the source, that a creature ahs immunity to.

How about a poison that inflicted fire damage affecting an efreeti? I think not...

 

[the Jester]

But the description of hold effects is different from the description of paralysis effects, iirc. Also, hold effects are mind-affecting, while paralysis (typically, anyhow- there might be exceptions) aren't. The two effects are qualitatively different.

I'd also say that something immune to poison would be immune to any poison, regardless of its effect- whether it inflicts paralysis, blindness, strength damage, con damage or whatever. Likewise, something immune to petrification is immune to it regardless of where it comes from.

Also not trying to be argumentative- just trying to explain my reasoning! And I could be wrong- idhmbifom.

 

[Corwin]

FYI: elves are immune to sleep poison, according to The Sage.

It's the effect, not the source, that a creature ahs immunity to.

How about a poison that inflicted fire damage affecting an efreeti? I think not...

Well, I guess if there were such a thing...

Heck, how about a poison that gives you a wish?

I can't imagine a poison that would do actual fire damage so I think your point is without real merit, IMO.