touch of golden ice + lots of dex damage + undead = ?

[Hypersmurf]

Neither.

So when it says "Some spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims", are there in fact any examples of a spell with the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze its victim?

Hold Person has the ability to paralyze its victim, but since that ability is neither supernatural nor spell-like, it would seem that this ability is not the Paralysis described in the Special Abilities section, despite said Special Ability referring to 'spells'.

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I know I'll get banned for 3 days for typing in this thread, but go read the paralysis rule you just linked.

Sorry KarinsDad, but as you say I've got to ban you for 3 days here. If we didn't, people would complain that we are not even handed, and Pielorinho has already asked you to keep out of this thread.

Regards

 

[Plane Sailing]

Simulmod by me and Rel!

 

[TYPO5478]

So when it says "Some spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims", are there in fact any examples of a spell with the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze its victim?

Well, the rest of that sentence in the Paralysis description is "immobilizing them through magical means." A spell is defined as "a one-time magical effect," so presumably a creature immune to supernatural or spell-like paralysis is also immune to magical paralysis.

[EDIT]I suppose in that sense, casting abilities could be considered magical abilities, but they're not specifically enumerated as such.[/EDIT]

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, the rest of that sentence in the Paralysis description is "immobilizing them through magical means." A spell is defined as "a one-time magical effect," so presumably a creature immune to supernatural or spell-like paralysis is also immune to magical paralysis.

A spell is a one-time magical effect, but if it doesn't have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze its victims, it's not a spell that uses the Paralysis special ability.

Implying that you could paralyze a dragon with Hold Monster, since its immunity to paralysis renders it immune to spells with the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims, but not immune being paralyzed as the result of a spell which does not have the the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze its victims.

If you're arguing that the difference between the Paralysis ability and the Paralyzed condition is significant when immunity to paralysis is at issue, then the difference between a spell with the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze its victims and a spell without the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze its victims is also significant.

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

A spell is a one-time magical effect, but if it doesn't have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze its victims, it's not a spell that uses the Paralysis special ability.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think that sentence is supposed to be exclusive to supernatural and spell-like abilities; I think it is inclusive of magical abilities. I interpret that sentence to mean, "In addition to supernatural and spell-like abilities to paralyze, magical abilities to paralyze also qualify as paralysis attacks," instead of, "In order to qualify as a paralysis attack, magical means of paralysis must also be supernatural or spell-like means of paralysis." I'll admit that either interpretation is... well, interpretive, but I don't think ability descriptions accumulate like that; they are completely separate. Could you have an ability that was both supernatural and spell-like at the same time? Of course not. A rule requiring such would have unachievable criteria. Why would the authors include a rule which is impossible to satisfy?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Could you have an ability that was both supernatural and spell-like at the same time? Of course not. A rule requiring such would have unachievable criteria. Why would the authors include a rule which is impossible to satisfy?

They didn't. They included a rule that says "supernatural or spell-like". And you can satisfy that!

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

They included a rule that says "supernatural or spell-like".

Or magical.

Magical abilities are neither supernatural abilities nor spell-like abilities. Supernatural abilities are neither magical abilities nor spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities are neither supernatural abilities nor magical abilities (in the sense that they are not actual spells).

The inclusion of the word "magical," even though it isn't phrased "Some monsters and spells have the supernatural, spell-like, or magical ability to paralyze their victims..." implies to me that spells that can cause a creature to become paralyzed are considered paralysis attacks for the purposes of immunity.

If it really matters, I suppose you could consider spells that can cause subjects to be paralyzed to be spell-like for the purpose of immunity.

[EDIT]I didn't mean to imply that paralysis attacks had to be both supernatural and spell-like. What I wanted to do was demonstrate that ability categories don't overlap. There aren't abilities that are, for example, extraordinary and spell-like at the same time; abilities are described by one and only one type. In that sense, magical abilities (i.e. spells) are specifically different from spell-like and from supernatural abilities and appear to also be included in the definition of a paralysis attack.[/EDIT]

 

[IanB]

I was with you earlier, TYPO, but I don't think this paralysis attack/paralyzed condition dichotomy holds up.

To me the problem is there is an "impossible" situation in the rules, where there exists the possibility of a creature running around with a dex of 0 since it is immune to paralysis.

It requires a DM ruling, one way or the other. My personal inclination is that the dex 0 rule should simply be changed to the helpless condition rather than the paralyzed condition.

 

[TYPO5478]

I was with you earlier, TYPO, but I don't think this paralysis attack/paralyzed condition dichotomy holds up.

Don't get me wrong: I haven't abandoned my earlier position that an immunity to paralysis prevents one from being helpless at Dex 0. I was just trying another tack since the previous one obviously wasn't going to convince KD.

Maybe you're right. Maybe it doesn't hold up. But I've taken the position because I believe there are too many unintended implications if there is no difference between an attack or ability that causes a condition and the condition it causes (and, by corollary, if there is no difference between two conditions that have similar effects). And I'm not going to take a position and then not defend it.

In any case, I think your solution to change Dex 0 to helpless only isn't a bad idea. Although I can understand the reason they included paralyzed in the first place: if Dexterity is how well you can move, then Dex 0 implies that you can't move at all, whether of your own volition or anyone else's. This is different than being helpless, where you can't move yourself, but your party members could move your limbs for you.